More than half of all children born in Scotland are now born to unmarried parents

[expatinscotland]

here

And among mothers under the age of 30, that figure rises to 2/3.

Wow!

Had no idea it was so high.

But come to think of it, everytime I was in hospital having a baby, I was the only married woman in a room of 4 mothers.

And the eldest (was 32 when DD1 born, 34 with DD2 and 37 with DS).

Makes me wonder about the future for my children.

I'd always hoped they would marry, for some reason, before having kids.

Maybe it's because my parents are married, too, as are DH's.

Some Mners? political insight is based on illinformed, unthinking prejudice.

Your starter for ten:
Which political party (Con or Lab) abolished the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children?

88.(a) Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 should be amended so as to provide expressly that no person whose status is governed by Scots law should be regarded as illegitimate.

The committee recognised that legitimacy and illegitimacy were of much reduced practical significance nowadays and had sympathy with the view that the concepts should be consigned to history

88.(a) Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 should be amended so as to provide expressly that no person whose status is governed by Scots law should be regarded as illegitimate.

The committee recognised that legitimacy and illegitimacy were of much reduced practical significance nowadays and had sympathy with the view that the concepts should be consigned to history

88.(a) Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 should be amended so as to provide expressly that no person whose status is governed by Scots law should be regarded as illegitimate.

The committee recognised that legitimacy and illegitimacy were of much reduced practical significance nowadays and had sympathy with the view that the concepts should be consigned to history

yikes,what happened there!3 times

I was 28 when I had my first child and 30 when i had my second - both fathered by my partner of 10 and 12 years respectively. We do not 'believe' in marriage - having been together so long, not religious, uni educated, travelled the world, lived and had interesting and fullfilling careers in overseas countries. How would a marriage certificate have changed our situation? WOuld it have made us more 'serious', more 'commited' to eachother? No. I would rather have spent the miniumun amount needed to get married (around £100 for booking fee and basic registry service)on a donation to a charity that needed the money. I hate the fact people are judged by the simple merit of a marriage certificate - CRAZY!

In France, 2006 was the first year when more babies were born to unmarried couples than to married ones.

I'm not religious at all, nor do I think my relationship has to be sanctioned by the state. However, I do think it is important that both people in a relationship reflect upon and make the decision to spend their lives together before they have children. Especially the male of our species doesn't think about these things unless faced with a decision to get married or not.

That is why I wouldn't consider nor advise having babies before marriage. Not because marriage is forever - a lot of the time it isn't - but because it crystallizes in the minds of both people the decision to stay together for the long term.

"Especially the male of our species doesn't think about these things unless faced with a decision to get married or not."

I think that might depend on individual males, you know. Some might actually do some thinking before deciding to try for a baby.

Great post, CoteDAzur - couldn't agree more.

CoteDAzur, I don't agree that marriage represents my relationship being "sanctioned by the state" but I agree with every other word you said there.

I happen to believe in marriage - I felt absolutely no obligation to marry my dh; it was my joy to publicly commit to our relationship and to enter into a legally binding commitment to him. I also wish that more people would make an equally mindful and serious choice about their relationship before having children. Married or not, if they did, there would be fewer children whose parents separate, I'm sure.

Most unmarried men I know who have become fathers haven't "tried" for anything at all.

They are fine living together. Then one day the girl falls pregnant and they find they are having a baby.

"How would a marriage certificate have changed our situation?"

You haven't researched this, have you? I would link to the thread where someone found out, too late and to her cost, that married and non-marrieds get very different treatment but Search isn't working.
Never mind the 'the state sanctioning my relationship' nonsense - marriage is a legally binding contract and, as such, has many benefits.

I also second Cote's post.

I know an unmarried man who definitely wasn't taken by surprise by having a baby. DP and I had been together for 10 years before we started trying for a baby (no "one day the girl falls pregnant" here). We were trying for nearly 3 years before DD1 was born.

We're still not married.

I totally agree that the stats tell you very little - would be more useful to know how many babies were born to parents that were no longer a couple (or not a couple by the end of the first year) as I imagine that having parents who are/are not together/living in a single-income family etc are all things more likely to have a bearing on the child's future than the presence or absence of a marriage certificate.

I know its been raised before but I honestly think the commercialisation of the weding industry has played a part in the decline of marriages.

Ok 40/50/60 years ago there was still "posh" weddings, but the majority of folk all had the same day - married in the local church, aunty making flowers/dress/cakes, and a reception back at the local working mens club, honeymoon was a week in Whitby.

People just cant afford, or more importantly justify the cost of a wedding these days - how much is the average one? 17k? Thats more than some people earn in a year. Dp and I getting wed in October, it gonna be small, but not as cheap as we had thought. Some of the prices people throw at you when you mention the "w" word are ridiculous - £600 for a cake, £1400 for a photographer, £1000 for a band, £2000 for a dress - its crazy - people just cant afford this shit. And as the wedding industry grows it is going to become even more of a victim of its own success - people will eventually wise up.

I know its possible to do it cheap, to do it for under £200, but most people want at least a part of the "fairytale" image. If it was like it was 60 years ago, just a nice special day with your family, then maybe more people would actually get married - it would be the norm too - not "oooh look at xxx and xxx doing their wedding on the cheap"

I also understood that in historical times (don't ask me when exactly)! it was considered normal for a woman to become pregnant prior to getting married to prove her fertility.

I think the difference now is that many people remain unmarried despite being in committed, life-long relationships, which I find a little surprising.

Same-sex partners have recently received the right to be regarded as next of kin through civil partnerships - this was considered a very important step, not only being recognised as a couple, but having next of kin rights, as married couples do.

People don't have a problem with registering a birth and paying for a certificate (although obviously, that's a legal requirement), maybe if long-term non-marrieds saw a marriage certificate as registering a next of kin, it would help show why it might be useful to be married.

Btw, my ds (aged 3 and a half at the time, was the ring-bearer at our wedding cermony.

i despair at the generalisations bandied about here.some people are errant unsuitable parents.not just men

The Daily Express take on this yesterday was 'The Family is Dead'

"Then one day the girl falls pregnant and they find they are having a baby. "

Women (not 'girls', anyone over the age of 18 is not a girl) don't generally fall pregnant without the enthusiastic assistance of a man. In my experience.

ScottishMummy - No need to despair. You have misunderstood.

What I have said and others agreed with was not that men are "errant, unsuitable parents" but that men in particular benefit from seriously thinking about whether or not they really intend to stay with this particular woman in the long term.

It is very important to consciously take this decision before having a baby. Without the pressure of "Oh dear. Other half is pregnant."

thanks for clarification,i despair no more

Hopefully, they'll also relax some of these ridiculously antiquated laws about where and how a couple can be married and have it be legal.

A couple of years ago, a Pagan couple had to go through hell and high water in order to be married by ritual hand-fasting in Scotland.

They were eventually successful and married outdoors as well.

Does a religious ceremony count as legal marriage in the UK, then? (serious question)

Depends on the religion. Dunno which ones are 'official' but CofE certainly is!
The service itself doesn't confer married status - the bit where it becomes binding is when you sign the Register.

So what?!

When we got married (civil ceremony) they told us that it's the saying of the legally binding words in front of a person able to perform the ceremony and a couple of witnesses that forms the marriage contract. The bit about " I so and so take you such and such".

The signing is over and above apparently.

Presumably only certain people can legally perform the ceremony and priest types from all mainstream religions have been counted in for that power?

I don't see the point in marriage for me, personally.