And another thing…

WHAT a relief that today’s news about government intrusion into people’s private lives isn’t about the government, but about the Scottish government’s latest attempts to tackle obesity.

But first, an acknowledgement that the SNP administration, for all its many faults, seems at least to be genuinely committed to tackling obesity in Scotland, and for that they should be commended.

However, threatening to outlaw large portions in restaurants is just plain silly. Can you imagine how that legislation would be framed? It would be a lawyer’s paradise, with legal arguments focussing on what constituted a “lawful” helping of chips and whether a piece of sirloin could be classed as over-generous.

No, such intrusion into people’s lives is not acceptable. It sends out the message that people at the moment are overweight because of government inaction. How ridiculous is that? I admit I happen to be a tad overweight myself. Is that because the government has failed to legislate to curb the generosity of those damned irresponsible restaurant owners? No, it’s because I eat too much and exercise too little. I’m overweight because of the consequences of the choices I make. My responsibility, no-one else’s.

Even by raising such an absurd notion, the SNP Government are effectively telling every fatty in the land: it’s not your fault, the government will come to the rescue. Such a message is likely to do even more damage than saying nothing at all, because it removes all personal responsibility for over-indulgence.

And here’s the rub: there’s an election coming up, and I desperately want Labour to win, for all sorts of reasons. One of my worries is that, if we go into opposition and no longer have the responsibility and discipine of government, certain interest groups in the Labour Party will use opposition as an opportunity to compile a long, long list of “Stuff That Annoys Us And That We Should Ban”, and try to get much of that list into our subsequent manifesto. That would be electorally disastrous and politically incompetent.

I don’t believe Labour has anything to fear from allowing people to make free and informed choices about how they want to live; more to the point, viewing our fellow citizens as part of a problem that can only be solved by government intervention seems a peculiarly undemocratic and self-destructive form of politics.

And the SNP should think about that before they start top-slicing my pizzas, thank you very much.

ALEX SALMOND shouts a lot, doesn’t he?

One of the reasons I don’t enjoy watching First Minister’s Questions is that every answer he gives – or at least those in response to Labour’s Iain Gray – are delivered in some kind of factory gate demagoguery which is obviously modelled on Mel Gibson’s famous speech in Braveheart: “They may take our fundraising lunches, but they will never take our FREEEEEE-DUMB!”

Anyhoo, today, in the face of some pretty effective interrogation from Gray, Salmond selectively quoted Holyrood’s Code of Conduct in defence of his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon. He claimed that she had been obliged to write a letter to the court which was due to sentence her (and my) constituent, Abdul Rauf, making the case for a non-custodial sentence for stealing £80,000 from the tax-payer.

Salmond quoted the bit of the code which said that an MSP should take on a constituent’s case unless-

that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework…

The First Minister repeated that line for emphasis, just to show how silly Iain Gray was for ever criticising a friend of Alex’s.

The answer to why Salmond didn’t quote the whole of the relevavnt package is clear when you read what it actually says:

8.1.1 Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent’s case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member’s political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case.

(My emphasis; I’m grateful to Malc in the Burgh for publishing this section of the code.)

A happy-go-lucky Sturgeon pictured in happier times

In other words, according to the very Code of Conduct which Salmond selectively quoted in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament this afternoon, there was no obligation and no duty on Nicola Sturgeon to act as she did. The reason he did not read out the whole of that section – particularly the words “where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action” – is because had he done so, he would have exposed her claim to have acted as she did out of “duty” to be entirely without foundation. He chose, instead, therefore, to mislead the parliament by omission, in the hope that doing so would make him look slightly more credible in front of the TV cameras.

Makes you proud to be Scottish, eh?

THERE’S a line of questioning that needs to be pursued in the unfolding controversy over Nicola Sturgeon’s strangely enthusiastic championing of her (and my) constituent:

• How well did she know Mr Rauf? If not at all, then why did she write a character reference for him in the first place?

• And if she did indeed know him – and know him well enough to be able to tell a court that his crimes were in fact simply “mistakes” – what was the nature of their relationship? How long has she known him and in what capacity?

I THOUGHT that, given the public’s confusion as to why SNP ministers never resign and are never, ever criticised by any member of their party, regardless of their often odd behaviour and decisions, I would share this helpful flowchart.

It was distributed to all SNP members about two and half years ago and was leaked to me by a friend who works at SNP headquarters (recently appointed, I believe, to the “Operation ‘Wha’s Like Us?’ planning committee”, whatever that is) . I expect a leak inquiry is underway already.

AMERICA prides itself on having a society where it’s claimed “anyone can become president.” In Scotland, since 2007, our motto has been: “Anyone just did become a minister”.

Not for nothing is environment minister Roseanna Cunningham known as “Republican Rose”. She decided, some time ago, to reject Home Office advice that for security reasons, two public paths through the Balmoral Estate should not be publicised. “Based on the information currently available to me, I am therefore minded to proceed on the basis that these two paths should be included in the adopted Cairngorms National Park Authority core path plan,” she wrote in response to the Home Office advice.

Fortunately, Home Office minister David Hanson wasn’t prepared to play fast and loose with HM’s safety and warned Ché Cunningham that he would over-rule her on national security grounds if she didn’t cave. Her whacky plans constituted “a security risk to the Queen and her immediate family,” he told her.

She duly caved.

What kind of person allows her own republican principles to reject security advice as it affects the Royal Family? What a shocking way for any minister – and even at Holyrood they are Her Majesty’s ministers, whether you like it or not – to behave.

Inevitably, Big Eck’s response at First Minister’s Questions was to shout and smirk a lot. Oh, and launch an investigation into the leak that resulted in the Daily Record scoop. Fair enough. A leak inquiry is exactly what an administration formed by any other party would do. But no-one does defensive shouting and arrogant smirking quite like Alex.

The irony, of course, is that Republican Rose is the reason Alex is where he is. In 2004, following John Swinney’s resignation as SNP leader, Alex gave an undertaking that under no circumstances would he consider returning to lead his party. Then the reality sunk in that his preferred candidate, Nicola Sturgeon, would be thumped in a head-to-head contest with Roseanna. So he was persuaded to throw his hat into the ring, standing on a ticket with Nicola as his deputy.

Blind loyalty to a ministerial colleague aside, I doubt if he would shed any tears if Roseanna ended up falling on her sword over this latest SNP farce.

SHORTLY after taking power at Holyrood, the SNP Government, after a costly and extensive search for a new corporate slogan for Scotland, came up with the dazzlingly original  “Welcome to Scotland”. You have to wonder what slogans were rejected…

However, the words which now greet everyone arriving at one of Scotland’s airports might be more appropriate than first thought. During the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, then First Minister Jack McConnell vetoed a proposal from Labour’s ad agency which featured a photograph of a wire fence in which a large hole had been cut. Below was the text: “SNP immigration policy”.

Brutal and uncomfortable stuff, but, like much of such discarded propaganda, it revealed a basic truth. The SNP pride themselves on having an “open” immigration policy. Essentially this means that if you can make it to Scotland’s shores from anywhere on the globe, then whatever your background and whatever your circumstances, Scotland will welcome you. This, of course, is regarded as insanity by most Scots, but they don’t dwell on it since, mercifully, the Scottish Government has no say over immigration matters.

But is this “openness” the reason why Alex Salmond, an MP of 23 years’ experience, chose to plead the case of a failed asylum seeker who was illegally working in his constituency? Or was it simply that his workload as First Minister prevented him from paying the necesary attention to this particular case?

A spokesman claimed Salmond was “duty bound” to represent the man. He was not. He was “duty bound” to inform the immigration authorities, and possibly the police, of the man’s whereabouts and activities. The spokesman also said Salmond was unaware that the man had been facing drug charges and had broken his bail conditions. I’m prepared to believe this last point, since, in my own experience of people seeking help with the immigration authorities, they are strangely reluctant to divulge such pertinent information when they approach me.

I offer you a prediction: if the broadcast media pick up on this story today, the claim that Salmond was “duty bound” to represent his constituent will not be repeated by him or his office. He knows it to be untrue and he would be a fool to compound such a serious mistake with such a pathetic excuse.

SIPPING water during last Thursday’s Scottish Politician of the Year Awards ceremony in Edinburgh (I was driving), there was some tension in the run-up to the announcement of the winner of the night’s main award. In fact I had already written (but not posted) a Tweet announcing: “Mahatmakaskill named Scottish Politician of the Year 2009 – even Nicola would have been an improvement!”

In the event, the very decent and well-liked John Swinney snatched the title. I’m sure MacAskill was philosophical about it; after all, if a “Higher Power” ordained it, there’s nothing he could do about it.

But as the case for the three nominees was being summarised from the stage, and footage of the Justice Minister announcing the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on the basis that he only had three months to live was shown, the Lord Foulkes MSP (Labour, Lothians) shouted from a sedentary position: “He’s still alive!”

Aye, there’s the rub.

Who knows how much longer the mass murderer has to live? The media are playing a rather sick game here, regularly reporting on the fact that Al-Megrahi hasn’t – yet – shuffled off this mortal coil to have his inevitable difficult conversation with that Higher Power. Now, I oppose capital punishment, and I do not want Al-Megrahi or anyone else to die (well, no-one that you have ever heard of, anyway). And neither does MacAskill.Yet Al-Megrahi’s continuing survival threatens the minister with embarrassment at best and the end of his career in government at worst.

I’m not doubting that the bomber is terminally ill. And neither do I believe he’s entered himself in the 2010 Tripoli Marathon. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear news any day that he’s succumbed to his illness.

But he shouldn’t have been released; he should have been allowed to die in prison – a very minor punishment, given the nature of his crime. MacAskill has assuaged his own conscience – of that I have no doubt. But the continued survival of Al-Megrahi must surely be the source of unpleasant dreams for Kenny MacAskill.

How Al-Megrahi appears in Kenny MacAskill's nightmares

Incidentally, the host of the event, the BBC’s Colin Mackay, came up with the best line of the night: “2009 was the Year of Homecoming, both here and in Libya.” It did sound rather familiar, mind you.

ANWAR AL-AWLAKI is an extremist Muslim preacher who has been banned from entering the UK. In January this year – ten months ago – he said this:

As Muslims we should not subject Islam to the whims of the people, “if they chose it we implement it, if they don’t we accept the choice of the masses”.

Our position is that we will implement the rule of Allah on earth by the tip of the sword whether the masses like it or not. We will not subject Sharia rule to popularity contests. Rasulullah says:

“I was sent with the sword until Allah alone is worshiped.” That path, the path of Rasulullah, is the path we should follow.

Yet it took until last Wednesday for Osama Saeed – SNP candidate, former adviser to Alex Salmond and recipient of the SNP government’s largesse – finally to condemn him. Until then, Saeed described Al-Awlaki as “a preacher of peace”.

Saeed with his benefactor and former employer

Undoubtedly, Saeed, who is determined to affect an air of respectability, given his position within the SNP and the SNP-funded Scottish-Islamic Foundation, sees the danger in being associated with a man who has now been implicated in the Fort Hood murders and whose mosque was attended by three two of the 9/11 terrorists.

Saeed says he now feels “cheated” by Al-Awlaki. When did this feeling emerge? Was it only when Al-Awlaki’s alleged links to the Fort Hood murderer emerged? If so, why not sooner? Why not last year when Al-Awlaki told a Somali jihadist group:

We are following your recent news and it fills our hearts with immense joy… The ballot has failed us but the bullet has not.

Beautiful sentiments. But this was not enough for Saeed to feel he should reverse his previous comments praising him.

And Saeed, remember, is the person who described Yusuf Qaradawi – he who said capital punishment was an appropriate punishment for homosexuals – as “an eminent scholar”.

Maybe the reason Saeed is such a fan of Al-Awlaki and Qaradawi is not so much their rather conservative views on gay rights and armed aggression, but because of their support for the re-establishment of the worldwide Islamic caliphate – a cause which Saeed admits he supports.

And apparently he was the best of the candidates put before the selection panel!

No doubt, the usual nat apologists will leave comments criticising me for criticising Saeed. But even they must know, in their heart of hearts, that their party has made a colossal mistake in selecting this man as a candidate.

YOU can see why the people and government of Nigeria might be a tad hacked off at Scotland at the moment.

Glasgow’s bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games contained an unambiguous commitment to the building of a railway link between Glasgow city centre and Glasgow International Airport. Anticipating a successful bid on which the city council, not the Scottish Government, had done all the running, First Minister Alex Salmond and his deputy flew to Sri Lanka (well, you would, wouldn’t you) in order to give the (entirely false) impression that his administration had contributed in some way to Glasgow’s bid.

Perhaps that’s a little unfair, for Salmond had, in fact, given a cast iron guarantee that his predecessor’s commitment to the airport link would be honoured. And on that basis, Glasgow had submitted its bid to host the games.

And we won. Hooray! Salmond could be seen at the celebratory party, waving a saltire and mouthing the words “What is it we’ve won, exactly?” to Nicola Sturgeon.

And then… the SNP cancelled the airport link.

How do the Commonwealth Games authorities feel about that, I wonder? Do they now reckon that Glasgow’s victory was built on a false promise? That we won by sleight of hand? I certainly wouldn’t blame the Nigerians for thinking that.

It’s the equivalent of the UK government winning the bid for the 2012 Olympics, then scrapping its commitment to the high-speed “Javelin” service to the Olympic site.

Now, when we welcome athletes to Scotland’s first city in five years’ time, we’ll feel like someone who’s arranged a party in the expectation that his outdoor loo would be replaced in time but who instead can only offer to switch the backyard light on so his guests won’t trip over anything.

Thanks, Alex. No, really…

I WAS about to write a post about the inadvisability of the Scottish Government’s proposals to force cyclists to pay road tax. The details are in their consultation document, Cycling Action Plan for Scotland. I was fair waxing lyrical about disincentives to cyclists and how road tax is supposed to help pay for the wear and tear inflicted on the road surface by a vehicle, which is hardly an issue for bikes.

And then, as I was scrolling through the document in question, I came across this:

In most Western European countries, the liability in any collision involving a motor vehicle and a cycle (or a pedestrian) lies with the driver of the vehicle, other than in the case of an adult cyclist who is shown to have been responsible for the accident.  In the UK, this is not the case.  As the majority of cycling accidents involve a motor vehicle, and given the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians, the Scottish Government will undertake to explore a “Hierarchy of Care for Road Users”.  This consultation document is asking whether the liability should always lie with the vehicle driver, until proven otherwise.

I vivdly recall the former Reading Labour MP, Jane Griffiths, who at the time was the chair of the All-Party Cycling Group, being interviewed about such a proposal on Radio 4, not long before I entered parliament. She was a staunch advocate of such nonsense and I recall thinking, “I hope the government doesn’t go down this road.”

Well, it didn’t, and while I was the minister with responsibility for cycling, I made damn sure we didn’t, despite lobbying by cycling groups. It’s just such a bonkers idea – that the driver of a car will always be assumed to be liable for an accident.

But maybe I should cross my fingers and hope that the SNP Government are daft enough to implement it here; the electoral consequences for them would be grave indeed. Unfortunately, they will be protected from their own stupidity by the Government, since matters of liability and insurance are reserved, and the SNP only undertake to “write” to the Government if the consultation responses show strong support for the measure. Damn.

The consultation document was drawn to my attention by Two Doctors, who happens to work for the two Green MSPs at Holyrood. He was spot-on in his criticism of the road tax for cyclists idea, which he understandably refers to as a “poll tax on wheels”. But he was strangely silent on the (even) more bonkers suggestion of assumed liability for car drivers.