girfec

You're probably thinking this is a made-up word - it isn't - it stands for Getting It Right For Every Child. This is the Scottish Government's answer to child protection and safety going forward and its incredibly stupid, completely unwieldy and devoid entirely of anything approaching the merest sensation of common sense.

Here's a quick digest of what it means:

Basically there will be a 'named person' (a teacher or guidance councillor most probably) for every child, it is said this person will not have to do anything beyond what they already do except record information about the child in-line with something called the National Practice Model. So what's that then? 

Its this:

OK, so I've lost the will to live. I've skimmed over the picture and I've seen it before. Its bad enough - patronising enough even -  to have this in the work place, like we all live in a perfect little bubble where policies and directives can be applied in a uniform manner across the board. But to apply such a thing to real life and to a kid?

Even this random baby thinks its laughable.

GIRFEC will, (in theory) facilitate a more uniform collection of information about the child's development, the idea being, any risks to that development can be identified early and targeted for some sort of positive intervention. There will be a database (isn't there always?) that social services, the NHS and education managers among others will be able to access, the truth is, access is a bit vague - its not clear who would have access - the police? What about other council departments or commercial enterprises buying data - councils are strapped for cash after all...

I could go on about the ten core components and the set of values and principles that underpin GIRFEC but I've seen that before too. No government or civil service project, strategy or scheme exists without values and principles, in fact, if the managers in charge feel the need to include any - then you know its a waste of time and the main motivation of the exercise is the maintenance of the people who are being paid to deliver it.

Which brings us to the next problem: social work. I have some experience with social work, a fair bit as it happens. Never have I ever come across a more ineffectual occupation. If you require assistance beyond the simplest thing (organisation of a care package) then don't contact them. Social work isn't about protecting vulnerable people (adults or kids,) its about protecting Social Workers. Its not entirely the social worker's fault, they've just lost sight of their own purpose - they've been criticised so often that social work managers are now more concerned with covering the occupation's back than protecting vulnerable groups. In my own experience, after months of honesty - I had to lie through my teeth to get rid of them. It would have been less stressful to shoot the problem-person in the face then sit through my own murder trial - probably quicker too.

Suffice to say, when it comes to supporting vulnerable young people and adults, I'm a firm believer in the flexibility of community & family as opposed to the rigid framework of social work, local council authority or government.

Which is why GIRFEC is such a terrible idea, it is intrusive, unnecessary and ripe for abuse itself. It is a response to a tiny number of terrible incidents where children fell through the cracks in the system. Instead of tightening up existing practice, they formed a committee and came up with this dog's dinner. They argue that by monitoring all children they can catch any potential escapees, in fact, they'll spend so much time collating info about ordinary families - they'll end up on so many wild goose chases started by the over-zealous jobsworths these programs inevitably attract - they'll miss the very kids they're trying to protect.

I work with young folk in a voluntary capacity (I've also worked in a paid capacity through Social Work and Education & Community Services,) the idea of 'monitoring' or 'observing' then applying my findings to a 'Resilience Matrix' if things go beyond GIRFEC's daft idea of the Circle of Life; where you have to decide whether the kid is a Successful Learner, a Confident Individual, an Effective Contributor or a  Responsible Citizen. If I think they're not, the last thing I'm going to do is report it to my local authority - heck - I'd run a mile before that even crossed my mind.

I'm not sure I know a child who ticks all those boxes, more-over, if I did - I wouldn't think they were normal (and I wouldn't tell anyone that either.) I don't want to live in a society where kids are little robots, its their differences that make them who and what they are. I definitely don't want to live in a country where our kids are spied on and notes are taken behind their back for inclusion in yet another giant database which I have no doubt will end up fulfilling purposes outwith that which was envisaged on its inception.

I've already signed this petition, obviously its entirely up to you whether you do the same, I should warn you though, if you don't...

I'm not above shameless emotive jingoism.

You will most probably be haunted by the face of this sad baby crying because you deserted him (or her, its another random one so I don't really know.) Most probably, in the future this random baby will not be a Confident Individual or an Effective Contributor forcing their Named Person to consult the Resilience Matrix. 

And it'll be YOUR FAULT.

Food Bank for the needy.

Sorry, that should read 'food bank for the greedy'.

While many of the good citizens of Dundee (for example) have to go here

Courtesy of the Dundee Courier

The great and the good of the great British state go here

Wankers assembled for a frenzied bout of self-congratulation for fucking things up so well.

The Mansion House Speech given by George Osborne (or who ever the current sitting chancellor happens to be) paid for by you.

I'm not going to bore you with Osborne's speech, I'll give you this digest though: Basically, he said he had your best interests at heart,(which he doesn't.) And that it would be a 'dereliction of his duty' if he failed to represent your 'best interests', (why break the habit now?) And even although he says they are your best interests; he actually means the best interests of those sitting down to dinner directly in front of, to the right and to the left of where he was standing while giving his speech, (not including domestic staff of course because that would be unfair on the rest of us...)

Country To Let

I genuinely have no idea what that woman is doing in the background, I picked this for indicative purposes only.

I have a question.

How do you regard the country in which you live and your place in it?

Living in Scotland, its a bit different, we're sort of a country within a country. Although technically (and historically) the UK was a union between two countries, over the years, the idea of being 'British' has been hammered home with vigour. Putting that to one side though and going back to the question...

You (or your parents) pay your taxes, maybe volunteer some time and generally do your bit to make the country a decent place to be, its an investment. You vote for the parties that best suit your aspirations, not just for you but for your kids - and if you're at all civic-minded - anyone else travelling in the wake you leave behind. We make a compromise, we understand individually we can't change the entire world but perhaps, if we improve our little bit of it -  it'll spread and rub off.

So, what about it then? Scotland, you and/or your parents have worked hard to invest in it, to make it habitable. You've studied hard so you can make your way in it - and why not; it is yours after all isn't it?

Well, no actually - it isn't.

Lamont, Darling, Davidson & Rennie - Letting Agents.

Turns out we're only renting Scotland from Westminster, the people in the picture above are the current letting agency staff. In all the debate, the resounding and repeating mantra has been; 'Its not yours, you can't have it.'

Passport: A symbol of citizenship, its your internationally recognised label. According to Theresa May (Tory Home Secretary) its not yours. You've paid for it (£72.50) and you've paid your share of the costs of its production (via the Identity & Passport Service funded out of the tax you pay.) You're also paying for the embassies and consulates in countries to which you can travel; but it and they are not yours, you're just renting.

Currency: The cash in your pocket, the money you earn. Scotland has been using it for over 300 years, our industry has contributed to its strength (such as it is now but never-the-less...) The Bank of England was founded by a Scot, we print our own notes and are responsible for generating more of it in terms of tax than the rest of the UK - we pay our way with it. But its not yours. According to George Osborne, current Chancellor of the Exchequer and ex-towel folder, it belongs to the UK, of which we are an integral and much loved part - except we can't be - because if we chose to leave, we wouldn't be allowed to use it.

Armed Forces: We rent this too, its not yours, in fact Scotland is so inept, we'd need to rent a foreigner to run our armed services on independence. Phillip Hammond, current Secretary of Defence tells us divvying up UK armed forces - toward which we pay handsomely - 'lacked coherence'. What actually lacks coherence is why we'd spend more money and get less as part of the UK rather than spend less money and get more as an independent country. (Scotland's share of the defence bill on a per head of population basis in 2011 was £3.62 billion, actual spend in Scotland is below £2 billion, in 2008 it was as low as £1.57 billion, subsidising the rest of the UK to the tune of £2 billion.) Lets not forget Trident, parked less than 40 miles from Scotland's largest population centre and costing us £163 million every year.

Worth every penny?

SNP policy (for example) is to spend £2.5 billion on defence - more than is currently spent in Scotland and less than our current share of UK defence spending.

Welfare & Pensions: I think you can guess where this is going, correct - its not yours. I never understood why pensions and welfare were conflated, for what its worth, I take the view, if you've worked for most of your life; your pension isn't a welfare benefit - its money fairly and squarely owed to you. Also, in terms of UK government, pensions aren't a benefit; they're a liability. There is no pot of cash earning 5% pa in to which Scotland has paid, we won't be asking for our per-head share of it because it doesn't exist. Pensions are paid on a pay-as-you-go basis out of general taxation and borrowing. We do however rent the infrastructure, it goes without saying, even although there are 10,000 people working for the DWP in Scotland for which we pay our share - it & they are not ours, we can't have any of it if we vote yes in 2014.

Oil & Gas: In the face of every normal practice, in contradiction of all known examples; if Scotland decided as a country it wanted to govern itself - its possible that resources contained within its borders wouldn't belong to it. Obviously none of us have contributed to the wealth of Oil & Gas beneath our land and sea, we have geology and history to thank for that; you would think by any normal measure of the idea - that it sits within our borders - it would belong to us. Well it doesn't - its not yours. As you well know, when news readers are talking about Wales, Northern Ireland and England, they also temper any fiscal statement with the words; 'if you take a geographical share of [insert resource or tax income] into consideration.' Why wouldn't you include oil & Gas income in Scottish figures? Oh aye, I forgot - its running out.

The EU: I'm not sure how this works but bare with me. Our share of EU membership isn't ours, it belongs to the rest of the UK - which includes us - because as we all know, we're a part of the soul of one-nation-UK - a UK which would be much diminished without Scotland, which is probably true, but not in the way Westminster representatives would have us believe. It goes without saying, your membership of the EU (whether you want it or not) is not yours. I've deliberately linked to a dodgy Telegraph article, the headline reads; 'Independent Scotland 'would have to 'apply from scratch to join EU''. The article then goes on to undermine and disprove it's own headline by comparing Scotland with Croatia. Scotland is already in the EU, it already adheres to EU laws and policies, comparing it to Croatia - which has never been in the EU so did have to apply 'from scratch' - is fatuous.

Ok, I get the message...

My point is, you think this is your country, but it isn't. At least not according to the Union - its out on loan to you. All the infrastructure, the bureaucracy and functions of state for which you pay - are not actually yours. In Scotland, we're all second class citizens - tenants if you prefer - living in a house we don't own but have been paying for and investing in for the past 300 years.

All the tax you pay, the tax your parents and grand parents have paid. All the effort you put and will put into your future in Scotland won't be yours - if it truly was - if you decided to leave; you could take your share of it with you, couldn't you?

In a bizarre exercise of state-based auto-eroticism, our Prime Minister has ordered - and I'm going to be charitable and call it - a commemoration of the start of WW1. Normally the end of hostilities are cause for commemoration, not the start. Unfortunately, the 150,000 Scots who died in The Great War and the 50,000 who died in the Second World War - according to what those arguing for the union are saying - did so for nothing because none of what they saved was actually theirs to begin with.

The temerity, the cheek, the sheer brass neck of it. Scotland is and has been an integral part of the UK; adding to it, paying for our share of it - sometimes more sometimes less - and now, finally seeing the inequity of it; we are seeing the truth of Scotland's position through the eyes of British Unionists.

Its not yours. But, it could be - completely and totally with all its advantages and challenges - if you put a cross in the correct box on the 18th of September 2014.

Take a leaf out of Thatcher's book: why rent when you can buy.