Saturday, 26 March 2016

Moving towards the collective with the Named Person

This is a very simple view of the left/right dichotomy which is interesting because it is not often expressed so succinctly. However, I would suggest that we should be looking at this in terms of extreme right and extreme left - which always ends up with totalitarianism - because there are differences along the left/right spectrum which are well understood. The principles behind the NHS are socialistic, for example, whereas lower taxes and more opportunities for the  wealth creators is a more right wing idea. These two sides are in conflict but a balance of sorts was achieved after World War II.

Pushing that aside, I do think that the concepts of individualism and collectivism (the common good) should be brought to the fore and recognised as another dimension in order to expose the emerging dictatorship because voters are being offered no real choice. We are being pushed towards further collectivism and Big Government no matter which party is elected. The point is this is being done while destroying the NHS and the welfare state. So we`re moving to the right and the collectivism on offer is of the Nazi `we know best` variety which picks off vulnerable groups first.

I do agree that it is the same elite groups who are pulling the strings on all sides and that includes parties who profess to be for independence and against austerity. What kind of independence is it that would go so strongly against the individual as to introduce the Named Person scheme and promote unification with Europe?  Only a party that is already enmeshed in the political game.

Every now and then along comes someone who gives the game away. Mike Burns, Head of Children`s Services, Glasgow City Council has written about his support of the Named Person scheme.
Audit Scotland, in their previous review of public sector efficiency (2010), noted that the relationship between the individual and the State needed to change. Key stakeholders needed to do more, and that included enabling parents to be empowered to fulfil their own lives and make their own choices. The Named Person is one part of the plan to help deliver that aim.
Getting It Right For Every Child is about getting childhood right. It is about our culture, and our capacity for compassion. It is about our willingness to nurture, our attachment to all citizens and our commitment to restorative approaches that will help to tackle some of Scotland’s deep rooted social problems. With an emphasis on the word ‘deep’! We all need to parent better and we all need to nurture better. Helping each other is about us. It is about the collective.
Will Hutton, at the most recent Social Work Scotland conference, highlighted that we need to challenge the current narrative which presents individualism as superior to the collective. In truth it is tough and challenging to parent on your own. I respect and to some extent understand the deep human instinct to nurture our children close to us. But that does not mean we need to bring children up without help. Indeed we need to develop and nurture our young people so that they can engage with the world.
The Curriculum for Excellence underlines the attributes that are required from our young people to prosper in a modern society. Who is going to do that, if not us working collectively?
So, as far as the individualism/collectivism spectrum goes, we are being pushed more and more away from individualism towards state control and this is being practised in our schools with the children. As Hitler knew, all it takes is one generation and the children belong to the state.

Note: This material was also covered in Friday`s UK Column News


  1. The 1971 Foreign & Commonwealth letter to Ted Heath stating in no uncertain terms that the then so called Common Market was, in fact, a deceiptful ploy to transfer UK sovereignty to Buussels. When Ted Heath said in parliament and to the British people that it was nothing more than a trading arrangement he was lying and he knew he was lying.

  2. Two views of libertarianism:

    (1) During his political career, Ron Paul believed in free markets and economic freedom. He was a strong advocate for low taxes, ardent in his advocacy for sound monetary policies. He was conservative in that he believed that you should only vote for measures which were specifically sanctioned by the Constitution. He believed that there should be free enterprise; that it was only ethical and honourable to have such; thus, the Constitution mandates it...

    He was critical of most of the country’s banking/financial systems. Putting his political thoughts and theories on economics down on paper, he produced several books...The American Ludwig von Mises Institute was usually Paul’s publisher.

    (2)Chomsky: Well what`s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U.S. phenomenon, it doesn`t really exist anywhere else - a little bit in England - permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Well, we don`t have to talk about that !

    Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.