And one more thing.... about Relationships, Sexual Health & Parenthood (RSHP) Statutory Guidance

Ten Digestible Chunks

Here at ScotPAG we really should have written more about the new, updated RSHP Guidance published by the Scottish Government in February 2026. Unfortunately, ScotPAG was unable to scrutinise this document in full detail at an earlier stage, due to the whack-a-mole of gender ideological challenges which has taken up a lot of our time already.

The guidance is statutory and applies to all local authority maintained schools and education settings in Scotland. The guidance states, ’this document is issued under section 56 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000. It goes on to state,

‘Local authorities must have regard to this guidance in discharging their statutory functions relating to provision of education about sexual matters in schools.’

There are some statements in the guidance that are important and with which we would agree. We just do not know how the good points made can be achieved under the auspices of a government agenda which continues to insist that men can be women and that children can be born in the wrong body. There is no such thing as a transgender child, just boys and girls, some of whom will grow up to be gay. For as long as the Scottish Government peddles a lie to children and families and employs activist groups to sell this lie, the education of our children is in peril. Safeguarding, reducing violence, increasing trust, achieving real inclusion, all are undermined when reality is denied.

Dear reader, it is always tedious to have to wade through the civil service word salad of government documents. So, with you in mind, we have distilled the RSHP guidance into ten digestible chunks.

Ten Digestible Chunks

1. The positives are that the guidance advocates for age appropriate content, parent involvement, online safety, reduction of violence and sexual exploitation.

2. The guidance states that parents do not have the right to withdraw their children from all aspects of sexual health teaching. Given that the guidance advocates for teaching the contested belief of gender ideology across the entire curriculum, this is a significant overreach.

3. Given that the Supreme Court’s ruling (16th April 2025) clarifying the Equality Act, that biological sex was the defining factor between males and females and not gender identity, this guidance, in stating the importance of teaching gender identity as fact, is out of step with that ruling.

4. There is an arguable over-interpretation of several articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of The Child (UNCRC) including article 12 regarding children’s understanding of decision making which sit uncomfortably with for example article 5 which outlines parental and carers’ rights and responsibilities. ScotPAG would argue, for example that under article 5, parents wishing to protect their children from the harms of an influential ideology being taught in any school, have the right to advocate for its removal from the school curriculum or a review at the very least.

5. P2 section 1.10 in the guidance states,

‘RSHP education should be presented in an objective, balanced and sensitive manner within a framework of sound values and an awareness of the law, and teachers should work closely with parents in its delivery, by discussing proposed lessons and resources with them in advance.’

WHooooP!!! This sentence seems to have escaped from another document written by an author with a modicum of common sense. All parents, keep this sentence with you to use in times where all those around you appear to have lost their sanity.

6. A few paragraphs further, we reach page 3 and the Scottish Government agenda becomes apparent in section 1.13 LGBT Inclusive Education. So, the contested belief that is transgenderism, an adult concept, is being visited on all Scottish children without parental understanding or agreement. This is a major overreach.

7. P6 section 2.3 states, ‘Inclusive RSHP education, as part of the curricular framework, is key in equipping all children and young people with the knowledge, understanding and skills to make informed and consensual choices about their health and wellbeing.’ The word ‘inclusive’ has come to mean men can be women, and self-id is appropriate. This is a menu of confusion and manipulation. How can this approach possibly result in the positive outcomes of good mental health and making informed and wise choices?

8. P8 section 2.12 -2.14 It is good to mention the importance of parents and carers but they are buried in the middle of the document. Parents and family, their values, of whatever denomination and whatever family makeup should be out there at the front of the document in pride of place. There is just too much tacit belittling of the family and what it means for everyone.

9. p10 section 3.4 states, ‘Some of the key benefits of teaching children ….about healthy relationships, including consent, include the positive impact this can have on reducing instances of sexual harassment and gender based violence.’ Great…except this is impossible to achieve if the education system promotes the lie that is gender identity ideology. See pages 16-22 for a dose of incoherent gender ideological preaching including recommended resources that are anything but balanced and impartial.

10. And finally… Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) has written its own interpretation of the RSHP guidance that you can read for yourself

We have written previously about TIE and you can reference it here.

TIE are clearly feeling pretty pleased with themselves, no wonder given the extent to which they are funded by tax payers’ money. Towards the end of their interpretation of the new RSHP guidance, they say this:

‘A note on disinformation: RSHP education …is sometimes the subject of disinformation or sensationalism…..At times, political groups and online actors have presented this learning as controversial or have implied hidden agendas, using emotive language designed to provoke concern or outrage. Such assertions misunderstand both the purpose and the content of RSHP education.’

This is a pretty good example of the chilling effect : ’Unless you think like us and agree with us, we will characterise you in certain ways.’ So an informed discussion based on robust international research is likely to be out of the question we presume?

Carolyn Brown ScotPAG Convenor