Zoom without zoomers: the first virtual FMQs

Screenshot 2020-04-10 at 14.31.21

Do you Zoom?

You simply must. Everyone is Zooming these days. It’s the latest in video-conferencing techno-wizardry, allowing businesses to hold meetings with quarantined staff via webcams. At least now you can mute Dave from marketing when he starts on about onboarding diversification of core verticals. 

Now Holyrood is Zooming too. Yesterday, Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh hosted the first ever Virtual First Minister’s Questions. They told us the future would be jet packs and flying cars but it turns out to be Willie Rennie beamed into your front room in a highly unnerving close-up. 

VFMQs was an improvement on the old way of doing things, mostly because technological limits meant only the party leaders could take part. Instead, we got a 40-minute long FMQs without any questions from James Dornan or John Mason. Zoom without the zoomers. 

Macintosh, chairing from his office in Thornliebank, appeared alongside the party leaders in a six-way split screen that cut back and forth as each one spoke. If you’d ever wanted to see a remake of 24 set in Richard Leonard’s front room, here was your chance. Rennie and Patrick Harvie appeared from home, too, though Jackson Carlaw was being zapped in from his parliamentary office. (His butler wouldn’t let our sort through the door anyway.)

After wishing the Prime Minister a speedy recovery, Carlaw got down to brass tacks — or, rather, the lack of them. Had there been ‘effective distribution’ of Personal Protective Equipment? ‘So many people are still contacting directly to say they don’t have it,’ he pressed. 

‘I think we do now have an effective distribution in place,’ she told him, but couldn’t promise there wouldn’t be issues here and there. ‘I have got family on the frontline of the NHS and we all want to see these workers protected properly,’ she added. 

Next the Conservative leader asked why Sainsbury’s was still waiting on the full list of vulnerable people to be prioritised for online delivery slots. The First Minister replied that there were 136,000 in the so-called shielded group and all had received letters and texts about signing up. Just under 6,000 free food packages had been ordered and 4,200 had been delivered so far. 

Aware how tough times are for businesses, Carlaw asked why Scottish firms were promised UK funding would be passed on only for grants to be limited to one per business, rather than one per outlet as in England. Sturgeon maintain that her government was ‘thinking carefully about the support we’re giving to businesses’ but didn’t account for the broken promise.

With clear, methodical questioning, Carlaw had exposed three failings in the Scottish Government’s coronavirus response. He did so without political point-scoring, which made the points all the more powerful. 

He also got this stark but inevitable statement out of Sturgeon: ’There is no likelihood of these measures being lifted after the Easter weekend.’

Leonard ventured that immediate relatives of those in hospices could be tested to allow them to visit their loved ones. Sturgeon wasn’t unsympathetic but she pointed out, tactfully, that our limited testing capacity had to be deployed ‘strategically’ and that these tests only worked if a patient was already symptomatic. 

Willie Rennie, God love him, was his usual optimistic self, averring that everyone was taking the chance to exercise more. Sturgeon eyed him sceptically: ‘I’m willing to bet you are embracing your physical exercise responsibility more enthusiastically than the rest of us.’

The Lib Dem leader asked what provision had been made for NHS staff and carers given the toll of Covid-19 on their mental health. That’s another fallout we’ll be dealing with for years to come. 

The inaugural Virtual First Minister’s Questions gave us some insight into how politicians are handling the lockdown. It also gave us a chance for a nosey around their front rooms.

It turns out Patrick Harvie and I own the same bottle-green gourd vase. One of us will have to return it now. 


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.

Why the chief medical officer had to go

Screenshot 2020-04-06 at 12.33.26

Seldom has a public servant’s stock risen so sharply only to collapse so quickly.

For several weeks, Dr Catherine Calderwood was the public face of the Scottish Government’s response to Covid-19. In television ads urging us to ‘stay at home’, her beefy Belfast-by-way-of-Cambridge tones reassured a nervous populace with cool expertise. Scotland’s chief medical officer seemed made for a crisis and was managing this one with dedication and poise. 

Then came those photographs. It’s always baffling when the smartest people do the dumbest things, but we are all human and prone to mistakes. Dr Calderwood’s mistakes, however, made her position untenable. The First Minister told a press conference yesterday that she couldn’t do her job without the current chief medical officer, even though we now know she made two weekend jaunts to her holiday home while telling everyone else to stay indoors. 

Dr Calderwood made a litany of judgement errors and Nicola Sturgeon made a major one in standing by her. The chief medical officer failed to follow her own clinical advice. She twice put herself at risk of contracting the virus and spreading it both at her retreat in Fife and at St Andrew’s House when she next went into work. In doing so, she provoked a row that, without her resignation, would have distracted from the coronavirus fightback for some time.

The clinician’s most fundamental breach was hypocrisy. Scots will tolerate severe restrictions on their liberty when there is a sound public health basis, but not if those articulating the rules are privately flouting them. The snapshots of Dr Calderwood and her family ambling cheerfully along the Fife coast while the rest of the nation is in lockdown poked that throbbing nerve of resentment that there is one rule for the elites and another for the rest of us. You can’t have a chief medical officer who is so committed to staying at home that she can’t decide which one to stay in. 

The impression of a decision-making caste indemnified against their own decisions will only have been hardened by Jason Leitch’s defence of his colleague. The Scottish Government’s national clinical director told the BBC: ’Nobody knows those guidelines better than Catherine and the rest of us’. Catherine and the rest do know the rules; they just don’t seem to think they apply to them.

Dr Calderwood’s reckless ramble not only undermined all her previous good work, it imperilled the broad but shallow consent ministers have built up for the emergency restrictions put in place to slow transmission of Covid-19. These measures are extraordinary in their scope and unparalleled in peacetime. Families are barred from the bedsides of their dying loved ones, the dead denied the respect of a funeral service. If the chief medical officer gets an exemption to pop up to her rural bolthole, why shouldn’t the rest of us get exemptions to visit elderly parents or take cooped-up kids for a day at the beach? 

This is our second reminder in a week of how fragile is the social contract haphazardly thrown together for the age of coronavirus. The Scottish Government’s proposal to suspend the right to trial by jury, wedged into the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill, had to be hastily yanked back out after lawyers and opposition leaders balked.

The new coronavirus contract between the state and the citizen is this: the government will take far-reaching action to safeguard your health, public services, job or business but in return you must accept equally far-reaching infringements on your personal freedoms. As the backlash against jury suspensions made clear, this compact is not without parameters. Government has its red lines and so does the public. 

I have been thinking a lot in recent days about the political philosophy classes I took at university more years ago than I am prepared to disclose. When we came to study the limits of liberty, professors and students alike were always concerned with freedom of speech or belief or association. These were the personal rights that went to the core of what it meant to be a human being. Even though the Human Rights Act’s guarantee of ‘freedom of peaceful assembly’ was qualified by exceptions for ‘public safety’ and ‘the protection of health’, few of us could imagine a scenario in which our movements would be restricted for long periods. 

Two weeks of lockdown is worth two dozen volumes of political theory. The freedom to move, to gather, to socialise and to interact with others is as intrinsic to the human experience as the right to have your say on religion, protest a law or join a union. Whether you live in a sprawling country pile or an inner-city high rise, there is a yearning that goes beyond mere restlessness to be outdoors, around nature and people, enjoying the fresh air and being in control of where you go and when.

For now most of us are prepared to have these freedoms stymied in the interests of public health. But the longer lockdown continues, the more frayed tempers will get and the thinner people’s patience will wear. 

Hardyal Dhindsa, Derbyshire’s police and crime commissioner, warned a Sunday newspaper of the danger of ‘isolation fatigue’. He said: ‘In this early phase of isolation, people’s awareness is quite high, but the longer it goes on, people’s frustration at not being able to do what they want to will grow. The real test will be in two or three weeks’ time. How long can we keep a lockdown going?’

Isolation fatigue will especially afflict the under-40s, who represent one per cent of fatalities, but are as stringently under lockdown as those 80 and over, who account for 53 per cent of deaths. Some are already beginning to question why their lives must be put on hold, and the pictures from London parks confirm that a number of young people are openly disregarding social distancing. 

Their behaviour is selfish, callous and irresponsible but in the coming weeks and months their attitude could spread to others. In those circumstances, the task of policing the quarantine and therefore halting the progress of coronavirus could prove too much for the authorities to handle. 

If times of emergency remind us of the limits of liberty, they also lay bare the limits of the state’s coercive powers. Chief constables across the UK are getting their names in the papers by issuing tough-sounding statements about zero-tolerance for those breaking the rules, but every one of them knows that even a modest outbreak of non-compliance would quickly overwhelm policing capacity. 

The late French theorist Louis Althusser, a Marxist, fretted that the police formed part of a ‘repressive state apparatus’ upholding the rule of capitalist ideology over the working classes. Louis, you should be alive today. Now it’s the rozzers’ job to keep the shops closed and the workers at home. Yet the plain fact is that, far from repressive, the police simply lack the numbers to quell multiple incidents of mass disobedience. If it gets to that, things could take an ugly turn quite quickly. 

This is why public consent is and must remain the basis for the lockdown and any further restrictions on individual freedom. It is imperative that the people trust those in charge, be willing to follow their instructions, and feel that measures are being taken solely in their interests and for the well-being of the wider community. There must be no opportunism, no power trips and no heavy-handedness. We really are all in this together. 

There must also be no double standards. The rules must apply to everyone, including those who set them. The chief medical officer not only endangered public health, she will have encouraged the UK Government to consider harsher still burdens on our personal liberty. The anger such measures would kindle could ignite in disobedience and disorder that makes coronavirus even deadlier. It is right that Dr Calderwood has resigned but now Nicola Sturgeon will have to explain why she stood by her. 


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.

How Sturgeon defended then dumped her chief medical officer

Screenshot 2020-04-06 at 12.38.58

Her resignation came eventually, late last night, but until then Dr Catherine Calderwood had intended to continue in post.

On Sunday, as she arrived for the daily briefing on coronavirus, there was one question on everyone’s lips: Is there a doctor in the house, and which house is she in? 

This was no routine check-up. The chief medical officer was facing the cameras for the first time since photographs emerged of her enjoying a jolly weekend at her holiday home in the middle of the Covid outbreak. No wonder you can never get a doctor’s appointment these days. 

Before her arrival, Dr Calderwood had already been defended, then forced to apologise, had the wagons circled around her, and the Old Bill at the door. On social media, members of the public were giving her their second opinion — and third and fourth and many more. They were stuck at home watching Escape to the Country, she was out doing it. The doctor’s patients had some bad news for her: they wanted her gone.

Then, at 2.30 pm, she filed into the briefing room at the recommended distance behind the Health Secretary and the First Minister. Each took her place at an assigned podium. Jeane Freeman looked relaxed and was silent throughout. When the brickbats are flying in someone else’s direction, keep your head down and thank your good luck.

Along a little the First Minister peered grimly at the sheet of journalists’ names. There were a dozen or so down to grill the woman standing to her right.

Dr Calderwood also stared at a piece of paper, giving one last read to whatever apology had been drafted for her by the spin doctors. The medic appeared calm given the circumstances. That kind of composure can make you look in charge; it can also make you look aloof. Aloof, when ICU admissions and death tolls were about to be read out. There was no chance of this going well. 

The First Minister announced those totals but for once the figures — almost 200 in intensive care, 220 dead overall — did not send the reporters into a frenetic burst of keyboard-jabbing. All waited for the story for which they were beaming in via video link-up.

The time came for Sturgeon to address the elephant two metres away from her. The chief medical officer had ‘made a mistake’ — ‘she was wrong and she knows that’. Sturgeon trained her eye on the invisible audience before her. Her features were drawn, as though her facial fury muscles had experienced a thorough workout in the past 12 hours. 

Whatever rage she felt at Dr Calderwood’s weekend walkabout, Sturgeon stood by her. ‘Her advice and expertise have been invaluable to me and continue to be so,’ she averred. ‘I need her to be able to focus on the job that she is doing,’ the First Minister continued, a job she said Dr Calderwood was doing ‘extremely well’. A bold performance evaluation given the circumstances but Sturgeon must have figured that losing her top health adviser in the middle of a pandemic would have hurt her more than putting up with some disobliging headlines for a few days. That calculation now looks naive, ill-conceived and frankly political. 

When we got to hear from Dr Calderwood herself, her countenance was serious and a hint of a tremor entered her voice once but emotion was minimal. She began by stating that she had done this before — twice in ten days. All her weeks of effort against coronavirus seemed to evaporate in an instant. Florence Nightingale had turned into Typhoid Mary.

Dr Calderwood spoke the language of remorse in the flat, steady tone of a printer. She regurgitated some of the comments directed at her on Twitter: ‘People are calling me a hypocrite, people have told me that I’m irresponsible and that I have behaved as if my advice does not apply to me.’ 

‘I am sorry and it will not happen again,’ she whirred. It was ‘a fundamental mistake’; ‘I cannot justify it,’ she buzzed. 

Sturgeon attempted to spin the incident as a teachable moment about how the rules applied to everyone, including the chief medical officer. This was red meat to ITV News’s Peter Smith, who tore into Dr Calderwood in a terrier-like interrogation: ’You may have the confidence of the First Minister but I would put it to you that the majority of this country has lost confidence in you. We need a leader, an expert that we can believe in. So why on Earth do you think you can be the public face of a message to stay home, protect the NHS and save lives?’

For the first time, Calderwood looked a little shaken, but the printer just fed out the same lines. Sturgeon was visibly irate. But a chief medical officer who jaunts off to the seaside more often than Judith Chalmers while keeping the rest of us under quarantine had forfeited the public’s confidence. She had to go and finally she did.

But this row isn’t over. Sturgeon said she couldn’t do her job without Calderwood’s counsel. What conclusions are the public to draw from that? 


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.

Businesses must distance themselves from coronavirus capitalism


Coronavirus is showing the best and worst of British business.

We have all heard the stories: some firms are being responsible and decent while others are treating the deadly pandemic as business-as-usual or even a chance to lay off workers at short notice. I doubt I’m the only one who won’t be forgetting which firms rolled up their sleeves and put country first and which acted like spivs and scuzzballs. 

First, let’s hear it for those doing the right thing. Hospitality giant Whitbread, which owns Premier Inn, Beefeater and Brewers Fayre, has pledged to keep all its staff on full pay until the Chancellor’s 80 per cent salary scheme kicks in.

Former Manchester United defender Gary Neville has closed his two hotels to the public and turned them over to NHS staff, all the while keeping his own employees in work. Chelsea FC is doing something similar with the Millennium Hotel, the lodgings house it runs at Stamford Bridge. Coffee chain Costa is guaranteeing its staff eight weeks’ pay.

Then there are the unacceptable faces of capitalism. Take Mike Ashley, a one-man argument for trade unions. The billionaire owner of Sports Direct tried to keep his shops open by passing them off an an ‘essential service’ before being forced to back down and profess himself ‘deeply apologetic’ after a backlash.

Last week ITV News obtained a list of price changes at Ashley’s stores that saw some items soar by £10 and £20, with one branch manager accusing the business of ‘price-gouging’, something parent group Frasers denied. 

Then there’s Tim Martin, the Wetherspoons tycoon who said employees of the low-price pub chain would not be paid until Rishi Sunak’s furlough payments came through. Martin, who should sue Harry Enfield’s Loadsamoney for copyright infringement, was similarly compelled to retreat once his remarks were made public, though not before he had suggested his workers take a job at Tesco if the opportunity arose. 

Elsewhere, the GMB union accused online clothing retailer ASOS, which remains open, of having ‘thousands of people under one roof’ and ‘not enforcing social distancing’, describing the situation as ‘disgusting’ and looking ‘exactly like a hot bed of infection’. ASOS rejected the union’s characterisation, saying it ‘typically’ has 500 staff working in its facility and has ‘strict social distancing protocols in place’.

Unite has urged whisky producer Diageo to halt operations at its Scottish plants, contending that ‘hundreds of people are working beside each other for hours a day and then travelling home often on public transport to their families’. Diageo claims it has put in place ‘strict safety protocols which go beyond government guidelines’. Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says his office has received complaints about 150 companies in the city not observing social distancing rules. 

Capitalism gets a bad enough rap as it is. Marx wrote that ‘one capitalist always kills many’ and, as if to oblige, Hollywood has supplied a century of cigar-chomping industrialists who brutalise their workers and poison their customers and even the odd commodities trader with a sideline in serial-killing.

Folk singers from Woody Guthrie to Bruce Springsteen have strummed their guitars to the laments of working men who found themselves on the wrong side of the American Dream. It was left to Eighties new wave ensemble Oingo Boingo to protest that ‘there’s nothing wrong with capitalism’ — unless you’re ‘a middle-class socialist brat… and you never really had to work’. 

There is plenty wrong with capitalism but nowhere near as much as its critics charge. Capital and property are distributed unevenly but every revolution to reallocate them ‘fairly’ has ended with much less to go around. All revolutionaries travel the same road: first they rail against the wealth-hoarders, then they overthrow the wealth-hoarders, then they become the wealth-hoarders.

Where it has been granted an untrammelled run, socialism has not redistributed resources from the haves to the have-nots — it has redistributed membership of the haves from one elite to another. Meanwhile capitalism, maligned as selfish and uncaring, has done more to lift billions worldwide out of poverty than any other system or idea. 

That is why it is galling to see some British businesses play into the hands of those who would exploit this moment to push crude economic populism. At times of acute crisis, free-market economics come under acute threat. When people are afraid, they fear their precarious situation and resent being made to feel precarious in the first place. The quick, brutal remedies of state power, assuaging their anxieties with a soothing promise that the government will take care of them, become infinitely more appealing than in normal times. 

These are not normal times. Families are on lockdown while an invisible killer stalks outside. Many have only a few days’ supplies but find supermarket shelves barren when they venture out to restock. They are worried for their loved ones, their jobs and the roof over their heads. The sight of straight-to-video Gordon Gekkos trying to make a fast buck while oozing contempt for the plight of the rest of the us incenses them. Some of the worst-behaved companies might find themselves staring down a boycott if they don’t get their act together. 

While the Great British public follow the government’s advice to pull the country through this crisis, they expect firms that call Britain home to do the same. Yes, you can enjoy access to a customer base of 67 million people and some of the most favourable corporate tax rates in Europe but in return you are expected to do your bit when times are tough. A little bit of patriotism wouldn’t go amiss given the circumstances. The national interest trumps self-interest. 

Capitalism deserves more representatives like Whitbread and Gary Neville and fewer Mike Ashleys and Tim Martins. Markets have no innate moral code; they are just a mechanism for exchanging goods and services for payment. To prove their merit in times of calamity as well as times of plenty, they need to be guided by men and women who appreciate more than just the bottom line. There is such a thing as compassionate, responsible capitalism and it is needed now more than ever. 

A skim through the history books tells you that eruptions of social and economic tumult are usually followed by sharp divisions of politics into the far fringes of the Left and Right. You could be forgiven for thinking we’ve seen all the populism there is to see in recent years but you would be mistaken.

There is fear and rage out there and wherever they are, demagogues are seldom far behind. If the UK emerges from this situation with mass unemployment, it will get the politics of mass unemployment: big government, high taxes and public ownership. Every company that acts like a caricature of capitalism will bring us closer to a government that is a caricature of socialism. 

Jeremy Corbyn slinked off last week after four and a half years of his pious miserablism reduced the Labour Party to its lowest point in 85 years. The British public rejected him in December but would they have rejected him this December, or the December after?

I like to think so but there will be other, more effective Corbyns, characters unburdened by his weaknesses and gifted an electorate that knows desperation like no other since the war. Keeping people in jobs and in their homes keeps them from the clutches of men like Corbyn and safeguards the economy from the ideological vengeance they would wreak on it given the chance. 

Businesses are doing it tough and even the most well-intentioned chief executives don’t have bottomless pockets but the chancers and the charlatans, those who line their pockets while sowing needless human misery, will reap terrible consequences for everyone.

Now is the time for the private sector to practise socialist distancing: embrace compassionate capitalism to keep the alternative as far away as possible. 


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.ukImage by wendy julianto from Pixabay

What next for Alex Salmond?

It is an iron law of Scottish politics: never write off Alex Salmond.

The former First Minister’s acquittal by a jury on a series of sexual assault charges brings to an end what he described as a ‘nightmare’.

The political fallout, however, is still to come. Joanna Cherry, a senior Nationalist at Westminster, said: ‘It goes without saying that Mr Salmond must be allowed to rejoin the party without delay, if that is what he wishes to do, and that his place in the party’s history must be restored to the prominence it deserves.’

Readmission to the SNP would represent just the beginning. Consequences there will be and they will be relentless.

The allegations against Mr Salmond were first reported in August 2018 and when they hit, they rocked Scottish politics and public life. He had been a fixture for three decades and the most powerful man in the country for seven years.

A divisive figure, to be sure, but one with a substantial body of admirers who extolled his virtues as a patriot and a leader. They could not – would not – believe the claims against him.

Those claims were lodged with the Scottish Government in January of that year and involved two female members of staff who accused Mr Salmond of inappropriate conduct five years earlier during his tenure in Bute House.

He vigorously denied the accusations and sought a judicial review of the government’s internal inquiry into him. Before the Court of Session could render a judgment, the Scottish Government conceded that it had acted unlawfully.

This represented an ‘abject surrender’ in Mr Salmond’s estimation and he was awarded more than £500,000 in legal costs.

The former Nationalist leader, now outside the party, next came under the scrutiny of a police inquiry, which led to him being charged with 14 sexual offences, one of which was attempted rape. One charge would later be dropped. Mr Salmond vowed to clear his name and now he has.

A great deal of pain and anguish has fallen upon a great many people. The women who came forward and gave evidence in court have been through a nightmare too. While we survey the political terrain in the approaching distance, we should not lose sight of the wretched human toll of these past two years.

As Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged yesterday, ‘there will be further discussion around this issue in due course’.

However, Ms Cherry’s remarks went to the heart of the matter: ‘This verdict of acquittal is the culmination of two very lengthy investigations by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland and two court cases.

‘In both cases, Mr Salmond has been vindicated and serious questions now arise about the background to these cases especially given the considerable sums of public money which have been expended.’

How this came about, what happened behind closed doors, and whether those in authority acquitted themselves fittingly will be the subject of intense scrutiny.

Mr Salmond believes he was the target of a conspiracy, telling journalists: ‘There is evidence I would have liked to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we were not able to do so. At some point that information will see the light of day.’

There is already a parliamentary inquiry in train at Holyrood and Ms Cherry’s call for an internal investigation into the SNP’s handling of the matter will not be a lonely one. Already, former Scottish Government Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has urged ‘resignations’.

For Mr Salmond, rebuilding his public reputation will be a priority and he may indeed decide to re-enter the political arena. Like it or not, the verdict entitles him to do so. The man’s politics do not come into this and nor does his abrasive personality. He may be a boor and a demagogue. He may be, as he conceded, ‘no saint’. But the law says he is not a criminal and we must accept its verdict.

As far as his political career is concerned, Mr Salmond has two options: rejoin the SNP or form a new party. The former is the likelier, for he has dedicated his life to the party he has led twice (so far).

However, readmitting him poses grave danger for Nicola Sturgeon. She is a creature of his success, the protégée he mentored. He is the man who made her deputy First Minister, who put her in charge of the campaign for independence, and who ultimately handed her the crown. She is in large part where she is because he put her there.

The question is whether Mr Salmond still considers her a loyal ally. Cleared in court, his status as a hero to the SNP grassroots will only be polished more brightly. He may now choose to return to Holyrood, either by convincing a friendly backbencher to resign or by clinching selection for a seat ahead of the 2021 election. There he could serve as party elder, providing Miss Sturgeon with counsel and political reinforcements. Or he could decide to take back what he gifted to her.

It is no secret, however, that their relationship has been strained. The second option, then, is more plausible – grimly plausible for Miss Sturgeon’s political future. She already finds herself on the wrong side of the party base. She has promised to deliver a second referendum on Scexit time and again. Time and again, she has failed to do so.

She has neglected to translate Brexit and Boris Johnson’s unpopularity north of the Border into a solid majority for secession. She has led her men to the edges of the battlefield only to retreat so many times that some want the old general back.

Biding his time until coronavirus is under control and, crucially, until the Holyrood probe into the Sturgeon government would shield Mr Salmond from charges of opportunism. It would also allow him to assemble the sharpest team and plan his next moves.

The old king holds all the cards and he will deal them at the optimal moment.


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk. Feature image © Scottish Government by Creative Commons 2.0.

Hope and despair in the Age of Corona

hands-4934590_1920It’s been ten days since I left the house.

I developed a dry cough while visiting my parents and have been self-isolating in my teenage bedroom, surrounded by hand sanitiser and Backstreet Boys posters. I waited for the other dread symptoms to follow — fever, shallow breathing, loss of taste and smell — but so far none have. Probably just the old asthma playing up again. 

There is a perverse disappointment in this: the quicker I got it, I reasoned, the faster I could be back on my feet and able to look after my parents. Both are cursed with underlying conditions, as am I. I am well aware of what this means. 

Isolation is nothing new. Clinical anxiety is a constant companion and one that jealously keeps me indoors for long stretches. Now the rest of the world is having a panic attack but this doesn’t make it any easier. When you are off-kilter you envy everyone else their even-keel but you also draw solace from it. 

Yesterday morning, I ventured out to the front step to write this. What does the outside world look like? At once familiar and uncanny, a pedestrian scene without pedestrians. Crows still congregate in the three barren oaks on the hill across the way, but now they go undisturbed by smartly-dressed ladies on their way to church or heathen husbands on a pilgrimage for bacon rolls and back pages. 

Family saloons usually on manoeuvres in the war zones of Ikea and B&Q lie decommissioned in driveways. Back street league fixtures have been called off, a mercy for garden fences and garage doors but I secretly miss the reassuring thump of vulcanised rubber.

Glory be to God for humdrum things: the pneumatic gulps of the bin man’s lorry, the dutiful footfall of the postman on slab steps, even for the junk mail and gas bills he brings.

What was mundane days ago is unimaginable now. No more popping down the pub, no more nattering with Tariq, the local newsagent, who sells you the paper and provides his commentary on the headlines for free. How fragile our lives turned out to be, how ill-founded the certainties of modernity. 

Medical science had a pill for everything but it has nothing for this. We are not invincible after all. The reach of technology is straining and with it our illusory superpowers: summoning taxis and takeaways at the tap of an app no longer seems so appealing. 

The open society struggles against a virus that turns our openness against us and hijacks our interconnected world as a transport network for its spike proteins. Cheap flights and city breaks are over and the airliners that offer them might be too.

Economic migration will crater — Australia and New Zealand have already closed their borders — though the prospect of Covid-19 refugees looms down the line as developed nations acquire vaccines that the developing world will struggle to afford or administer. Social distancing means one giant frustrated swipe left on dating apps. Coronavirus will do more to curtail casual sex than Aids or Mary Whitehouse.

Glumly, repressive states have been more effective at containment than free ones. Russia has a population 232 times the size of Luxembourg but only a third as many cases. Israel only has four times the population of Gaza but 500 times the recorded infections. True, authoritarian regimes are probably massaging the figures but the contrast is still stark.

Here in the UK, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have assumed the roles of Good Cop and Bad Cop. Rishi Sunak has announced state intervention in the economy that would have made Nye Bevan blanche. First, there was his £350billion bailout for businesses, then his pledge to pay up to 80 per cent of the salary of any employee unable to work because of the outbreak.

The Chancellor is under pressure to extend this coverage to freelancers; meanwhile the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that even if just 10 per cent use the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, it will cost the Treasury £10billion over three months. Now, Sunak has unveiled a £1,000 boost to the Universal Credit payment for the coming 12 months, at a price tag of £7billion. 

Boris Johnson has found himself as the Dirty Harry of this crisis: Go ahead, punk; wash your hands. As Sunak gets to dole out the carrots, the Prime Minister must wield the stick. It falls to him to urge pubs and restaurants to close and soon it will fall to him to order them to do so.

Today Parliament will debate sweeping new emergency powers that will allow the police and public health officials to detain anyone they suspect of being infected, force them to isolate and levy fines of £1,000 if they fail to comply. The government says such powers are necessary as long as there remains a ‘serious and imminent threat to public health’.

This is a Britain that could not have come from the pen of even the most dystopian of science fiction novelists. The measures announced — and there will be more and more drastic ones — are an indication of the gravity of the moment. This is not a bad flu outbreak; this is the close of one way of life and the opening of another. 

Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter to Ronald Reagan, observed after the September 11 attacks: ‘It was the end of a world, the drowning of illusions… the end of the assumptions that ease and plenty will continue forever’. The Age of Corona is pulling our illusions under, too. The easy and plentiful times that seemed like they would last forever are over. Now a cough can kill a loved one and a thriving business can collapse overnight. 

In the Age of Corona, we will be more circumspect, less confident, perhaps even more humble. We will certainly become more dependent on government and more obedient of authority. The Chancellor’s measures, in the round, seem wise and necessary but this suddenly inflated Leviathan will be difficult to cut back down to size. Once whetted, our appetite for big government will become harder to sate.  

The Prime Minister’s measures, in the round, seem wise and necessary, too. I bow to no one in my civil libertarianism but, as Thomas Jefferson argued: ‘The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger are of higher obligation.’ Or as the American jurist Arthur Goldberg put it, while a constitution ‘protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact’. 

The duty to preserve life and public order make these new powers imperative but MPs from Left and Right are being reasonable in asking for a sunset clause to keep them under parliamentary scrutiny. Whether they succeed or not, the state will likely prove as reluctant to surrender its stick as the public will be to return their carrot. Those of us fortunate enough to survive will be living in a country with a bigger state and less freedom but we will at least be living. 

Dark days lie ahead but spot the glimmers of hope, too, for they shine with the promise of human potential and perseverance. The Israelis and the Australians are working on a vaccine; the Americans and the Chinese are already testing early prototypes. The world’s finest perfumeries Givenchy and Christian Dior have switched to producing hydroalcoholic  hand gel. Fashion designers Christian Siriano and Dov Charney are turning their talents from high couture to surgical masks. 

Coronavirus will change the world but it will not end it. On the other side there will be industries to rebuild and new ones to found where the old ones cannot be revived. Innovations will ensure we are better prepared for the next crisis and future technology will offer solutions just beyond our grasp today. Families will put themselves back together, mourning those they have lost and welcoming new members around their hearths. We have succumbed to the Age of Corona for now but not forever. 


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.

How Coronavirus could change everything


History turns as much by chance as by design.

For every meticulously planned revolution, there is the daring shot that triggers a world war. The coronavirus pandemic is more than a medical emergency; it is a contagion that will spread to every cell and tissue of our lives. The way we live is going to change drastically in the coming months but the transformations could end up outlasting the virus itself. 

There are obvious alterations we will have to make. Gym-goers will have to content themselves with a brisk jog round the local park. Takeaway aficionados will have to rummage around for that old Delia Smith cookbook they got for Christmas years ago and teach themselves how to boil an egg. Like it or not, you will have to forgo pubs, clubs and cinemas in favour of — brace yourselves — spending time with your loved ones. Romantics predict a coronavirus baby boom; I suspect divorce lawyers will do a rare trade too. 

These are mere minor irritations. Coronavirus will disrupt the very assumptions upon which much of modern life rests. Individualism, personal choice, free movement, convenient consumption, universal healthcare and a passive state — each will be significantly tested or upturned. Lives and money are what matter most and what concentrate minds in Downing Street. 

Values hitherto seen as immovable will shift abruptly out of necessity and survival instincts. There could not be a more illustrative example than the latest pronouncement of a senior Iranian cleric. Iran does not recognise Israel — except when it is threatening the destruction of ‘the Zionist entity’ — and its citizens may not openly trade with Jerusalem. However, Israel’s legendary medical research labs are reported to be working on a coronavirus vaccine. So, last Wednesday Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi declared that, while it is ‘not permissible to buy and sell from Zionists’, an exception would be made if they produced an antidote to the infection. The pandemic has forced Tehran to recalibrate its priorities: Death to Israel (terms and conditions apply). 

In the UK, priorities will also be recalibrated. There is going to be a sustained period in which the NHS will not function as we know it. GP appointments will be done via Skype and Facetime; elective and even some non-elective surgeries will be postponed; patients will be urged to attend Accident & Emergency in only the most urgent scenarios. If this spurs us to recognise our over reliance on the health service, some of these behaviours might carry over to post-coronavirus Britain. Video appointments could become the norm, allowing patients to consult their GP without having to travel across town to the surgery. The graphic reality of misuse of A&E could prompt some soul-searching about what constitutes an emergency, though government would have to meet patients half way by giving more responsibilities to pharmacists and building more minor injuries units. 

We are also embarking on the biggest ever experiment in remote working. In many sectors, physical workplaces are an anachronism thanks to advances in technology and the availability of wifi and high-speed broadband. The workplace meeting can be replaced by the video conference, the cluttered desk and broken chair by a comfy sofa. Firms could reduce overheads such as rent, utilities and furniture and use messaging apps to keep track of progress and troubleshoot any problems. 

According to the TUC, more than four million Britons already work from home but a further four million would like the option. Understandably, some employers would be resistant on the assumption that at-home workers are less productive, but research shows the opposite. Employees appreciate the trust and freedom — as well as skipping stressful commutes — and report higher levels of motivation and productivity. Remote working isn’t just good for your staff’s wellbeing — it’s good for your bottom line, too.

Moving to remote working could also play a meaningful role in the fight against climate change. Research shows that Britons spend on average 10.5 days a year commuting to work and that, by doubling the number of remote workers by 2025, CO2 emissions could be dramatically slashed. In Scotland alone, it would mean the average person creating 1,248kg less CO2 every year. Save the planet, work from home. 

Science and technology won’t be our only saviours in this crisis. A return to lapsed values including respect, neighbourliness and compassion would go some way to easing this public health emergency. Grim though it is that it would take such an event, but the imminent deaths of a significant number of elderly people may traumatise us into rethinking our attitudes towards the over-65s. Scarcely a referendum or election goes by now without embittered activists from the losing side stigmatising older voters and even taking succour in their impending demise. 

On social media, Generation Z has rebranded Covid-19 ‘Boomer Remover’, a provocation that would carry more force if it weren’t issued by people who begin weeping when anyone calls a virus that originated in Wuhan the ‘Wuhan virus’. The reality has not yet dawned on post-millennials that their grandparents are the boomers who will be removed. 

If anything positive comes of this virus, it might mark an end to our callousness towards senior citizens and a revival of respect and social responsibility. Neighbourliness used to be popping round with a cup of sugar or taking in next door’s children after school. Today, there are stories of neighbourhoods in London where younger residents are using WhatsApp to coordinate grocery and medicine drop-offs for elderly neighbours. Total strangers are drawing up rotas for checking up on vulnerable locals and those who live alone. Neighbours are sharing hygiene supplies and keeping each other updated on the latest health advice. 

Trends in population, housing, income and attitudes have made for a more fragmented Britain but coronavirus is already rekindling an old-fashioned spirit of community and reminding us that we have a moral duty to others. 

By coincidence, the rabbi and philosopher Lord Sacks has a new book out, Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times. It is about the virtue of a ‘we’ society in the age of ‘I’. Asked last week if his book was pertinent to the impact of coronavirus, Lord Sacks said: ‘If we purchase our freedom at the cost of someone else’s, the result is not freedom. So I think coronavirus is going to test our capacity to work for the benefit of others. This situation of putting up with personal inconveniences for the sake of public safety is going to challenge and force us to realise that selfishness is not going to protect us.’

Selfishness won’t protect us; indeed, it will only make things worse. The more the fit and healthy panic-buy loo rolls and hand gel, the more sick and elderly people will contract the virus, the more the contagion will spread, the more pressure it will put on services, and the more prolonged the outbreak will be. It’s a vicious cycle, and a heartless one too. We are social beings, not just matter in motion. 

Ostensibly, coronavirus seems like a corrective to globalisation and free movement of people and goods. If we didn’t have relatively open borders, some may argue, this contagion would never have spread. This is wishful thinking. Deadly diseases swept the world long before the Common Market or the invention of the airplane. In fact, coronavirus makes the case for more globalisation, more trade and more opening up. 

In the naive Nineties, drunk on technology and optimism, we told ourselves the world was getting smaller thanks to global trade and instant communication. In fact, the world has grown more divergent and only the circles in which we travel have shrunk. We have retreated into tribes, online and offline, and cultures and identities have become hopelessly fractured. An event like coronavirus may make us fear a wide open world but it reminds us too that trade, cooperation, sharing knowledge and global neighbourliness are the way forward. 

The state will be more active in the next few months than we have seen it in generations. We would be wise to keep a watchful eye on such developments but for now coronavirus has paralysed party politics and put the national interest ahead of partisan positioning. Politicians will be no less ruthless, ambitious or self-serving but they will have to tame their instincts and pursue the common good for the time being. Lives and money depend on it. 


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.

SNP risks tearing itself apart over trans rights


One of the biggest dangers for a political party is to get too fond of talking to itself.

That might not be a problem for the SNP, since so many of them are barely on speaking terms these days. Scotland’s ruling party is having an ugly, public falling out over ‘gender identity’, of all things. That might seem an obscure dividing line but it is a furious one and it has opened up at the worst possible time for Nicola Sturgeon. 

There are two main camps in this dispute: transgender activists, who want the law changed to allow ‘self-identification’, and gender-critical feminists, who are sceptical of such a move. Nor is this rupture limited to grassroots activists: as the Scottish Daily Mail reported last week, MPs Joanna Cherry and Mhairi Black had a ‘blazing row’ at a recent parliamentary group meeting.

Rows over ‘gender identity’ are also  tearing the Labour Party apart, but disunity is nothing new there. In the SNP in recent years, this kind of factionalism has been unheard of, and is worrying for a leadership already struggling to placate activists over the failure to deliver another independence referendum. 

For those not au fait with gender theory, this debate can feel like a tornado of acronyms and assertions, bearing down ominously until you agree to stop asking questions and quietly acquiesce. The twin British impulses of politeness and wanting a quiet life conspire to make many keep their heads down to avoid saying the wrong thing or being branded ‘phobic’ towards something they were barely aware of until recently. 

This is not a helpful environment in which to debate changing the law on something as fundamental as what makes a woman or a man. In Scotland right now, there are two main articles of policy at issue. 

First are the Scottish Government’s proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act that will end the current procedure for obtaining a gender recognition certificate, in which you must receive a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and live as the opposite gender for two years. In its place would come a laxer system of self-identification, in which individuals can obtain a certificate without medical involvement. Instead, they need only declare themselves to be transgender and live in their preferred gender for six months.

The second issue is the 2021 census. The National Records of Scotland wants to include guidance that individuals can fill out the sex question according to what they consider their ‘gender identity’ to be rather than their birth sex. 

Transgender activists say the Gender Recognition Act must be changed because requiring a medical diagnosis before someone is deemed to have ‘transitioned’ is demeaning. They believe that an anatomically male person is a woman if he identifies and lives as one, and therefore must be afforded the same rights and services as a woman. As to the census, trans campaigners claim it would be humiliating to demand people answer with a sex which they do not feel they belong to. 

On the other side are a group of feminists who argue that gender is just a jumble of myths and stereotypes about how men and women should behave. There is no right or wrong way to be male or female, they maintain, and question whether those who believe they were ‘born in the wrong body’ are simply judging themselves against meaningless social conventions about how men and women should behave.

Gender-critical feminists warn that allowing men to self-identify as women risks collapsing women as a distinct group, undermining their sex-based rights under the Equality Act and compromising protected spaces designed to keep women safe.

Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, a group of feminist public policy experts, fear that weakening the census sex question puts Scotland ‘at risk of losing meaningful data on a key demographic variable used by policy-makers and statisticians’. The journalist Caroline Criado-Perez has argued in her book Invisible Women that not collecting data on women properly can have negative, even deadly, consequences. 

The debate over these legislative and policy alterations is utterly vicious. Feminists have been vilified on social media, had their meetings disrupted, and been physically threatened and attacked. Academics have been turned on by their colleagues and ‘deplatformed’ from university debates because they espouse the wrong views. Selina Todd, Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, was recently uninvited from the Oxford International Women’s Festival after pressure from trans activists. 

The SNP too has been riven by bitter infighting. For journalists, it is jarring to see a party that operates on iron discipline stand by while female members, including MPs and MSPs, are abused from within the party’s ranks. 

It has certainly taught me a surprising new respect for Joan McAlpine, who was the first to speak out and urge caution about the proposed changes. She has been subjected to an avalanche of the nastiest, most personal bile on social media, much of it unrepeatable on a lavatory wall let alone the pages of a national newspaper. Shockingly, some of it has come from members and supporters of her own party, yet she has held her ground admirably and without resorting to the rhetoric of those demonising her. 

For a party failing so starkly to deliver on bread-and-butter issues like health and education, there is a last-days-of-Rome decadence to an internal conflict many voters would mistake for a Monty Python sketch. NHS queues are teeming with patients waiting long beyond ‘legally binding’ targets and the Nationalists are at each others’ throats over whether a woman can have a penis. It is the theatre of the absurd posing as a governing party.  

For the tiny fraction of the population affected by gender dysphoria, it is essential that their rights continue to be protected and their services provided. It is vital too that they are treated with respect and compassion. The law already does this but where reform might be required, it should be considered carefully, with cool heads and as part of a reasonable ordering of priorities.  

The SNP does not exist to legislate abstract gender theory or to redefine what it means to be a woman. It exists to achieve independence for Scotland. I would quite happily see the Nationalists spend their remaining time in government bickering over male and female pronouns because I have their worst interests at heart. 

What an increasing number of SNP members struggle to understand is why Nicola Sturgeon is willing to burn up her political capital to advance a contentious marginal agenda but not to further the independence cause by challenging the UK Government in court or organising a unilateral referendum. 

So far we have seen skirmishes in the Nationalist gender conflict but they threaten to break into civil war if the leadership is not careful. The SNP is stronger for being the party of both Mhairi Black and Joanna Cherry and it has to find a way to manage basic differences of opinion in a respectful manner. 

The problem is that in rushing to legislate another ‘Scottish first’, the Scottish Government has exposed a fault line that cannot easily be smoothed over. Either side sees its position as fundamental and not open to compromise. 

Nicola Sturgeon viewed gender recognition reform as an easy hit for her ‘progressive’ agenda: no virtue left unsignalled. But it turns out her plans might have a reactionary outcome for women and SNP women are more than entitled to resist such a policy. 

Ministers have already ‘paused’ this reform once and the best solution might be to do so again. Allow time for a proper consultation as part of a genuine national debate that involves the voters and not just Scottish Government funded third-sector organisations that, shockingly enough, echo the position of the Scottish Government. 

Nicola Sturgeon should heed these foreboding signs of strife and discontent and think again. The SNP will not allow itself to be torn apart by the agenda of a First Minister who will go to the mattresses for every cause but independence. 


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.

Green leader’s eco salvo against Sturgeon

Screenshot 2020-03-06 at 19.31.54‘This week, the coronavirus spread to Scotland,’ Jackson Carlaw intoned. ‘The First Minister can be assured that the Scottish Government will have the full and engaged support of myself and all Scottish Conservatives.’

Gah. It was going to be one of those question times. You know the kind, where everyone falls over themselves trying to sound magnanimous and nobody wants to be accused of ‘politicising’ a crisis. I supposes it’s reassuring to know there is in fact an ethical red line in politics, even if it’s as modest as ‘will think twice about exploiting global pandemics for narrow political advantage’.

‘I thank Jackson Carlaw for his comments and for his statement about support from the Scottish Conservatives,’ Sturgeon replied, because what else can you say? It’s not like all those rampant polymeric molecules are going to stop dead in their tracks because the Tories put out a statement. ‘Call off the worldwide contagion, lads; Murdo Fraser’s come out against us.’

There followed some self-indulgent self-congratulation for the UK and Scottish Governments. They had managed to work together on this, don’t you know? Things have come to a pretty pass when actual grown-ups expect a gold star for not kicking off in the sandpit in the middle of an international health crisis.

‘Intensive hospitalisation’, ‘compromised immune systems’. Carlaw gave it the full Holby City, as though he hadn’t been Googling this stuff along with the rest of us all week. At times like these, we don’t need politicians’ commentary; we need experts on television at every opportunity telling us everything we need to know. Just the facts, ma’am, as Sergeant Joe Friday used to say. Instead, we got more politicians quizzing each other about a virus none of them know anything about. The tedium was infectious.

‘You have failed the homeless!’ The cry was so abrupt it almost startled some MSPs awake. ‘You have failed the homeless. You are giving money to arms companies.’ The disruption was coming from serial protestor Sean Clerkin, who like Marlon Brando in The Wild One is rebelling against whatever you’ve got. Down on the Labour frontbench, Iain Gray visibly twitched.

Clerkin was the picketer who forced him to seek shelter in a Subway sandwich shop during the 2011 election, killing Gray’s hopes of becoming first minister. The incident remains the closest Scotland has to a Kennedy moment. Do you remember where you were when Iain Gray hid behind a meatball sub?

Clerkin was escorted out of FMQs by police, though why they rewarded him I don’t know. The last remaining hope was Alison Johnstone. If anyone could resuscitate this comatose question time, it was her.

(If you’re not sure which one she is, she’s the only woman in the uber-progressive, equality-preaching Greens’ parliamentary group. Still stumped? She’s the Green leader who takes an interest in the environment and can thus be easily distinguished from the other one.)

Johnstone pressed the first minister on continued flaring at the ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran in Fife. Thus far, Sturgeon’s response to the company has been an oft-repeated ‘just don’t let that ever happen again’, prompting Johnstone to suggest she was ‘too close to the fossil fuel industry to hold it to account’.

‘This is a serious situation,’ Sturgeon tutted, ‘and the tone of the question does not do justice to that seriousness.’

Johnstone’s comeback was fierier than the sky above Cowdenbeath: ‘With the greatest of respect, the First Minister’s expression of disappointment does not help people in the area sleep at night — it does not do justice to the seriousness of the situation.’

I’m told the regularity with which Johnstone’s performances are praised in this sketch causes some alarm and unease in the Green ranks. Naturally, I take a wicked relish in this but I commend her withering broadsides against a complacent first minister because so few can do it so well — from within the tent but stubbornly independent.

Yes, she might want us to live in a solar-powered barter economy with three lentils between the lot of us but at least she believes in something, and that’s admirable. Alison, my aim is true.


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.

Family-friendly laws require a family-friendly parliament

46c72dad-6b42-4a05-96da-186638f40cfa-37498-00002da461366c65-3The period between rising star and yesterday’s man is growing shorter and shorter.

We already know that Ruth Davidson will be standing down at next year’s Holyrood election after ten years as an MSP. A decade is a long time in most careers but in politics it is barely a warm-up; after ten years in Parliament, Margaret Thatcher was still only Shadow Education Secretary.

Now Gail Ross has announced that she too will be leaving Holyrood. The MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross was only elected in 2016 but since then has shown herself to be smart and talented with a keen sense of what matters to Highlanders and a determination to fight for their concerns to be heard. She was often tipped for ministerial office and her absence from successive reshuffles was a curious oversight on the part of the First Minister.

The reason for Ross’s very early retirement should give us all pause. She explained: ‘I want to be able to spend more time with my family, to watch my son grow up and to be more involved in local issues, things I cannot presently do.

‘The sheer size of the area I represent also means that I am having difficulty in reaching every part of the constituency on a regular basis and I am not able to represent my constituents in the way they deserve and rightly expect.’

An MSP is giving up parliament before her political career has properly started because the demands of motherhood and a rural constituency are proving impossible to reconcile.

Some will have no sympathy. She knew what she was getting into and lots of people work jobs with much longer hours and for much less pay that also keep them away from home. This is true, but we should be trying to get away from these employment conditions so that working parents can spend as much time as possible with their children. Not only is that what parents want, there is a body of research that shows the importance spending time with younger children in particular.

If you want the world of work to become more family-friendly, you need people in parliament who understand from personal experience how hard it is to balance a career with raising children. The days when mum stayed at home while dad went out to work are long gone and, besides, most families simply cannot afford to have only one parent earning.

The stress and guilt this places on mums and dads is immense and the more they try to do to bolster the family finances, the worse they feel about themselves for missing school plays and sports days. Having mums in parliament keeps these issues to the fore when policy is being made — and mums in particular because, however politically incorrect it might be to say, women are still the primary care-givers in most families.

Ross is not the only political mum to open up about the challenges of raising children while in parliament. Ruth Davidson’s departure from the Tory leadership was in large part about wanting to spend more time at home with baby Finn. As she said at the time: ‘The party and my work has always come first, often at the expense of commitments to loved ones. The arrival of my son means I now make a different choice.’

Aberdeen North MP Kirsty Blackman has also spoken out. She was rebuked in 2016 for bringing her two young children to a Westminster committee meeting after being unable to secure childcare. She even took her offspring with her when she went to vote in the division lobby, reasoning: ‘I have yet to work out what the House expects us to do with small children who are not allowed in the lobby. How do I explain to a two-year-old that she has to stay with adults she has never met so I can vote? The system is nonsensical and overdue for reform.’

I’ll be honest: as an old fuddy-duddy when it comes to parliamentary procedure, I used to be resistant to the idea of making either Holyrood or Westminster more family-friendly. Parliament isn’t a coffee morning; you can’t rearrange a vote on air strikes in Syria because little Johnny has a tummyache. But a parliament is only as good as the quality of member it attracts and if the status quo is going to cost us hard-working and capable MSPs like Gail Ross, then maybe it is time to look again at how parliament operates.

Technology affords us a wealth of potential solutions. Given the advances in video-conferencing software, it should be possible for members to participate in committees or chamber debates even if they are on the other side of the country. This would be particularly helpful to MSPs like Gail Ross who represent vast electorates where more time is spent driving from one meeting to another than is taken up by the meetings themselves.

There is also a case for the use of proxy voting. Members of the public can nominate someone to vote in their place on election day, so why shouldn’t the same option be open to MSPs, provided the proxy performs a purely functional role and doesn’t take any decisions themselves? The House of Commons recently introduced a proxy voting scheme for MPs on parental leave and there’s no reason Holyrood couldn’t fashion a more generalised version of that system.

The House of Commons provides an on-site nursery for MPs’ children, something absent from the Scottish Parliament. The Westminster experience is instructive, though. Because the Commons nursery runs like any other nursery, members’ children must be registered, long-term pupils, which doesn’t allow the kind of flexibility essential to good childcare. That has prompted MPs to call for a creche to operate alongside the nursery on a drop-in basis. There probably isn’t the space at Holyrood for a nursery and a creche but given the size of the Scottish Government estate, there should be space for an off-site facility nearby.

Politicians don’t cut terribly sympathetic figures. To the proposition that we make parliament more accommodating of political parents, many will say they should get on with the job they’re paid to do or go get another one. But this underestimates the value of having mums and dads at Holyrood, as well as MSPs from rural and island Scotland. Drive them away with unworkable conditions and you will end up with a parliament of Central Belt singles, unrepresentative of the country, unfamiliar with the challenges of parenting, and unresponsive to the concerns of families.

If we’re going to make Scotland a better place to raise a family, we need people who know about raising families making laws and shaping policies. Losing people like Gail Ross makes that all the harder.


I was sure I watched the Tories win the election in December, but I’m starting to have my doubts. Boris Johnson’s government won’t be appealing the Court of Appeals ruling that its plans to build a third runway at Heathrow are inconsistent with its obligations on climate change. Cue much Tory bellyaching about ‘activist judges’, but who was the foreign secretary who signed the Paris Agreement? That would be one Boris Johnson.

Protecting the climate and economic growth need not be at odds but when government signs up to virtuous-sounding treaties without thinking through their implications they put the two on a collision course. The economic case for a third runway is sound. Growing the economy will expedite the arrival of technological solutions to climate change.

This government was not elected to bend to the regressive elitism of middle-class bog-botherers or the millenarian eco-communism of Extinction Rebellion. Not only should ministers press ahead with Heathrow expansion, they should build a new airport to declare Brexit Britain open for business. ‘Greta Thunberg International’ has a certain ring to it.


Carrie Symonds has announced that she and the Prime Minister are expecting. A baby is always happy news but at this time of doom and gloom — Brexit, coronavirus, flooding — it’s especially welcome. It’s also a cause for celebration on the Opposition benches: finally, there’ll be somebody in labour living at 10 Downing Street.


Originally published in the Scottish Daily Mail. Letters: scotletters@dailymail.co.uk. Contact Stephen at stephen.daisley@dailymail.co.uk.