Parents should bring up children, not the state

The Times reported today (click here to read the article) that a survey for Sky News revealed “hundreds of children at second year in primary school are still in nappies” and quoted a head teacher saying that “pupils are arriving at school without many basic skills including toilet training or being able to use a knife and fork or hold a paintbrush”.  Ofstead is quoted as saying that “nurseries had to do more to prepare children, especially if parents were not able or willing to do so”.  But why should this be the case? 

Clearly nursery schools are not just babysitters; they must take on some of the parenting role while children are in their care, but they are no substitute for parental responsibility.  Children, whether of nursery school, or indeed primary or secondary school, age have far less contact with teachers than they ever will with their parents, who are accountable for their upbringing.  Schools can endorse reinforce particular social behaviours and support parents in the upbringing of their children, but they cannot replace them. 

Schools are not perfect and teachers are not always good, so parents have every right to complain when things are not going well.  But more often than not, and this is supported by the very small sample of teachers of my acquaintance, the problem is more likely to get some parents to show sufficient interest in their children’s education in the first place.  And these are of course likely to be the parents of children who are underperforming.   

Does a child have a problem reading?  Then ask how many books are there in the family home, and who reads them.  Do parents read to their children and do they read for themselves?  If not then in most cases the child’s weakness is not surprising.  

Does a child not concentrate well or complain of being bored?  Perhaps the only form of entertainment at home is computer games or indiscriminate watching of the TV, constantly playing in the living room.  Ask how often parents engage with the child in playing games (not computer games), going for walks or cycle rides, or just conversing.

I am not a teacher or an expert on bringing up children, but it is self-evident that children have the capacity to learn continuously from the people and environment around them.  They cannot easily discriminate between “good” examples  and “bad” examples; they only see examples. So if the majority of the time the examples set are not conducive to getting a good education or to acceptable social behaviour, is it any surprise that those children fail?  It is true that schools are a source of examples, as are peer and the media (which in my opinion has a lot to answer for), but most of all children learn from their parents.

The Times article finished by noting that the latest Millennium cohort study (of children born in 2000), shows that the development gap between “rich” and “poor” children, by which I assume it means between the children of “rich parents” and “poor parents”, has opened up and that “the poor are at a considerable disadvantage”.  It does not follow from this however that the problem will be solved by the state taking responsibility from the parents.  What we need is a strategy to encourage and help those parents who are failing to take enough interest in the upbringing of their children (rich or poor).  It must be clear that it is in their interest, as well as that of their children, to do so.      

A “Yes” vote may bring Scotland less independence, not more.

The Scottish National Party, while perhaps the largest, most established and certainly noisiest, is not the only group with aspirations for independence within the UK.  Some in Northern Ireland would prefer independence to further integration with the South.  Then there are Wales and Cornwall. while some of the English would like to be rid of all of the above.  And even London and the South East have independence advocates.  Looking further afield there are literally dozens of independence movements across Europe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe for a selection).  Most of these have no real hope of economic independence but rather are claiming the right to more cultural, language and ethnic recognition that they currently have.  Nevertheless within them there are some serious candidates for true independence, such as Cataluña, the Basque Countr(ies), Lombardy, Bavaria, to name but a few (sorry if I have left out your favourite), and of course Scotland.

The Scottish nationalists argue that and independent Scotland can take its place as a free and independent country within the European Union.  I don’t doubt that they could, and the strange voting system that gives every country an equal vote irrespective of size, will give them a certain amount of power.  But the EU is already an unwieldy institution with 28 countries currently and another 8 on the way or interested in joining and a few breakaway mini-states like Scotland will add further add to the numbers.  Realistically what influence will most of these countries have?   While they will have a vote on some matters, that does not mean real influence especially as qualified majority voting eats away at their veto (and with so many states, it surely must expand further in the future or the EU cannot work).  But real power will lie with the large economic engines of the region; Germany, France, perhaps Poland and a resurgent Italy, and the UK if not torn asunder by secession. 

Despite the irritations of petty rules and regulations from Brussels that are food and drink to Ukip and other secessionists, the alternative of the EU disappearing does not bear thinking about; a return to a Europe of the 18th century with petty principalities and kingdoms defined by their flag, national dress and the spirits they drink.  Sooner or later they will discover the need to combine in order to survive in the 21st century.  They will either vote for it or be devoured by their bigger neighbours as they go bankrupt.  The other, far worse scenario, is that we will have another war on our hands as they fight for territory, resources or, heaven help us, national pride. 

So the EU must survive if only for the safety and security of our children and grandchildren.  But with so many independent members it must surely change and will inevitably be pushed towards a federal structure.  Authority will be ceded to the centre on key issues that today we still think of as vital national interests, like external relations, defence and monetary policy.  But even then much of the power will be retained by the larger states who will inevitably also furnish most of the administrators and policy makers within the new centralised government system (as happens in the USA today).  

An independent Scotland and a smaller UK will surely both be more subservient to the new Europe and a lot less likely to have real influence over key policies than they do today.  True the saltire will fly over Scotland, but this seems like a hollow victory to me; one that feeds the faux nationalism of the Scottish Nationalist who wants independence from the Auld Enemy, but does not deliver any real independence in what matters. 

By all means embrace more devolution on matters that can realistically, and more fruitfully, be managed locally.  This will meet natural desires to have more control over everyday lives (and this does not only apply to Scotland by the way, but to all parts of the UK).  But would it not be better to be part of a strong UK, one of those larger nations that are the driving force behind an ever stronger, albeit more diverse, Europe.  Lets keep it.  I hope those British citizens who have been fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity of a referendum in September, on independence for Scotland, vote a resounding “no”.

Independence Referendum? Let's all have one (Part Two)

The thing is, if the Scots want more control over their future, they can have more independence within a federal system without giving up the benefits of being part of a country that still stands tall on the international stage. More devolution is feasible, but let it apply to everyone.  Let's have devolved parliaments for England (in England's second city, not in London) and Wales, or even for the regions.  Leave foreign policy and defence to Westminster and cut down the size of the UK parliament by 50% to help pay for the change.  A federal system works for many countries, so why not for the UK?

But apparently the UK government is not prepared to discuss this option and while Salmond is, it is only  part of his strategy for the bigger question.  I can only assume that this is because it does not suit their personal agendas; the trouble with devolution is that it does not enhance the job description of the incumbents.  I would have expected the Lib Dems to have been on the side of more devolution but so far, radio silence.

In the meantime we have a phoney war with no one really tackling the issue of what people want.  Mr Salmond wants his own little country and Mr Cameron wants his own bigger one.  Salmond accuses the British Government of posturing over not sharing the Pound while at the same time maintaining that he requires a currency union, without acknowledging that there are alternatives.  Posturing perhaps, Mr Salmond?  This all seems to childish to most of us, but unfortunately it is not childish, only politics.  Not very edifying, but that is what we have got.

 I doubt the Population of Scotland want independence; what they want is to be treated fairly, to have a better standard of living, for their children to have a good education, and to be respected in the world.  But isn't that what we all want?

Independence referendum? Let's all have one (Part One)

I don't know what people living in Scotland will vote for in the forthcoming referendum but I do wonder why we are allowing just a small proportion of citizens in one of the most successful nations on earth the option to destroy our 300 year old Union.  Far more people in the UK live outside Scotland than in it, but they have been completely disenfranchised.

Of course the rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom may all want to rid themselves of troublesome Scots,  but then again they may not.  And what about the Scottish diaspora in the rest of the UK or indeed the rest of the world?  The impact on them may be considerable; will they have to return their kilts to Alex Salmond and forswear consumption of Haggis?  Of course they don't get a vote because they are not part of the Scottish nation, because it is not clear that there is such a thing.  Webster's dictionary defines nation either as "a community of people of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government" (this would include any group of people with devolved government; Hertfordshire for example) or alternatively as "a tribe or federation of tribes" presumably with North American Indians in mind, but that surely includes wearers of the tartan, and  not only those within the confines of that northern part of the British Isles commonly known as Scotland.

Unfortunately none of this is not going to happen;  Parliament has accepted Salmond's proposition that the people living in Scotland are entitled to determine their own future and that those in the rest of the UK don't

So if we are going to have a referendum, why don't we all have one?  If we cannot vote on whether to keep Scotland in the UK, we should all be allowed to vote for our own independence.  Following Scotland could be Cornwall and then Wales, Rutland and a couple of forts in the middle of the North Sea.  Even London and the South East, fed up with being accused of ignoring the rest of the United Kingdom, may choose to go it alone. And Yorkshire would of course vote to go its own way.   What is left of England, and of course Northern Ireland, would inherit the most recognisable flag in the world, a nuclear strike force and a seat on the UN Security Council.  And the pound, because it would not agree to share any of the above with the newly independent nations.