Referenda in a free society

The Scottish Lib Dems have apparently rejected the opportunity to share power with the Scottish National Party. The major stumbling block is said to be the Nationalists' demand for a referendum on independence. (Full story HERE.) Now, I can understand the two parties being polls apart on the issue of independence, but a referendum? Is it too much to ask that an issue as important as this be put to the Scottish people once every generation should the situation arise (as it just has)?

Personally, I would be amazed if the SNP wanted an early referendum. They may be the largest single party in the Scottish Parliament but they are heavily outnumbered by (allegedly) pro-union MSPs and the present ratio would almost certainly be reflected in a national referendum. Public opinion may change, especially if the SNP are perceived to be doing a good job in government, but I doubt that Alex Salmond would risk holding a referendum in the short term because, if the SNP lose, it will not only damage their ability to govern, it will make it difficult if not impossible to hold another referendum for a further generation.

Meanwhile, what are opponents of independence frightened of? In politics, as in other areas of life, people should have the courage of their convictions. A free society demands that major issues are properly debated and, where appropriate, voted upon. A general election, by its very nature, cannot do this because few elections are decided on a single issue. (I would guess, for example, that a substantial number of people voted for the SNP in the Scottish elections not because they support total independence from the rest of Britain but because they wanted to register a protest vote against the Labour administration.)

A referendum is an opportunity for a civilised, in-depth debate. Those who deny us that chance are enemies - not supporters - of a free society.

Jackson's "admirably ruthless study"

Joe Jackson's new booklet (download HERE or see previous post HERE) has attracted the attention of Daily Mail columnist Andrew Alexander. Writing in today's paper, the distingished former City editor describes Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State as "an admirably ruthless study of the lies, exaggerations and junk-science of the anti-smoking lobby", adding:

"Governments zealously take up the anti-tobacco cause because it provides an excuse to ban something, which always adds to their feelings of power. They will lie, too, that, though the pressure is only from a handful of activists, they are responding to 'popular demand'.

"That wonderful and convenient phrase usually means the opposite. In the old music hall, when a compere was short of a reason for introducing a talentless act, he would cheerfully fall back on the words: 'And now, by popular demand ...' "

School's out for child's play

My daughter, who is ten, lost five minutes' 'golden time' today because she did a cartwheel at school. She was in a corner of the playground, well away from other children, with a friend who also got 'five minutes' for the same offence. Doing cartwheels or handstands isn't safe, apparently, "because your arms could collapse while you are in the air and you could break your neck". They were also told: "You can do that at home but not at school." I assume it's the threat of litigation that lies behind all this. I sympathise with the teachers. How awful, having to monitor and punish lively, energetic children who only want to enjoy themselves.

Taking Liberties - the movie

When I launched this blog a few weeks ago and named it Taking Liberties I had no idea that a film of the same name was about to be released. Taking Liberties - the movie - is a Michael Moore-style documentary which focuses on the erosion of civil liberties and the increase of surveillance under Labour. The director Chris Atkins said this week that he wanted to expose "the Orwellian state" that now threatens Britain as a result of Mr Blair's policies.

The film argues that civil liberties have been seriously eroded under Tony Blair. It is said to tackle some of the most contentious decisions taken by Blair's government, including war in Iraq, its approach to the US military camp Guantanamo Bay, identity cards and limitations on public protests. According to Atkins, "It is a call to arms from the people - you've had enough of our freedom and we want it back. We've deliberately held off for the month of Blair's departure," he said. "But when Blair walks out of the door of Downing Street we're not going to suddenly get civil liberties back. We take a good, hard look at Mr Brown as well."

Full story HERE. The movie website is HERE.

Watching them watching us

The Daily Telegraph has an interesting leader today on the subject of surveillance cameras (click HERE). It quotes the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas who spoke with great eloquence on Radio Five Live yesterday before giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. According to Thomas, Britain is sleepwalking into a "surveillance society". I couldn't agree more. Our concern puts us in a small minority however because - as the Telegraph points out - CCTV cameras (many of which may soon be fitted with microphones so small you won't be able to see them) are largely popular with the general public which sees them as a reassuring presence rather than a threat to our civil liberties.

The usual response - "If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about" - won't do. I am not against the use of surveillance cameras in moderation but I object strongly to the idea that there may come a day when I won't even be able to pick my nose (not yet a criminal offence) without being monitored by an eye in the sky. As with speed cameras, there must be a limit to the number of CCTV cameras and local authorities must be forced to justify their installation without taking our support for granted.

Meanwhile it is our job to convince a compliant public that excessive use of rules, regulations and technology to control and monitor our behaviour is fundamentally wrong. Freedom has its limits - as does Big Government. Where to draw the line is a thorny issue, but draw a line we must.

Smoke, lies and the nanny state

Joe Jackson is a musician and writer best known for hits such as 'Is She Really Going Out With Him?', 'It's Different For Girls' and 'Steppin' Out'. In 1999 he wrote A Cure For Gravity, "a book about music thinly disguised as a memoir", and in 2000 he won a Grammy for Best Pop Instrumental Album for the non-orchestral Symphony No.1.

Born in England, Joe lived in New York for 20 years from 1983 to 2003, when he returned to London. A “social smoker”, Joe has researched the subject of smoking in depth and in 2004 wrote a widely-read essay, 'The Smoking Issue'. He has also written articles on the subject for the New York Times, Daily Telegraph and Guardian, among others.

An outspoken opponent of smoking bans, Joe has given valuable support to Forest, lending his name to countless initiatives (see above). A high point was a letter he wrote to The Times (see HERE): other signatories included Bob Geldof, Stephen Fry, David Hockney, Simon Cowell, Lisa Stansfield, Chris Tarrant, Antony Worrall Thompson and others. Now living and working in Berlin, Joe has updated 'The Smoking Issue' and the new version - entitled  'Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State' - is published today. Click HERE.

The end of the NHS as we know it?

'TOO FAT FOR NHS SURGERY' screams the front page headline in today's Daily Mail. "Millions of patients could be denied some NHS treatments because they are overweight or smoke." (Full story HERE.) I am one of several people quoted but I was particularly taken by the comment from Joyce Robins, co- director of Patient Concern, who said:

"A national health service should not be deciding on who is worthy of treatment. This is a slippery slope. Do we next decide that those with criminal records should be denied healthcare? These people have paid into the system all their lives. They will find it hard to understand why they must pay for someone to have their fourth child or for those who injure themselves in dangerous sports while they are excluded from the service. It may help trusts balance their budgets but could cost society far more. Deny a much needed new hip and the patient will become crippled and the cost of caring for them will soar. It makes no sense."

I am all for people taking more responsibility for their health - which could in the future include paying a premium for healthcare - but politicians have to be straight with us. If that's the path they wish to follow, it's the end of the NHS as we know it and health secretary Patricia Hewitt should admit it. Meanwhile, denying treatment to people who have effectively paid into that service all their working lives would be legalised theft. But that wouldn't be a first for this government, would it?

Northern Ireland falls to the tobacco taliban

I was in Dublin the day that Ireland banned smoking in all enclosed public places; Edinburgh the day that Scotland did likewise; and Cardiff when Wales followed suit earlier this month. The prospect of being in Belfast to witness the surrender of Northern Ireland to the tobacco taliban was just too much so today I shall be commenting (on stations such as U105, Downtown Radio and BBC Radio Ulster) either from the comfort of our Cambridge office or our local, smoker-friendly pub.

To put today's events in perspective: it's not the end of the world but it does represent a small loss of liberty for a substantial number of people. Last week, in the Belfast Newsletter, Forest's Neil Rafferty summed up our position when he wrote: 

I'm sure many people in Northern Ireland think the smoking ban is a great idea. Finally, you can go to a pub without it smelling of smoke (although you'll now have the triple menace of flatulence, cheap aftershave and deep fat fryers). But do all the pubs and clubs have to be smoke-free? Why does every one have to be the same?

Of course many people do not like to be bothered by tobacco smoke and there is absolutely no reason why they should be. That's why Forest advocated a mixture of well-ventilated smoking and non-smoking venues so that everyone could have a choice - including bar workers. And we know the majority agree with us.

We're not saying that we want to turn the clock back to the era when smokers had it all their own way. But we do believe that everyone should have some measure of choice. That's what living in a free country is all about.

BTW, the smoking ban was one of the first issues that Sinn Fein and the Unionists actually agreed upon. Nice to know that smokers have, inadvertently, united those two warring factions.

Picture this: England's new national stadium

Yesterday I took my 12-year-old son to an U16 international at Wembley. To be frank, it was a slightly underwhelming experience. The game itself (England beat Spain 1-0) wasn't great and the new stadium - which looks and feels like many other new stadiums (albeit bigger) - was barely one third full so the atmosphere relied heavily on thousands of screaming children doing the Mexican wave at regular intervals.

What struck me most was not Norman Foster's arch but the list of articles we were not permitted to take into the ground. You can't avoid it, there are signs at every turnstile. Some items are fairly obvious: knives, fireworks, smoke canisters, flares, laser devices, bottles, glass vessels and poles (?!).  Others less so: cans and "any article that might be used as a weapon". This of course could mean anything - coins for example - so I advise anyone going to our national stadium to travel light with pockets empty of anything other than a hankerchief and a set of car keys (if you must).

Cameras are also on the banned list, hence my one and only rebellious act of the afternoon. Having smuggled in (under my jumper) my prized Fuji F810, I proceeded to join hundreds of other people taking pictures inside the stadium without an "appropriate licence". As evidence I reproduce the image above and ask for 15 other offences to be taken into consideration.

Toot, toot

Joe Taylor is a journalist based in Cornwall.  He previously worked for the Mail on Sunday and various local news agencies but has given it all up to develop a cartoon character called Toot The Smoking Sheep. (Yes, you read that correctly: Toot The Smoking Sheep.) In the run up to the smoking ban on July 1st, Joe is planning a 'Ban the Government' campaign, also featuring Toot, whose MySpace site can be found HERE. Meanwhile Joe has offered to develop a series of Toot-related cartoons for publication on the new Free Society website when it goes live next month. I think it's a great idea. But, please, no jokes about woolly thinking.

Update on Saturday, April 28, 2007 by Simon Clark

The sudden appearance of Forest patron Antony Worrall Thompson at Greengrass Farm puts Toot on the defensive. Click HERE.

The man from the Peru

Graham, "in cloudy Cornwall", reports that "The Peruvian Arms in Mount Street, Penzance, is  applying to the Peruvian government to establish themselves as a Peruvian embassy in Cornwall as they have  found out that Peruvian embassies allow smoking on the premises and are not under the jurisdiction of the UK  government!!!!" Apparently there was an item on the local BBC news last night. Good to see that at least one publican hasn't given up hope!

Britain's prohibition culture turns to drink

It gets worse. Alcohol Concern, "the national agency of alcohol misuse", not only wants a 16% rise in alcohol taxes, a crackdown on under-age alcohol sales, a further reduction in the drink-drive limit, a ban on alcohol advertising before the 9pm television watershed and non-18 certificate films in cinemas, it also wants parents who give alcohol to children aged under 15 to be PROSECUTED!! (Full story HERE.)

How such a law would be enforced, heaven only knows. Picture the scene: a warm summer's day; a family with three children is in the garden; everyone, including one set of grandparents, is seated at a table on the patio; dad (wearing shorts and a floppy cricket hat) is dishing out the meat, freshly cooked on the barbecue; mum (glad to be relieved of the cooking) is pouring out the drinks. The men are drinking beer; mum and gran have been given a bottle of chilled Chardonnay; the youngest child, aged 9, is offered a Diet Coke; the older children, aged 14 and 12, are each given a glass of wine, slightly diluted with water. Everyone is happy, laughing and chatting.

Suddenly they hear the front door bell, followed by a loud knock on the door. Before they can react two alcohol control officers burst through the garden gate and march purposefully towards the patio. "No-one move," barks the first officer. "We have received a tip-off. We have reason to believe you have committed a criminal offence. You don't have to say anything but anything your children drink may be used in evidence against you."

Public health minister Caroline Flint says she doesn't agree with the proposals but they all say that, at first. The fact that such a plan can be taken seriously (witness today's media coverage), rather than dismissed as the work of cranks and fanatics, shows how far our prohibition culture has come. The extreme agendas of groups like Alcohol Concern (and of course ASH) must be defeated if we want to live in a mature, civilised society. It's my view that things will get worse before they get better, but today's proposal to prosecute parents suggests an arrogant over-confidence that could prove to be their Achilles heel. Watch this space.

Scotland gets a wake up call

Ex-MSP Brian Monteith was in London yesterday promoting his new book Paying The Piper (Birlinn, £6.99). It's not what you might call a page-turner, but it's an important contribution to the political debate, especially in Scotland where social and economic liberals like Brian are an endangered species.

A member of the Scottish Parliament for eight years (1999-2007), Brian wants to confront the "collectivist consensus" that dominates Scottish politics and promote a "liberal open society". In particular, he makes the case for lower taxes, a single rate of income tax, the abolition of inheritance tax, less public spending and less regulation. He wants more "small government thinking", adding, "It requires brave politicians from all parties to turn their backs on yet more legislation that interferes with our personal lives and inhibits our economic growth."

Brian's views are summed up by Mark Twain who quipped, "What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax inspector? The taxidermist only takes your skin." Likewise Winston Churchill believed that, "For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." More recently, Ronald Reagan commented: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidise it."

Perhaps the most pertinent quote is an endorsement by Times columnist Matthew Parris who wrote: "Scots should wake up. Monteith is pointing the way back from extinction." Let's hope so.

Give us this day our Daily Mash

Good news for those of us who view the world through a sceptical lens, and even better news if you live in Scotland and fancy a local take on global issues.

The Daily Mash is a new satirical website featuring spoof news stories, comment and opinion. Each day it is updated by a team of writers led by journalists Neil Rafferty and Paul Stokes. Between them they have more than 35 years' professional writing experience. Rafferty has worked for the Press Association, Business AM and the Sunday Times. Stokes is a former columnist with Scotland on Sunday, the Daily Record and the Scotsman.

Rafferty is well known to Forest because he just happens to be our spokesman in Scotland. He is therefore perfectly placed to take the piss out of politicians and po-faced health campaigners. Stay tuned!

NICE idea - not!

I have been busy this morning doing a number of interviews in response to a proposal by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) who say that smokers should be allowed to attend clinics in working hours to help them quit. Full story, including my reaction, HERE and HERE. The only thing I would add to what I have already said is, what about people who are overweight - should they be given time off to attend fitness classes as well?

Update on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 by Simon Clark

I subsequently spent the afternoon in a dimly lit studio at BBC Television Centre conducting back-to-back interviews with 14 local radio stations. When I finished I was led, blinking, into the brightly lit News 24 studio to be interviewed by Huw Edwards. Very few people seem to support NICE's idea but a word of warning. On News 24 a representative of small business repeated, ad nauseum, that these proposals are for guidelines only, not legislation. How naive can you get! Government expects 'guidelines' to be obeyed; if people exercise choice (ie ignore the guidelines)  politicians tend to get miffed and, before you know it, what began as 'guidelines' are enforced through legislation. Unless, of course, we can persuade them otherwise.