Brief encounter – Nicola Sturgeon

So. Farewell, then, Nicola Sturgeon.

The first minister of Scotland is to stand down as soon as the Scottish National Party elects a new leader. And didn’t she just milk the announcement? Watching it live I thought she’d never stop.

Her statement went on for the best part of 25 minutes (Liz Truss took 60 seconds!) and by the time she was replying - at length, obviously - to a fourth question from the assembled journalists I’d had enough and turned off the TV.

Not only does she love the sound of her own voice but as the ASI’s Eamonn Butler tweeted, ‘On a quick count, Nicola Sturgeon's statement today uses the word “me” 21 times and “I” 85 times.’

I’ll leave others better informed than me to comment on her legacy but having spent a considerable chunk of my life in Scotland (17 years), being married to a Scot (for almost 31 years), and still being a regular visitor to Scotland (I should have been in St Andrews this week but that’s another story), you will appreciate my interest.

Also (and I've told this story before, so apologies), many years ago I had a brief and somewhat frosty encounter with the future FM. The date was January 30, 2002, and the Scottish Parliament's health and community care committee was meeting to consider the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill.

In those days the nationalists were still in opposition and the Scottish Executive had yet to be rebranded (by the SNP) as the Scottish ‘Government’ following their landslide victory in 2007.

Sturgeon however was already making a name for herself. Not only was she a member of the health committee, she was the SNP's shadow minister for health and had introduced the Bill that was designed to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK.

Other witnesses included Professor Gerard Hastings and his colleague Dr Lynn MacFadyen (Centre for Tobacco Control Research), Dr Sinead Jones (British Medical Association), and Malcolm Chisholm MSP (Minister for Health and Community Care).

As the only opponent of the Bill that morning I was an easy target for Sturgeon and other members of the committee. Here are some examples of our testy exchanges:

Nicola Sturgeon: You state in your submission that you receive donations from tobacco companies. Exactly what proportion of your funding comes from the tobacco industry?

Me: We have always been open about that. It's about 96 per cent.

Sturgeon: It is therefore reasonable to say that you are the mouthpiece of the tobacco industry and that it is hardly surprising that you argue against a ban on tobacco advertising?

Me: Funding has to come from somewhere to set up a smokers' rights group ... The only people who will fund us are the tobacco companies. I will give you an idea of our independence. We have just lost about a third of our funding because the company Gallaher Tobacco no longer funds us. All last year we carried out a big campaign against HM Customs and Excise because of its treatment of ordinary shoppers who go across the Channel to buy cheap booze and fags. Gallaher was disturbed by the campaign because it was trying to work closely with Customs and Excise for its own good reasons. Had we not been independent we would have done what we were told but I was prepared to lose a third of our funding because I believe in our independence. I sit here as someone who is independent. I am not here to represent the tobacco industry.

Sturgeon: Some people might find it a bit difficult to believe that the tobacco companies would continue to provide 96 per cent of your funding if they did not feel that you were promoting their message.

Me: It's important that an organisation such as Forest should take part in the debate. Most of our work is media-related. If it were not for Forest the smoking debate would be one-sided. Every debate has two sides. Forest is the only smokers' group that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to speak to the media. It is important that in a democratic society both sides of the debate are put. It is important for the credibility of the Health and Community Committee that I am expressing a different point of view from that expressed by most witnesses.

Sturgeon: I agree whole-heartedly that both sides of the debates must be heard. In the interest of democracy, it is also important that the committee and the public know exactly what agenda a witness may or may not have.

Me: As you know, our submission mentions where our money comes from.

Sturgeon: You say in your submission that advertising is not directed at attracting new customers, but at encouraging existing smokers to switch brands. How do you expect people to believe that? Tobacco companies are losing 13,000 customers every year through tobacco-related deaths and yet you expect us to believe that tobacco companies are not trying to recoup that loss by encouraging new people to take up smoking. I refer you to a 1998 study that shows that much tobacco advertising is increasingly directed at areas of potential market growth, particularly at young people and those living in deprived communities.

Me: Those questions must be directed to the tobacco industry. I am not here to represent the tobacco industry. I am here to say that, as far as smokers are concerned, a ban on tobacco advertising is a restriction on their freedom to receive consumer information. We are particularly concerned at the attempt to ban advertising via the internet. The idea that people may not actively look up a tobacco company's site and get information that might help in their choice of purchase of a legal product is extraordinary. There is no way that websites are being thrust in people's faces.

Sturgeon: I have difficulty with the argument that you are not directing advertising at young people, and yet you are extremely concerned about website advertising, which most people would accept is …

Me: You keep saying "you" as if I am the tobacco industry. I am not the tobacco industry.

Sturgeon: We might disagree on that, but we will leave that argument to one side. Your written submission repeatedly states that tobacco advertising has a social purpose – it gives people information about different brands of cigarettes. How credible is that argument? When I see a tobacco billboard, the image is the only thing that strikes me. Usually, a picture portrays smoking as good and there is information about the content of the cigarettes in the small print at the bottom of the advertisement.

Me: Tobacco advertising has become more obscure over the years – that is one reason why losing advertising will not make a great difference to many smokers. I don't think that banning advertising will have any marked difference on overall consumption. If any government or group of politicians wishes to introduce a bill to ban anything, they must be clear about their aims and must be pretty certain that the effect will be marked, otherwise they will make a pointless political gesture.

Later, after I suggested that representatives of the advertising and tobacco industries should have been invited to give evidence to the committee ("Getting their view third hand seems a bit odd"), we crossed swords again:

Sturgeon: You have repeatedly said that you are not giving us the views of the tobacco industry, but you are now saying that it is important we hear your evidence so that we can get the views of the tobacco industry. [Note: I didn't say that at all!] It has to be one thing or the other. I am having difficulty with your argument that you are not here to promote the views of the tobacco industry.

Me: I think that is a bit of a cheap shot. A lot of the questions that have been put to me today should be put to representatives of the tobacco industry instead. It would make sense for you to hear directly from the tobacco and advertising industries. They could give you the replies that you seek – which I clearly cannot give you – face to face.

Looking back it wasn't my greatest moment, but I survived. Sturgeon, meanwhile, continued to ascend the Scottish political ladder.

In 2003 she was appointed shadow minister for justice. In 2004 she was elected deputy leader of the SNP and led the party in the Scottish Parliament until 2007 when party leader Alex Salmond was elected as an MSP whereupon she became deputy first minister following the SNP's landslide victory in the Scotland parliamentary election.

When Salmond resigned as first minister and party leader following the 2014 referendum, Sturgeon succeeded him in office. And like her predecessor and mentor, she too has failed to deliver independence despite it being her goal – and arguably her obsession – since the age of 16 (as she told us on more than one occasion this morning).

I think though that will pale into insignificance when the real failures of her time in office - in health and education especially - are properly reviewed and reported by journalists who will hopefully be less in thrall to her (and her successor) now that she is leaving office.

And don't get me started on the shocking state of Scotland's ferries which is doing untold damage to island communities.

What's not in doubt though is the extent to which her resignation appears to have been been influenced by that of New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern only a few weeks ago.

"I’m leaving," said Ardern, "because with such a privileged role comes responsibility – the responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not. I know what this job takes. And I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It’s that simple."

According to Sturgeon:

"Being First Minister of Scotland is in my – admittedly biased – opinion the best job in the world ... However, since my first moments in the job, I have believed that part of serving well would be to know – almost instinctively – when the time is right to make way for someone else.

"And when that time comes, to have the courage to do so – even if, to many across the country, and in my party, it might feel too soon. In my head and my heart I know that time is now ..."

Full statement here. Pass me an onion ... and cue violins.