Visit Scotland

In six weeks Scotland will vote on independence.

Belatedly people in England are waking up to the prospect of a diminished United Kingdom.

I've spent a substantial part of my life in Scotland. My family moved there in 1969, when I was ten. I went to school in St Andrews, followed by university in Aberdeen.

My wife is from Glasgow and for six years after we got married we lived in Edinburgh (where my children were born).

Today Clare is one of 750,000 people born in Scotland who live in England. She's against independence and is annoyed she doesn't have a vote.

But something else annoys her.

A lot of people in England couldn't care less about Scottish independence.

A couple of months ago the local television news interviewed an ad hoc group of people in Norfolk and the attitude was, "Let the Scots do as they like, it makes no difference to us."

Clare wasn't impressed.

I made the point that we English are in an impossible position. If we take part in the debate we're accused of telling the Scots what to do. If we say nothing or are apathetic we're accused of "not caring".

So I was interested when it was announced this week that historians Dan Snow and Tom Holland (both English) have written an open letter to the "Voters of Scotland" urging them to vote "No" in the referendum.

Most of the celebrities who have signed it are English too and, inevitably, the cybernats have ripped into them on social media.

But I think Snow and Holland are on to something.

Yes, some Scots will consider the campaign to be patronising and intrusive but I think it will appeal to a great many more – people like my wife, in fact, because I'm pretty sure her views represent mainstream Scottish opinion not the bellicose mob on Twitter.

Which brings me on to something else, which is kind of related.

When I was a small boy foreign holidays – for the masses, at least – were in their infancy. In any case, my parents wanted us to to discover our own country before we went further afield.

Family holidays abroad were therefore put on hold until we'd visited Cornwall, Pembrokeshire, Suffolk, the Shetland Isles and the Highlands.

I later visited Orkney, Skye, Lewis and the Outer Hebrides and if I had my way I'd jump in my car now and spend the rest of the month travelling around Scotland and the Western Isles.

Sadly however there's a vast number of people in England who have never been to Scotland, not even for a weekend.

I don't understand it.

I appreciate that some people want guaranteed sun, or something a little more exotic and 'different' for their annual holiday.

But it seems incredible to me that not once in their lives have they said, "Fancy going to Scotland?"

Edinburgh is a one hour flight from London. Alternatively it's five hours by train.

With the aid of a good book the journey passes in a flash and from Northumberland onwards you can enjoy some great views of the sea as the train rattles past Berwick-upon-Tweed and Dunbar.

Arriving in Edinburgh by train is always a thrill. Emerge from Waverley Station and there, right above you, is the castle. Magnificent.

Driving to Edinburgh (or Glasgow) from London takes six or seven hours. The road north of Carlisle – past Gretna Green and Lockerbie – is now a three-lane motorway but swing off at Junction 13 and you can enjoy a scenic 60-minute drive before arriving in Scotland's capital city.

Even better is the wonderful A68 that takes you to Edinburgh via Northumberland National Park and Jedburgh in the Borders. It will add an hour or two to your journey but if you've got the time it's well worth it.

What I love most about Scotland though is the sense of freedom you get when you leave Edinburgh and Glasgow behind.

Partly it's the absence of heavy traffic. This is especially true of the M90 to Perth and Dundee. Driving across the Forth Bridge into Fife I feel as if a weight is being lifted from my shoulders.

You might think differently if you get stuck behind a caravan on the A82 that takes you out of Glasgow and past Loch Lomond, but don't let that put you off.

The west coast of Scotland is as good as anything Ireland has to offer, and you can visit some beautiful islands with the bonus of a ferry or two to get there.

What Scotland lacks in picturesque villages it makes up for in beautiful scenery. Sure, the weather can be terrible but take the risk. Odds are you'll get away with it.

I haven't got time to list all my favourite places but no-one visiting St Andrews, Ullapool or Applecross will be disappointed.

What I'm trying to say is, if you're English and you support the union you have to visit Scotland (and Wales, and Northern Ireland) at least once.

It would be rude not to.

James Delingpole to address Forest fringe event

Delighted to report that James Delingpole will be joining us at the Conservative conference in Birmingham next month.

The outspoken journalist and blogger will speak at a special event hosted by Forest and Conservatives for Liberty at the Hyatt Hotel on Sunday September 28.

James has previously spoken at two Forest events, a Voices of Freedom debate in 2010 and the inaugural Freedom Dinner in 2012, so we're thrilled to welcome him back.

The Liberty Lounge: Stand Up For Freedom features a drinks reception (speaker: J Delingpole) followed by topical stand up comedy.

It's within the secure area so you'll need a pass but if you're going to conference make a note in your diary NOW!

Over 150,000 petition Government against plain packaging

I was in London today supervising the delivery of responses to the Department of Health consultation on plain packaging.

On Tuesday, as I reported here, we delivered to Downing Street over 53,000 letters addressed to the PM.

I can now reveal that in addition to those letters more than 100,000 people have signed the latest Hands Off Our Packs petition.

In total therefore more than 150,000 people have petitioned the Government against plain packs since junior health minister Jane Ellison announced in April that the Government was "minded" to introduce the policy.

Here's part of the press release:

A petition against plain packaging of tobacco has attracted more than 100,000 signatures and more than 50,000 people have personally written to the Prime Minister opposing the initiative.

Standardised packaging of tobacco is the subject of a final six-week consultation that closes on Thursday 7th August.

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest which runs the Hands Off Our Packs campaign, said: "The response demonstrates the enormous level of opposition to this ill-conceived measure. We urge the prime minister to think again.

"There’s no evidence standardised packaging will have any health benefits. Advocates base their arguments not on facts but on speculation.

"There must be no rush to legislation. It’s a huge step and no government should take it lightly ...

"Government has to get off people’s backs and trust the consumer to make informed choices without unnecessary and unwelcome state intervention."

Full press release here.

Update: A quote by Forest and a reference to our petition is in today's Daily Mail and Mail Online. The Daily Telegraph has the same story, again with a quote from Forest. 

Update on Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 16:38 by Simon Clark

Guido Fawkes has an item about our petition:

Ellison faces public plain packs backlash

The Grocer has this report:

Campaigners petition the PM against plain packaging for tobacco

And Convenience Store weighed in with this:

Thousands oppose plain packs as consultation closes

If you haven't submitted a response to the consultation there's still time, just. You have until 11.45 tonight to make your voice here.

Click here.

PS. Chris Snowdon has written a great post, Public Health England's self-lobbying.

If that doesn't inspire you to respond nothing will.

Special delivery: PM receives 53,196 letters opposing plain packaging

So, this is what we did yesterday.

As you know the Government is currently engaged in a "short, final" consultation on plain packaging.

Since public health minister Jane Ellison announced on April 3 that the Government was "minded" to introduce the policy Forest has been inviting members of the public to write to David Cameron opposing the measure:

Yesterday we delivered hard copies of those letters to Downing Street. Total: 53,196.

Understandably Downing Street didn't want them all delivered through the front door. Instead we were allowed to deliver 2,500 in a single box with the balance sent to another address nearby.

Permission to hand deliver had to be sought a couple of weeks in advance. No more than six petitioners are permitted entry to Downing Street, and placards, banners, loud hailers, fancy dress and any props are all prohibited.

The six petitioners had to be security checked so personal information was required a week in advance. On the day passports or driving licences were needed to confirm our identities.

(At this point I must thank the Downing Street Liaison Office run by the Metropolitan Police. They were extremely helpful and the entire procedure went like clockwork.)

Anyway, given the restrictions we decided to organise a photo shoot on College Green, opposite the Houses of Parliament, before we headed to Downing Street.

A full gallery of photos will be available later. In the meantime thanks to those who came along to support the cause.

Outside Number Ten (in the photo above) are me, Angela Harbutt, Martin Cullip and two Hands off Our Packs campaigners, Claire and Jess.

Others present included Chris Snowdon (IEA) and Kate Andrews and Charlotte Bowyer of the Adam Smith Institute.

Most important, thanks to everyone who sent a letter to the PM. I imagine they include many readers of this blog.

Finally thanks to photographer Dan Donovan who took the pics. Ten minutes after the Downing Street picture was taken we were in the Red Lion on Whitehall enjoying a well-deserved drink!

PS. Dan and Angela both asked the policeman outside Number Ten whether they could light up. The response, needless to say, was friendly but emphatic – smoking in Downing Street is verboten.

Let's hope David Cameron takes a more liberal view of plain packaging. Or, to put it another way: No, Prime Minister!

Note: you have 24 hours to respond to the Department of Health consultation on plain packaging. Click here or email TobaccoPackaging@dh.gsi.gov.uk.

An ashtray AND an Apple Mac!

Photographer Dan Donovan and I are in London on a secret mission.

Dan seems a bit overwhelmed by his room …

Is smoking in my own garden anti-social?

Email received over the weekend:

I have been a smoker for nearly 50 years now. My wife does not smoke, so up until recently I have smoked in my garden for years. I have been living in the same house for 35 years.

Up until about a month ago I had no idea I offended my next door neighbour with smoking outside (neighbours for eight or nine years who have regular log fires in the winter). It started with the odd comment that was obviously intended for me to hear and then something else happened, and I won’t go into details, that was done to show their annoyance and frightened me a bit. I am now really concerned as smoking is described by some as anti social.

Can smoking cigarettes/tobacco in your own home or garden considered to be anti social behaviour? My garden is about 30 yards long and even smoking right at the end wouldn’t make any difference. When I want a cigarette now I go to a large garden shed towards the back of my garden with door and window shut – but again I’m not sure that has made any difference.

I am not the type that wants to deliberately cause offence to anyone. In normal circumstances I would talk to them about it but after the incident of showing their annoyance I am not sure that would be wise. I am afraid I live in a much less tolerant society in recent years.

I responded as follows:

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for your email. I would suggest this is an entirely subjective opinion. There is no law against smoking in your garden and – speaking as a non-smoker – I would be astounded someone accused you of being anti-social.

It is true however we live in a much more intolerant age and I suppose it depends on whether clouds of smoke are drifting into a neighbour's garden. In my experience that seems unlikely but government policy on smoking has undoubtedly resulted in more people becoming intolerant of any level of tobacco smoke.

You don't explain what the 'something else happened' was but if you have had a falling out with your neighbours they could perhaps be looking for any little thing to complain about.

I'm afraid I can't offer advice. This seems to be something that ought to be resolved with a little common sense on both sides. Are you speaking to them at all at the moment? It would be a pity if the situation got worse because it's not nice to fall out with your neighbours but – without knowing all the circumstances – I find it hard to believe you are doing anything wrong by smoking in your own garden.

Comments welcome.

PS. The Guardian reports 'Victoria to ban smoking in all outdoor dining areas'.

It's pretty clear that smoking outside is the next battlefield, whether that be parks, beaches or outdoor dining/drinking areas.

The more smoking is banned outside, on the spurious grounds of passive smoking and the alleged danger to other people's health, the more "anti social" it will become, in some people's eyes.

This issue has to be addressed now because once momentum builds it will be very difficult to stop.

Andrew Ian Dodge

Sorry to hear that Andrew Ian Dodge has died aged 46.

I didn't really know him and had only the sketchiest grasp of what he actually did, but he was one of a handful of libertarians who managed to create a distinctive, larger than life persona online.

His Twitter profile describes him as a "former US Senate Candidate Maine (libertarian), former Tea Party cordinator, freelance writer, pundit and lyricist/singer".

I don't know how long he lived in London but he came to several Forest events, which is how I met him.

The first was at the Groucho Club in 2006. I still have the email acknowledging his registration:

Dear Andrew, We look forward to seeing you on Monday from 6.30pm. Please note that entrance to the Soho Bar at The Groucho Club is via 42 Dean Street.

After the event we wrote to all our guests:

A quick note to thank everyone who came to The Groucho Club on Monday night. If you couldn't make it, but are on this e-list, you missed a typical Forest event - chaotic yet entertaining, crowded and very smoky! David Hockney's presence, alongside the likes of Joe Jackson, Trevor Baylis, Claire Fox and others, was a bonus.

Andrew's response was characteristic and to the point:

Are pics from the night going up on the website? It would be good to show people we had a good time on Monday night.

The next Forest event he attended was at the House of Commons exactly a year after the introduction of the smoking ban in England.

By now Andrew had offered to write occasional pieces for The Free Society (an offshoot of Forest) but his first contribution, about extreme video games, unnerved me a bit.

It introduced me to a world I knew nothing about and forced me to admit that I probably wasn't a libertarian – well, not in the Andrew Ian Dodge mould. (See Freedom has its limits.)

Occasionally he would comment on this blog. A fairly typical comment, in response to a post about a Labour government advisor proposing that anyone who wanted to buy tobacco should have to buy a permit to do so, was:

Crypto-fascist idiocy is the first thing that comes to mind. Second thing is that this government will take everything they can; preferably twice.

He moved back to America with his wife Kim a few years ago. He would mention his illness on Facebook from time to time and the prognosis wasn't good.

A quick glance at his Facebook page – where he posted a final message to be published after his death – shows just how many friends he made on both sides of the Atlantic.

See also: Andrew Ian Dodge - writer, US state candidate, musician – dies at 46 (Breitbart News).

Update on Monday, August 4, 2014 at 8:44 by Simon Clark

Another acquaintance died of cancer last week.

Sally Farmiloe was a familiar name to readers of the Daily Mail. A former actress (she once had a small part in Howard's Way), she was a gregarious socialite who organised a large number of charity events.

I can't remember how we met but we did and in 1995 I asked her to help organise a ball at St Ermin's Hotel in London.

It was a modest affair. Our special guest was Vicki Michelle, the extremely charming star of 'Allo 'Allo and a friend of Sally's, but we considered it a success and the following year we organised another one at the Cafe Royal in Regent Street.

On each occasion Sally invited another good friend – Jeffrey Archer – to present the raffle and as I recall he did a great job having arrived hot foot from other events elsewhere in London.

In 1999 a tabloid revealed that Sally and Lord Archer had been having an affair but you wouldn't have known. They were very discreet!

Unfortunately news of the affair stuck to Sally and she was portrayed as a bit of a bimbo (or "scarlet woman", as she put it). Truth is, she was smart and funny and worked extremely hard to earn a living to bring up her daughter.

She married, raised money for cancer charities and had small acting roles on stage in London and on tour.

We lost contact a long time ago but for the short period we worked together it was a lot of fun.

Bad week for the Advertising Standards Authority and the Department of Health

'Bad day for Big Tobacco' gloated the not very prolific tweeter Deborah Arnott (12 tweets since May 2013) on Wednesday.

Deborah's tweet refers to a decision by the Advertising Standards Authority to uphold a complaint by Cancer Research UK, the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies and ASH about a JTI advertisement that appeared in April 2013.

You can judge for yourself whether the complaint – and the ASA's adjudication – had merit (JTI to appeal ASA ruling on 'misleading' plain packs ad) but I note Deborah didn't see fit to tweet about another ASA adjudication that went in favour of tobacco control.

I've written about it at length already (here, here and here) so I won't repeat the gory details, but I was struck by how quiet groups such as ASH, Smokefree South West and Tobacco Free Futures were on the subject.

Yes there was the odd tweet here and there but they quickly piped down once we pointed out that in reaching its verdict the ASA Council had ignored no fewer than three recommendations by its own executive upholding our complaint.

Given the complexity of the case my worry was that journalists and bloggers would either ignore the story or publish the ASA's adjudication without further comment. Alternatively, they might confuse some of the facts.

Initially that was the case. According to Marketing Week, for example (Pro-smoking group fails to stub out NHS smoke free ad):

The ASA took expert advice alongside reviewing the studies submitted by the Department of Health and found the average number of mutations per cigarette smoked was significantly higher than the 15 suggested in the ad.

Actually, that's not true. The ASA did take "expert advice" but we don't know what he found because his report has never been published nor was it shared with us.

What we do know is that following this independent "expert advice" the ASA executive still recommended that our complaint be upheld.

What Marketing Week is referring to (I think) is "expert advice" given to the Department of Health, but if you read the ASA Council's adjudication it's easy to see how they got confused.

At least they included a quote from Forest. The Drum didn't even do that. They simply regurgitated the ASA/DH propaganda:

Department of Health ‘cancer growth’ ad found to be truthful by the ASA

Well, we weren't prepared to accept that so I got in touch and, to be fair, The Drum responded extremely graciously with this follow-up report:

Forest vows to appeal ASA “inexplicable” decision on Department of Health ruling

The tide was turning. The ASA was no longer in control of the story.

According to Marketing magazine (Forest slams ASA decision on DoH smoking ad claims):

Smoking rights campaign group Forest has clashed with the Advertising Standards Authority and the Department of Health over claims in a television ad that smoking can cause "mutations" in the body.

Again, not strictly true: our complaint concerned the specific unsubstantiated claim that 'Every 15 cigarettes you smoke will cause a mutation'. But at least we were being heard:

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "The Department of Health did everything it could to derail our complaint and were given every opportunity to do so.

"Despite this, the ASA executive upheld our complaint three times. That speaks volumes."

Chris Snowdon and Dick Puddlecote are keen observers of the abuse of science in relation to tobacco control. Now they were getting involved.

Angela Harbutt – who played a key role in Forest's complaint – had her say on Liberal Vision and others pitched in on other forums.

On The Free Society, for example, Brian Monteith wrote:

It’s official! If you want to tell lies in an advert it’s okay if you are the government. The state can get away with it; for other advertisers the costs might be painful.

Brian's piece was a devastating summary of Forest's correspondence with the ASA and I challenge anyone to read it and not be amazed. Significantly he concluded:

So there we have it – the long and winding road of how, after three draft recommendations upholding the Forest complaint the ASA Council sides with the government.

Note how the DH delays the process, how it requires an “expert” for something they were already pumping out in an advert and presumably were confident about stating – or do they just make it up as they go along? Note how meetings are required with the DH (confidential of course) and how the ASA then had to get its own expert to consider the DoH defence – but still rejected that defence – only for the Council to repudiate its own officials.

Is there any point to complaining against the government lies? Somehow I don’t think we have heard the last of this sorry episode.

The following day (Friday) The Free Society published another excoriating yet considered piece by Chris Oakley who revealed a "serious abuse of science by Department of Health spin doctors".

According to Chris:

The scary sounding mutations the DH attempted to use to intimidate smokers are actually quite routine events. DNA is damaged (mutated) by all kind of things on a very regular basis and the body is extremely good at repairing that damage. The theory behind the headlines is that cancer can occur when the body loses the DNA damage/repair battle and, in the case of smoking, the carcinogens in tobacco smoke increase the amount of damage until eventually the body’s resilience is overcome.

The word ‘eventually’ is important because it appears to take many years for the minority of smokers who do develop lung cancer to contract the disease, which is rare in the under sixties, and recent epidemiological evidence suggests that smokers who quit before they are 40 have similar life expectancy to never smokers.

Of course, relatively few people will have read these articles and posts so the ASA and DH may have thought they'd got away with it.

On Friday afternoon however Britain's leading political blogger published a post that exposed the story to the entire Westminster village (and beyond):

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), chaired by renowned part-time floods expert Chris Smith, has bizarrely overturned a ruling by its executive criticising a “misleading” Department for Heath anti-smoking advert.

During an 18 month investigation, the ASA’s executive on three separate occasions upheld a complaint by smokers’ rights group Forest, which had accused a recent Department of Health ad campaign of being “misleading” and “omitting material information”. Yet this week the ASA council announced it was overruling its executive’s decision, instead suddenly finding that the Department of Health ad wasn’t misleading after all. Forest say the decision is “inexplicable”, accusing the Department of Health of “doing everything it could to derail our complaint”.

The item, on the Guido Fawkes blog, included a link to the Marketing report (Forest slams ASA decision on DoH smoking ad claims).

It also included a link to Brian Monteith's Free Society article (Why do governments lie? Because they can!) which Guido described as "A full timeline of how the ASA stonewalled the investigation before mysteriously contradicting itself".

See: Another Politically Correct ASA Ruling: Chris Smith’s Council Vetoes Criticism of Anti-Smoking Ad (Guido Fawkes)

So, a "bad day for Big Tobacco" became a bad week for the Advertising Standards Authority and the Department of Health.

And it isn't over yet.