Education Equality Ethics Family Politics

Scotland’s Chief Mama

 

Last Sunday on Mothers Day – this tweet was posted – and retweeted by politicians and others.

Screenshot 2019-03-31 at 22.22.09

Compassionate

Although many people have a knee jerk reaction to the First Minister and her photo-ops (supporters love everything she does; detractors, to use an old Scots phrase, find that such things ‘gie us the boke’!). It’s better to try to avoid such reactions and take a cooler and more rational approach.  In this regard I don’t have any doubt that Nicola Sturgeon does take seriously her role as ‘ chief corporate parent’ – (note that this is the technical term for the person, the FM, who has overall responsibility for the 17,000 plus children in care in Scotland – I think its a necessary and important thing).   She has a genuine interest and compassion.  It is churlish to deny that.   I also think that her interest is an encouragement and help to some of those children and young people.  Kudos to her.

Creepy

Nonetheless this does not take away from the fact that the corporate term has morphed into ‘Scotland’s Chief Mama’ or sometimes “Scotland’s Chief Mummy”.   Perhaps it would help to explain why I find it creepy if I suggested to you that Donald Trump was ‘America’s chief Daddy”?  Who’s the Daddy?  Who’s the Mama?  The endless photos and  pictures of our caring leaders does stick a bit in the throat.  However for me it’s not just the image but the ideology behind that image which increases the level of concern.

Confused –

Herein lies the biggest problem.  In a democracy with a pluralistic political culture, a large and diverse civic body, a healthy media, and balancing political parties and institutions, this would not be a problem.  But in todays Scotland this is a very disturbing image.    Because Nicola does believe that by legislation she can parent the whole of Scotland.  The Scottish Government whilst not going totally Kimesque in its North Korean mould, does however seem to be creating an authoritarian regime which requires either the cult of the Great Leader or the perfect Party that speaks for the whole nation (how many times has Ian Blackford stood up in the House of Commons and said ‘Scotland says,’ when he means ‘the SNP says?  The equation of Scotland with the Party is disturbing).

The disturbing and chilling thing about the Scottish government approach is that they seem to believe they can cure all human ills, simply by their will as expressed through legislation.  Never mind just simply maintaining a functioning government, they are going to save the world – or at least the EU or the UK as well as making Scotland the most progressive country in the world!   ‘Progressive’ politics leads to a delusional belief that Nirvana is just around the corner.  Elect us and things can only get better.

Witness for example this policy that came into being yesterday. This time it is  the Scottish government policy plan to eradicate domestic abuse.

What’s wrong with that?  Surely everyone wants to stop domestic abuse?  Indeed but can you legislate to eradicate wrong (sin) or just contain and deal with its consequences?   It’s a hopeless hubris to think that legislation will end abuse.   And inconsistent.  Note how the First Minister speaks about ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’ being against women.  She seems to have no acknowledgement that any woman could ever be capable of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’.  I’m tempted to suggest that looking in a mirror (at least in political and societal sense) would help!  After all it’s hard to think of a more coercive and controlling organisation in Scotland today than the Scottish government and its acolytes.  Its tentacles reach into every aspect of life; education, the arts, health care, media, the church, business, sport and of course the family.

This is where the confusion of Nicola Sturgeon now does so much harm.  On the one hand she genuinely wants to care for those who come from broken homes or find themselves without a home.  On the other she does not realise that many of the policies she puts forward, and the ideology on which they are based is a primary cause of those children being in care in the first place.

One of the foundational, if not THE foundational, stones of our culture, is the family.  The trouble with the new Progressive ideologues is that they say they believe in and support the family – but they redefine family so as to become almost meaningless.  They redefine marriage, declare that gender is a social construct and believe that the State is a better parent that most parents.  For example the fanatical ideological support for abortion (even to the extent of offering to abort babies from other countries for free), fatally undermines the right of the child within the womb, and will lead to a disregard for the infants outwith.  Abortion is a prelude to infanticide – and often creates an attitude in which the infant, incapable of living autonomously, is regarded as a lesser human being than the rest of us.

Robin Aitken (The Noble Liar) points out: “social engineering pursued in the name of dangerous and half-baked theories , will, at some point, create a backlash”.  Nicola Sturgeon and her government are basing their policies on unresearched and half-baked theories.     Let me cite from the Linacre Quarterly, published by the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health:

“nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with her married, biological parents, consistently had better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. Paediatricians and society should promote the family structure that has the best chance of producing healthy children. The best scientific literature to date suggests that, with the exception of parents faced with unresolvable marital violence, children fare better when parents work at maintaining the marriage. Consequently, society should make every effort to support healthy marriages and to discourage married couples from divorcing.”

The Establishment Progessives view is summed up by the most senior family judge in England Wales, Sir James Munby – speaking  in May 2018.

“Children live in households where their parents may be married or unmarried.  They maybe brought up by a single parent, by two parents or even by three parents.  Parents may or may not be their natural parents… Many adults and children, whether through choice or circumstance, live in families more or less removed from what, until comparatively recently, would have been recognised as the typical nuclear family. This, I stress, is not merely the reality; it is, I believe, a reality which we should welcome and applaud.”

Whilst Nicola and her establishment allies are applauding – the number of children in care, with mental illness and suffering in other ways increases.

Meanwhile the Scottish government are in the process of turning what was once our world class education system into an instrument of the State used largely for social engineering.

My fear with the whole ‘Chief Mama’ approach is not that it reflects a genuine compassion and concern for children in care.   My fear is rather than it reflects a view of society in which the State is Big Brother, and those who run it do see themselves as corporate parents.  The trouble is that those of us who don’t accept the benevolent all-encompassing State,  will find that our corporate parents can be as brutal, coercive and controlling as any abusive parent.  Mama doesn’t always know best.  But she thinks she does.

Nicola’s Lessons from Auschwitz

The following was an April fool that had a serious point!

Letter from Nicola Sturgeon Calling for a National Day of Prayer

Scotland’s Babylon – Who is going to Speak for Scotland’s Children?

 

 

 

 

10 comments

    1. Although your comment is tongue in cheek, the lessons from the USSR show us how vain and pompous the human condition is. In it’s day the USSR was ”progressive” and thought to introduce the ”new man” to society. It even, I have been told, tried to alter the seven day week, is this true I wonder? But Nicola and her ”progressive” acolytes are unbeknown to them, treading on thin ice. The SNP have their equivalents South of the border too.

  1. Is it any worse than those who referred to Mrs Thatcher as “Blessed Margaret” or “Nanny”? Or those who even now call Mrs Merkel “Mutti” – at least as much a tribute to her matronly appearance (which Mrs Sturgeon shares) as her politics. Male rulers have been “Father of the Nation” since time immemorial and many did their best to make it literally true – but I don’t see you treating that as an existential threat to family life.
    One sound reason Mr Trump is not currently among the number of those male “people’s parents” is a specific feature of American culture (the role of “Big Daddy” in “Cat on a Hot Tin roof”, whose character the speaker may or may not want to reference in all its aspects), and the other is the deeply unpleasant rumours circulating of his own unhealthy family relationships. Even conceding them as false – which of his children would you want to be?
    On your other subject: The false dichotomy that opposes any attempts to defend women by suggesting it somehow abuses a vast unseen multitude of men suffering at women’s hands too often has less to do with defending men (gay men and other close relations might surely otherwise be mentioned?) than excusing the abandonment of women. And the children: for where the (usually) mother is maltreated, the children are not allowed to escape.
    Physical abuse rarely occurs without precedent psychological aggression to soften up the victim in advance and test their ability to resist or flee. It is surely desirable to identify and support targeted people early, not wait until they show up in the hospital – or morgue – to wring our hands. And if the other party can also be helped to find a better way of managing their frustrations, surely that could be many generations of violence averted as the same lessons are passed on to the kids?
    Or people can just sit around scoring league tables of grievance against each other’s sexes on Twitter instead.

    1. Hi Karen.
      I just thought I might reply as someone who has seen, and continues to see the effects of “coercive and controlling behaviour” in my own family. Physical violence has also been intermittently involved. In our case, the perpetrating person in question is female.
      I agree with David’s stance above that this is unhelpful legislation. One of my main objections is that these perpetrators (both male and female) are often brilliant manipulators, and will often convince any involved professionals that the situation is reversed. In my experience, this is not consistently identified, and despite reassurances from our government that professionals will be able to identify what is going on, I don’t see the evidence of this. Physical violence gives much clearer evidence of danger, and should be given the greater weight and time for professional investigation. I fear this new law is mere virtue signalling and will take time away from investigation of physical violence. I very much doubt people will be identified before physical violence occurs.
      I agree with you that it would be good to identify and support both those who carry out this behaviour and those who receive it, but this does not have to be enshrined in law.

      1. Thank you for responding so thoughtfully. I think we are in broad agreement but I don’t think leaving the issue to generous intentions will work – only solid legislation protects budgets and staffing from being raided for more prestigious projects.
        Whether this is it is of course another discussion still…

  2. Dear sir, you “almost” answered the problem with Scotland’s first Minister when you used the word “hubris” in a sentence related to legislation. Ms Sturgeon absolutely and unoquivocally defines the word “hubris” and with that comes a level of arrogance that is hard to grasp. However, the SNP might try to steal our national flag as theirs and in parliament, as mentioned talk as if they speak for the whole of Scotland, when we know they don’t, al the title use such as “progressive” is pure smoke and mirrors for their desire to create a socialist state, just like their Marxist friend Corbyn. God help the people of Scotland if she ever gained independence as they would destroy the country in quick order.

    1. “fatally undermines the right of the child within the womb, and will lead to a disregard for the infants outwith.”

      That seems like a bit of a stretch.

      “Ian Blackford stood up in the House of Commons and said ‘Scotland says,’ when he means ‘the SNP says? “

      And Theresa May claims to speak for Britain. Both are justified in that they represent the majority of constituents, the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives for Britain (give or take).

      “children living with her married, biological parents, consistently had better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. “

      Correlation does not equal causation.

      1. Not a bit of stretch – easily documented and quite rational…check your history or ask Peter Singer.

        I have yet to hear May speak as though conservative policies were what the UK says – or that when she speaks the UK speaks. Blackford is not the FM. He is a leader of a party in Westminster and yet has no difficulty telling everyone that when he speaks, Scotland speaks.

        Correlation does equate with causation in this case. Read any of the research in the past 50 years!

  3. My comment is simple: to have a cohesive society one has to have a degree of consensus. When this is based on an objective accepted model (e.g. Christian values) things will work together, even if those who uphold those values may be ”cultural” Christians only , people have a common bedrock of values that hold together.

    When the progressive secular state intervenes (well meaning though it may be) in a pervasive manner and then demands they have a ”divine” right to rule closely into people’s lives, then things will go wrong – often badly wrong. This is especially so where the traditional family and traditional values are overthrown as ”progressive”.

    Clearly the rate of family breakdown and mental health issues means families are under siege. If we add into the mix the non Christian values, the mix gets fudged and messy. This direction as David points out is full of holes, as evidenced by the sad families we see amongst us. They are the casualties of the progressive gamble.

  4. Only the UK Supreme Court stands in the way of this ideology as evidenced by its judgement relating to the information sharing aspects of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *