The abdication of Charles III

Following the Queen’s funeral on Monday I thought you might be interested to read a blogpost from January 11, 2015. It followed a visit to see a critically acclaimed play, King Charles III, that was enjoying a hugely successful run in the West End. Although audiences had to suspend belief, the fictional events portrayed in the play were not entirely fanciful at the time. Jump forward seven-and-a-half years though and much as I enjoyed the production, which featured an excellent cast, a revival of Mike Bartlett’s play must be even less likely than the abdication of our new King!

Spoiler alert. If you're planning to see King Charles III in the West End any time soon, don't read on.

I saw it on Tuesday at Wyndham's Theatre and the second act in particular justified all the great reviews.

Briefly, the play imagines the period between the death of the Queen and the coronation of Charles.

At the interval I wasn't entirely sure whether it was a comedy, satire or drama. The opening scene felt like a medieval drama but the audience was soon laughing at the depiction of several well-known public figures.

The second act wasn't without humour but the genre was much clearer. This was drama bordering on tragedy, with nods to MacBeth and King Lear.

Read the reviews if you want to know the full plot. The brief version is this:

Charles becomes king and one of his first tasks is to sign his consent to legislation restricting press freedom following the hacking scandal.

He refuses and there follows a stand off between Parliament and the Crown that threatens the abolition of the monarchy.

To cut to the chase, Charles is forced to abdicate in favour of William.

Parliament has to prevail but Charles is portrayed as a stubborn (even heroic) man of principle.

For all the laughs, when the moment came for Charles to sign the abdication papers there was total silence.

Tim Pigott-Smith could have turned Charles into a bumbling caricature but he played him with great dignity.

The whole cast was strong and it's a difficult to pick out anyone but I will mention Lydia Wilson who played a scheming, highly intelligent yet very appealing Kate Middleton.

There were one or two jarring moments – the 'ghost' of Diana didn't really work, Harry was portrayed as a weak, adolescent buffoon, the Blair-like Labour PM was a more direct and honest figure than the two-faced Tory leader – but overall I'd give it four (out of five) stars.

The original and slightly longer post can be found here. And, yes, I’m aware that the depiction of a certain prince may not have been quite so absurd after all!

How did it come to this?

How wonderful to see so many people still queuing to see the Queen’s coffin in Westminster Hall.

I’ve been watching the live feed on the BBC Parliament channel for several days and it’s been rather moving to see everyone file past, quietly and stoically after a marathon walk of up to 14 hours.

As I write I can see (via pictures posted on Facebook) that a good friend joined the queue in Southwark Park at 11.40 last night. Ten hours later she was in sight of her destination but with several hours still to go.

Was I ever tempted to join the happy throng? Not really. I admire the effort everyone has made but 14 hours? Not for me.

Ditto the funeral services in Westminster and Windsor tomorrow. They will be magnificent occasions, I’m sure, and I have cleared the diary so we can watch the whole thing on television, but travelling in and out of London for the occasion sounds like a nightmare to be honest.

Fair play to those who do go, though, and what about the people who are reported to have travelled from America, Canada and many other countries. Remarkable.

That said, I think I heard that the number attending Queen Elizabeth’s lying-in-state is not significantly larger than that for her father George VI and, before that, Queen Victoria.

Don’t quote me but I’m sure I heard someone say that Victoria’s successor Edward VII attracted almost a million people to his lying-in-state, which if true is interesting considering he was only on the throne for nine years.

Unfortunately not everyone has marked the occasion with the decorum it deserves. I get that not everyone holds the monarchy or even the late Queen in high regard, and that some people would prefer a democratically elected head of state, but that’s an argument for another day, surely?

On a personal note I was dismayed - no, sickened - to hear that some Dundee United fans booed and interrupted a minute’s silence and sang an abusive song about the Queen before yesterday’s match against Rangers at Ibrox Stadium in Glasgow.

It wasn’t even an original song because they were merely copying supporters of Shamrock Rovers who sang the same song during a match in Ireland following the announcement of the Queen’s death ten days ago.

The behaviour of the Dundee United fans also followed that of Celtic supporters who held up banners at a match in Poland in midweek that read ‘Fuck the Crown’ and ‘Sorry for your loss Michael Fagan’, a reference to the intruder who broke into the Queen’s bedroom many years ago.

The reaction of some United fans at Ibrox didn’t surprise me though because after the announcement of the Queen’s death a tweet on United’s Twitter account expressing condolences attracted numerous abusive comments from so-called fans.

I put it down to social media (and Twitter in particular) giving a platform to people who have little interest in common courtesies, but I was concerned that similar ‘protests’ might be heard before the match with Rangers, a club hated by many United supporters for reasons I won’t go into here. (The feeling is mutual, I believe.)

According to media reports, that’s exactly what happened. Some people have argued that fans can respond to such tributes any way they like because it’s a question of free speech, but that’s nonsense. If someone dies is it so hard to stay silent while others mourn or show their respect?

If you want to protest against the late Queen or the monarchy stand outside Holyroodhouse Palace or Buckingham Palace.

Do whatever you like within the law but have the common decency to keep quiet during a minute’s silence to mark the death of a much loved head of state whose devotion to duty should be celebrated regardless of politics, religion or petty nationalism.

The irony is that United fans are generally horrified if anyone links the club with the type of bigotry that bedevils the game in Glasgow.

Founded in 1909 by Irish immigrants as Dundee Hibernian, the club changed its name to Dundee United in 1923, presumably to be more inclusive.

When my family moved to Scotland in 1969 and I started supporting United my father told me that a colleague at work had asked him why he allowed me to support the ‘Catholic’ team in Dundee.

I was ten at the time and unaware of United’s Irish origins but even if I had been it wouldn’t have made the slightest difference. It was and never has been an issue for me.

In fact, in the 50+ years I’ve supported United I can’t remember religion ever being an issue either for the club or their supporters.

Sadly the club’s response to yesterday’s events can only be described as pathetic. Here’s their statement:

Dundee United are aware of the actions of a small section of the crowd who chose to not respect the minute's silence before this afternoon's match at Ibrox.

As a club, ahead of the game we reached out to advise our supporters of the pre-match arrangements with the expectation that the minute silence would be observed.

That’s it. No apology, no condemnation of the supporters’ behaviour, no recognition that the club’s name has been dragged through the mud.

The day after the Queen’s death I was actually in Dundee having travelled north for the United-Hibs match that was scheduled for the Saturday. I arrived just as it was announced that all football matches in Scotland (as in England) had been postponed as a mark of respect.

In over half a century I have never begrudged a single penny I have spent attending matches at Tannadice or following the team to places like Inverness, Stranraer or Arbroath.

As any true supporter must, I’ve stuck with the club through thick and thin and I came to terms long ago with the fact that the club’s success under Jim McLean in the Eighties will never be repeated in my lifetime or anyone else’s.

But last night, reading the reports from Ibrox, I asked myself for the first time whether I want to ever again sit among the type of morons who abuse a 96-year-old woman who has just died.

Likewise, do I want to continue to support a club whose directors failed to condemn such behaviour in fear, perhaps, that they might alienate some of those so-called fans?

I am left with the uncomfortable thought that some of United’s supporters are no better than the Celtic supporters who held up banners saying ‘Fuck the Crown’ or the Shamrock Rovers supporters who thought it equally acceptable to ‘celebrate’ the Queen’s death in song.

That’s not what I signed up for 53 years ago and if those are the type of supporters United are willing to tolerate perhaps the club is no longer one I want to follow.

The question is, why are they behaving like this? Most clubs have their lunatic fringe but United’s has traditionally been very small and violence involving United fans is almost unheard of.

When away from home the supporters can be boisterous but in my experience they are generally good-humoured and never threatening.

So why the animosity of some United fans towards the Queen and/or the monarchy and if it’s not driven by religion (which I’m sure it isn’t) is it due to something else?

As it happens Dundee is arguably the most pro-nationalist city in Scotland but that’s a relatively recent phenomenon.

There are currently two Dundee constituencies represented in the House of Commons, Dundee West and Dundee East.

From 1950 to 2015 Dundee West was in the hands of Labour which supports the union.

Dundee East has been a little more fluid, being held by Labour from 1950-1974 and again from 1987-2005.

From February 1974 to 1987 however the seat was held by the Scottish National Party which regained it in 2005.

Today both Dundee seats are held by the SNP.

Is there a link between Scottish nationalism and the sentiments expressed by some Celtic and Dundee United supporters this week?

It’s hard to say but there’s no doubt in my mind that politics in Scotland has become increasingly toxic with social media fuelling the nationalist flame.

Growing up in Scotland in the Seventies I experienced none of the pro-nationalist, anti-English sentiment you hear today. That came later.

Of course there was some anti-English feeling long before devolution (which gave the nationalists an even bigger platform for their grievances).

In my experience, though, having lived in Scotland from 1969-1980 and again from 1992-1999, it wasn’t until the Nineties that virulently anti-English views became more prevalent, especially in the media, which is one of the reasons I left and returned south.

So what am I trying to say? I’m not sure but I’m certain of one thing. The reaction by some Dundee United supporters to the Queen’s death would not have happened 30 or 40 years ago and in my view it comes down to a lack of strong leadership at almost every level in society.

In Scotland it’s arguably exacerbated by a lack of respect in nationalist circles for UK institutions.

Sadly, the one person who did show extraordinary leadership for an unprecedented 70 years is the one being targeted for abuse in the wake of her death.

Shame on everyone involved but especially those who, wilfully or inadvertently, have helped create the toxic culture that now exists.

Thankfully there are still millions of decent people out there, including nationalists and republicans, but it’s the royalists whose day it is tomorrow and if you don’t agree with them or dislike the monarchy switch off the TV and hold your tongue or walk away from the keyboard at least until the funeral is over.

Is that too much to ask?

Does Make Smoking History want to make vaping history too?

You may not have noticed this survey or 'public consultation'.

It was launched on August 22 during the height of the holiday season. To my great annoyance I missed it too because I was abroad that week and I didn’t get any notifications.

In fact I was unaware of it until this morning when I was alerted by a member of the Forest Facebook group. Unfortunately the closing date was last Sunday, September 11, so the 'consultation' lasted all of three weeks and I believe it's too late now to submit a response.

Nevertheless it's still online so I had a look and several things stand out.

One question invites respondents to select (from a list of ten) which ONE 'is the best reason for implementing this plan [to make some communal outdoor public spaces smoke free]'. The options are:

• This is part of a global initiative to keep cities healthy
• This is just one of the steps we’re taking to help smokers quit, and keep children smoke-free
• Smoke hangs around, even in the open air, and that’s unfair to non-smokers, children and those who are vulnerable
• This is part of the broader clean air strategy
• We’re protecting future generations
• Some parts of Greater Manchester have higher smoking rates and it’s damaging those communities
• Making public spaces smoke-free means everyone can enjoy them
• Greater Manchester has a lower life expectancy than many other parts of the UK
• The majority of people in Greater Manchester (including smokers) support such a move
• We want to ensure we can all be proud of Greater Manchester’s public spaces

In my opinion none of those reasons justify bans on smoking in outdoor spaces but unless the respondent gives an answer it's impossible to proceed with the survey so you're forced to select a reason you don't actually agree with.

Similarly another question asks, 'From the following list, what do you believe are the biggest benefits of implementing the policy? Please rank your top 3 (top = most beneficial)'. The list reads:

• Every single person in Greater Manchester has something to gain from this initiative (healthier for smokers, healthier for everyone else)
• Kids won’t be set a bad example by seeing adults smoke
• It denormalises smoking
• It reduces litter
• Having smoke free outdoors spaces makes Greater Manchester healthier for us all
• It protects other people from second-hand smoke
• It keeps our amazing out door spaces clean and healthy
• It protects the environment and wildlife
• It makes Greater Manchester feel like a forward thinking region
• It cleans up the air
• It supports quitters to stay smoke-free

Note how the question assumes (wrongly) that these are all 'benefits'. I don't doubt that banning smoking in outdoor public spaces will further denormalise smoking but I don't agree that this is a benefit to society.

The question also assumes cause and effect when there has to be a considerable question mark over statements such as 'Having smoke free outdoors spaces makes Greater Manchester healthier for us all' and 'It cleans up the air'.

Worse, the question includes some very contentious statements – for example, 'It protects other people from second-hand smoke'. There is no evidence that smoking outside is a significant risk to other people, including children, so in what way will banning it protect other people?

Meanwhile how would someone who opposes outdoor smoking bans of any kind respond to this question:

As mentioned, as part of the Make Smoking History strategy, Greater Manchester is looking to make some communal outdoor public spaces smoke free.

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is 'not at all' and 5 is 'very strongly', how much do you agree with [the statement]?

It's a good idea in principle, but some provision should be made for smokers

Superficially it seems a reasonable statement but when I thought about it further it seemed a bit ambiguous. For example, I don't think making outdoor public spaces ‘smoke free’ (ie banning smoking) is a good idea at all (in principle or in practise) but if I answer '5' (that is, I agree very strongly that some provision should be made for smokers) am I also endorsing the suggestion that banning smoking in outdoor public places is ‘a good idea in principle'?

Also, what do they mean by ‘some provision’? A small roped off area in a corner of a park? Actually, on reflection, I don’t agree there should be ‘some provision’ for smokers. If it’s outdoors people should be allowed to smoke in parks and gardens without restriction, albeit showing consideration for those around them.

But you see what I’m getting at. The question/statement is not all it seems.

Meanwhile, if you're a vaper (or a vaping advocate) I would be very concerned by the following questions.

On a scale of 1 to 5 were 1 is 'not at all' and 5 is 'very strongly', how much do you agree with these statements?

They include:

• If smoking is not allowed indoors vaping shouldn't be either
• Vaping will eventually be as big a problem for society as smoking is
• Vapers shouldn't be allowed to vape near non-vapers
• Vapers are more anti-social in their behaviour than smokers
• Vaping is probably just as bad for your health as smoking
• I see vaping as a bigger problem in society than smoking because there are more vapers than smokers

The last statement is of course factually incorrect and I find it hard to believe it was approved.

There are currently between six and seven million smokers in the UK and, according to the most recent figures, 4.3 million vapers (many of whom still smoke).

The reason I’d be concerned if I was a vaper or vaping advocate is that the survey was commissioned by Make Smoking History not Make Vaping History so why include all these questions and statements about vaping unless ... ?

To be fair there were a few questions where someone like me could make my views known, clearly and concisely.

If for example you are opposed to plans to extend the smoking ban to outdoor public areas the following questions offered options from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' via 'slightly agree', 'neither agree nor disagree' and 'slightly disagree':

To what extent do you agree with the following statement:

Extending smoke-free public spaces is a good idea [and]

I want smoking to be made history in Greater Manchester

Anyway, while I'm annoyed with myself for being unaware of the consultation and missing the closing date, I'm realistic about the outcome and what could have been achieved even if we had responded to it.

The reality is, Manchester is governed by arguably the most anti-smoking local authority in England although in saying that it faces stiff competition.

Manchester City Council was one of only six or seven local authorities to impose a complete ban on smoking in the new outdoor seating areas that popped up outside pubs and cafes after the first Covid lockdown.

The measure was introduced in defiance of former communities minister Robert Jenrick who was reported to have argued that a ban would be against the spirit of the Government's Business and Planning Bill that was introduced to help businesses recover from the first Covid lockdown.

A few years ago the same Council refused to let Forest use the Town Hall for an event because of our links with the tobacco industry.

Meanwhile the mayor of Greater Manchester is the same Andy Burnham who when Secretary of State for Health in the last Labour Government introduced the Health Bill that led to the tobacco display ban and the prohibition of cigarette vending machines.

More recently (February 2018) he urged Manchester to make smoking history, saying:

“There will come a time when people look back and say: why did smoking ever happen? I want to bring that date forward and have Greater Manchester at the forefront of the charge."

Finally, I have a question of my own for the Make Smoking History campaign that Burnham supports.

Why, as well as launching your three-week 'consultation' in August when many people would have been away, did your Twitter account mention the survey just once, on September 2 (below)?

Are Truss and Coffey making tobacco control twitchy?

I sense that tobacco control campaigners may be getting a bit twitchy about the PM and her deputy who is also the new Secretary of State for Health.

For example, it was reported yesterday that 'Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape' (Guardian).

It’s not unusual for ASH to include non smoking-related reports in their Daily News bulletin, but this particular headline and story stood out and I suspect that CEO Deborah Arnott shares the concern expressed by other ‘public health’ activists.

It remains to be seen whether a less interventionist approach will be adopted by government in areas such as smoking, drinking and obesity but it was interesting to read Arnott's response to last week’s ‘story’ that Thérèse Coffey, our new deputy PM and health secretary, voted for an amendment to the smoking ban, albeit 13 years ago.

As I mentioned when I wrote about it here (five days before the Daily Mirror's 'exclusive' report), Coffey also voted against plain packaging of tobacco.

Speaking to the Mirror, an emollient Arnott told the paper:

“The Secretary of State’s history on tobacco may not seem encouraging, but our experience is that ministers, once in the hot seat in the Department of Health, soon understand the need to get to grips with smoking.”

Read into that what you will but I love the phrases: "once in the hot seat" and “soon understand”.

My interpretation of what happens inside the Department of Health is that ministers either start from a position of paternalism (which is why they got the job in the first place) and become increasingly interventionist on lifestyle issues, or they begin from a more liberal standpoint only to succumb to the ‘advice’ of civil servants, some of whom have been in the department far longer than any minister and may have developed close relationships with partisan lobbyists like ASH.

Truth is, far from steering the department, ministers are often no more than passengers. Those in the driving seat are unelected mandarins and we know how influential they can be (even when working from home).

There are times too when politicians clearly see the Department of Health as a stepping stone to something greater – Downing Street perhaps - and are determined to leave a legacy before moving on.

Reforming the NHS to any significant extent is clearly off the agenda. It’s far too big a task and far too risky because it could not only destroy a promising career but could also spell disaster for the party because of the country’s weird infatuation with that institution.

Instead ministers and civil servants target issues like smoking, drinking and obesity which are relatively low risk in electoral terms.

Another thing that will happen is that from day one new ministers will be bombarded with correspondence from the public health lobby.

A few years ago a series of Freedom of Information requests (by another party) uncovered a remarkable number of emails from ASH to the Department of Health.

We joked about it at the time but I don’t know why they don’t just share an office. It would be quicker and more convenient all round.

That aside, and in the spirit of Brexit, let’s hope Thérèse Coffey and her new health ministers do take back control … of the Department of Health. As I wrote after the UK finally left the EU:

Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is a victory for democracy. Let’s not undermine it by allowing power to remain in the hands of a few unelected mandarins and activists who – with the help of a compliant parliament – are determined to dictate how the rest of us live our lives.

‘It’s time to take back control of our lifestyles’ (Brexit Watch, March 6, 2020)

I hope too that Coffey will resist the inevitable pressure to act on lifestyle issues - under the guise no doubt of levelling up - but it’s difficult to predict which way ministers will go once they’ve spent several months listening to public health zealots and their enablers in government.

Meanwhile it didn’t take long for comments to be made about Coffey’s own lifestyle - her weight, for example, and the fact that photos exist of her drinking and smoking a cigar. (The horror! The horror!)

I can’t be the only one to suspect a subliminal or deliberate attempt to influence her policymaking in the weeks and months ahead but as Forest will also make clear to the new Secretary of State for Health, tackling smoking, obesity and the misuse of alcohol are NOT considered to be priorities by the public who repeatedly place them last when given a list of issues for government and the NHS to prioritise.

But more on that another time.

Lying-in-wait

Hats off to anyone who plans to join the queue to see the Queen lying-in-state in Westminster Hall this week.

Twenty years ago 200,000 people queued to see the Queen Mother lying-in-state and I was one of them.

I took my son, who was eight at the time, and we joined the queue on Albert Embankment close to St Thomas’ Hospital where I was born (or thought I was born - more on that later).

Very slowly, step by step, we shuffled across Lambeth Bridge and filed through Victoria Tower Gardens before entering the Palace of Westminster.

From Albert Embankment the queue was a mile long and it took two hours to reach Westminster Hall.

In contrast the queue route for the Queen’s lying-in-state will begin on Albert Embankment but will go all the way to Southwark Park, a distance of three miles.

In normal circumstances it would take approximately one hour to walk that distance but if the pace is similar to the Queen Mother’s lying-in-state one can estimate it will take something like six hours - if you join the queue at Southwark Park and it's already moving - but that’s only to Albert Embankment where there's a further two hours still to go, so eight hours at least.

This time 750,000 people are expected to stand in line but my guess is it could be even more, unless numbers are actively restricted.

After all, everyone seems to have underestimated the turn-out so far, whether it be in Balmoral, Aberdeen or Edinburgh, or last night’s ‘operational’ journey from RAF Northolt in west London to Buckingham Palace where thousands lined the route.

On this occasion however, and much as I would like to pay my respects to the Queen, I won’t be one of them.

At my age the idea of queuing for eight hours or more doesn’t appeal, however historic the occasion. Some people even started queuing yesterday morning, more than 24 hours before the lying-in-state begins at 5.00pm today.

Good luck to them and everyone else queuing up, but I think I’ve paid my respects already, even if I didn’t get out of the car.

I imagine, by the way, that the queue route will go directly past St Thomas’ Hospital.

My uncle Roy, my mother’s brother, worked at St Thomas' as a junior doctor in the Fifties and I’d always believed - and told everyone - that I was born there.

Last year however, when the subject came up, my mother insisted I was born not at St Thomas’ but at Lambeth Hospital (not to be confused with the current psychiatric hospital that bears the same name).

This was news to me but I have to assume that if anyone knows where I was born it would be my mother.

As it happens, five years after I was born Lambeth Hospital became part of the St Thomas' Hospital Group but in 1959 it was part of the Lambeth Group of hospitals so I’m not sure how the confusion arose or why I was so convinced I was born at St Thomas'.

Anyway I’ve since discovered that Lambeth Hospital closed in 1976 following the opening of a new North Wing at ... St Thomas'.

Lambeth Hospital had opened in 1922 when Renfrew Road Workhouse (opened in 1871) was merged with the neighbouring Lambeth Infirmary (founded in 1876), ‘both built and administered by the Lambeth Board of Guardians’.

But that’s another story.

Update: The BBC has announced that it will stream the Queen lying-in-state so those who want to can pay their respects virtually.

It is also being reported that 'the queue could stretch for 10 miles - with nearly seven miles of this from Lambeth Bridge to Southwark Park' which is odd because Google directions suggests the distance is 3.7 miles so goodness knows what route has been designated for the queue.

If the queue does stretch for seven miles or more my own estimate of 6-8 hours is going to be miles out (no pun intended).

If I thought the queue would be no more than two or three hours (at 3.00 in the morning, for example) I might still be tempted to go in person but the odds on that happening seem rather small at the moment.

I'll monitor (via reports) how the queue ebbs and flows over the next 48 hours before making a final decision but I do have limits and two miles (2-3 hours) is probably where I draw the line!

The road to Balmoral (via Aberdeen)

Listening to the radio yesterday as the Queen’s body was driven 175 miles from Balmoral to Edinburgh via Aberdeen and Dundee had specific interest for me.

I was familiar with the route because on Saturday I drove much of it myself, not knowing that the funeral cortège would beat a very similar path the following day.

When I woke up in Dundee on Saturday morning I hadn’t intended to go to Balmoral. My plan, following the postponement of all football matches including Dundee United’s home game with Hibs, was to spend the day in St Andrews, a short 15-minute drive from Dundee.

I visit St Andrews several times a year though so on a whim over breakfast I decided to drive not to Fife but to Aberdeen which is 60 miles north of Dundee, a journey of one hour 20 minutes by road.

At that point I was thinking it would be nice to visit some old haunts in the city where I was at university for four years in the late Seventies.

When I first went to Aberdeen it seemed further away than it does now. In those days the journey from Dundee took two hours by car but that was before the roads were upgraded and it’s now dual-carriageway all the way.

Aberdeen wasn’t my first choice of university (that was York but my application was rejected following a disastrous interview) but I was happy enough to go there and I enjoyed my four years enormously.

The university is one of the oldest in Scotland. Founded in 1495 the main campus is in Old Aberdeen whose ancient buildings and narrow cobbled streets provide a quiet retreat from the rest of the city.

I arrived shortly after eleven and spent 90 minutes wandering around, every building evoking a memory of my time in Aberdeen:

The historic King’s College library that later became a conference centre.

New King’s, constructed in 1913 but sympathetically designed to complement the older buildings.

Elphinstone Hall where we sat our exams. (It was also the location for a reunion, of sorts, 20 years ago.)

The Old Brewery, a small two-storey building that was (and still is) home of the English and Philosophy departments.

St Machar Bar where we would pop in for a mid morning pint after our 10.00am lecture, although in truth I don’t remember attending many lectures after my first year.

The brutalist Law Library that was built, like similar buildings on campus, in the Fifties. (I used to go there every day not to work but to entice friends out for coffee and a chat in the nearby Sports Pavilion cafe.)

Interestingly, while many of the older historic buildings survive, the ‘modern’ Queen Mother Library, renamed in 1983 but originally built in 1965 as the Science Library, was demolished in 2012.

Its replacement is a huge eight-storey building ‘clad in zebra-like jagged stripes of white and clear glass’ and shaped like an enormous box.

The Duncan Rice Library, as it’s called, was officially opened by the Queen in September 2012. I drove past it and, to be fair, it’s an impressive looking building. But will it still be here in 100 years, let alone 500? I doubt it.

But I digress.

As I drove to Aberdeen listening to the impressive and historic proclamation ceremony (I’m so glad that was broadcast live and in full - what an extraordinary and unexpected insight into our history and royal tradition), it occurred to me that I might visit Balmoral as well to pay my respects.

The Balmoral estate is about an hour from Aberdeen and it seemed silly not to go.

I knew there would be crowds and it might be difficult to park but I hoped I might be able to stop within walking distance and place some flowers by the main gates.

The problem was - and in hindsight I should have done some homework - I wasn’t entirely sure where the main gates to the estate were so I simply followed my satnav to ‘Balmoral Castle’.

When, an hour later, I arrived at my ‘destination’ there were two car parks (one designated a ‘media car park’) both of which appeared to be full and entry was in any case blocked by bollards and a line of policemen.

Roadside parking wasn’t allowed - it would have caused too much congestion as well as being a security risk - so I had to drive on for half a mile, turn round, and go back for a second look.

It wasn’t clear but what I think was the short road to the main gates (off the A93) was also blocked by police.

I couldn’t loiter and an attempt to park outside a nearby cafe also had to be abandoned because the tiny car park was so full vehicles were already double-parked. (I had enough difficulty simply reversing out because the car behind me didn’t want to move.)

Given the lack of parking I wasn’t surprised to read later that thousands of people travelled to the estate using park and ride buses from nearby Ballater (eight miles) and Braemar (nine miles), although I saw no evidence of them, or the thousands of people.

Wherever they and the main gates were, that was the closest I got but I did my best and it wasn’t a wasted journey because I saw beautiful Deeside looking at its very best in the bright autumnal sunshine.

Warmly recommended, should you ever think of visiting that part of the world, although I can’t guarantee the weather. Obviously.

PS. By coincidence the only time I saw the Queen in person was in Aberdeen in 1977. I think she was touring the UK as part of the Silver Jubilee celebrations.

I stood and waited behind a barrier with hundreds of onlookers and when she arrived (by car) she got out and spoke to several people in the crowd.

She may have done a walkabout but I was on the other side of the road so that was as close as I got.

And that, dear reader, is my royal anecdote. Sorry it’s not more impressive.

Below: King’s College and other buildings in Old Aberdeen

Where were you?

It was the Daily Mail’s Robert Hardman, I think, speaking on BBC Radio, who said the Queen’s death was a ‘Where were you?’ moment.

There haven’t been many ‘Where were you?’ moments in my life. Offhand I can think of only four - the assassination of Robert Kennedy (1968), the murder of John Lennon (1980), the death of Princess Diana (1997) and the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center (2001).

The scale of the horror of 9/11 sets it apart from the others but all four ‘events’ are united by the fact that they came as a huge shock and were tragic for those involved.

Given the Queen’s age and reports of her declining health this was neither a shock nor a tragedy. She lived a long, extraordinarily full life and died peacefully at home in a place she loved.

Hardman is nevertheless right. Her death was a ‘Where were you?’ moment.

I was in a Glasgow hotel room when the formal announcement was made on television but the impending news had been hinted at all afternoon so it merely confirmed what many of us already suspected.

I was in Glasgow because I was due to appear on a live current affairs programme, STV’s Scotland Tonight, at 8.30.

They wanted to discuss the Scottish Government’s ambition to be ‘smoke free’ by 2034 and although I could have done it from a studio in London or Cambridge I volunteered to go to Glasgow because I think it’s better if you’re in the same studio as the presenter and other guests.

(In addition my mother-in-law lives in Glasgow so I could visit her at the same time, and I could also spend the weekend in Dundee, where United were playing Hibs.)

News of the Queen’s deteriorating health was initially reported on the radio around midday, maybe later, while I was driving up.

At that point I’m not sure I took it too seriously, if I’m honest. How many times in recent months had we been told that the Queen had mobility issues, and only two days earlier she had been photographed, smiling broadly and shaking the hand of the new prime minister Liz Truss.

I arrived in Glasgow early afternoon by which time it was being reported that other members of the Royal Family were on their way to Balmoral, which didn’t sound good.

At four o’clock I had a pre-arranged telephone call with Rona Dougall, the Scotland Tonight presenter, to discuss the programme which in the absence of any further news about the Queen was still scheduled to go ahead as planned.

She told me though that the BBC’s presenters were already wearing black ties and if anything happened in the next few hours all scheduled programmes would be off as broadcasters switched to ‘automated’ mode (ie programming that had been planned and rehearsed years in advance).

When the announcement came, around 6.30, I was watching the news in my hotel room.

A few minutes later I got a call to say the scheduled Scotland Tonight programme had been cancelled, although they might return to the subject in a couple of weeks (when I will be abroad!).

On Friday morning I stuck to my plan and drove to Dundee for the match on Saturday. (It was too late anyway to cancel my hotel booking.)

Shortly after I arrived it was announced that all weekend football matches in England and Scotland had been postponed.

Although I understood the reasons I thought it was the wrong decision. As David Walsh, the Sunday Times’ chief sports writer, commented today, football was so afraid of doing the wrong thing it failed to do the right thing.

So there I was, in Dundee, with an unexpected day to fill.

To be continued …

Vaping industry forum’s headline sponsor wants ‘outright ban’ on smoking

In London tomorrow the UK Vaping Industry Association is hosting its annual forum and dinner.

The event, at the QEII Centre in Westminster, will be attended by more than 90 organisations, which is impressive.

I can’t help noticing though that the headline sponsor is VPZ, the UK’s largest e-cigarette and vaping retailer, which earlier this year used the peg of No Smoking Day to launch a campaign called ‘Ban Smoking For Good’.

Bizarrely the Edinburgh-based company joined forces with former England footballer Neil ‘Razor’ Ruddock to campaign for an ‘outright ban on smoking’ in Scotland.

I wrote about it here (No Smoking Day stunt or premature April Fool?), noting that:

If governments can ban combustible tobacco they can ban electronic cigarettes too. In fact, give politicians a taste for prohibition and they might just be tempted to ban several more consumer products that are deemed to be unhealthy.

Two days later I wrote a follow-up post that highlighted some of the tweets that had been posted in response to reports of the campaign ('Ban smoking for good’ campaign unites smokers and vapers in wave of revulsion):

Analysing these and other comments, together with the various ‘likes’ and retweets, suggests that VPZ has not only scored an own goal but has unwittingly unleashed a powerful coalition opposed to prohibition.

Whether the almost universal derision had any effect I don’t know (I always suspected the 'campaign' was a stunt that would have little longevity) but it went very quiet after that, despite VPZ inviting people to sign a petition to support their goal.

Now, I don’t claim to be the world’s greatest campaigner but I do know something about petitions having overseen several in my time, including a petition against plain packaging of tobacco that resulted in over 250,000 signatures being submitted to the Department of Health in response to a public consultation.

That number didn't happen overnight and it cost money. But it was also part of a broader, well-publicised campaign.

In the wake of No Smoking Day however I struggled to find any further promotion of the 'Ban Smoking For Good' campaign or the VPZ petition after it was posted on the Scottish Parliament website in April.

Click on it now and it reads:

PE1932: Ban smoking in Scotland and develop a strategy for vaping

Petition Summary
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to impose an outright ban on smoking and develop a transformative public health strategy for vaping.

Petitioner: Doug Mutter on behalf of VPZ
Status: Under consideration
Date published: 19 April 2022

A further link informs visitors that from May 17 ‘This petition is now under consideration by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’ which begs the obvious question, how many people actually signed it?

I mean, are we talking tens of thousands?

Not even close. The total number of people who signed VPZ’s ‘ban smoking for good’ petition was (cue drum roll) … 103.

That’s right, one hundred and three.

Oh to have been a fly on the wall when, on June 15:

The Committee agreed to close the petition under Rule 15.7 of Standing Orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is not currently considering an outright ban on smoking in favour of vaping. 

Meanwhile the ‘Ban Smoking For Good’ campaign appears to have been abandoned for good which is a pity because I would love to have gone head-to-head with ‘Razor’ Ruddock in a public debate.

Joking aside, I'm indebted to VPZ because the b or p-word is something we really need to address in relation to smoking.

That's why, at the Conservative party conference next month, Forest is hosting a fringe event entitled 'Politics and Prohibition – Should Smoking Be Banned For Good?'.

Panelists include Lord Moylan, Chris Snowdon and Baroness (aka Claire) Fox. In fact, although the title was inspired by VPZ, it was Claire who inspired the idea for the event when she addressed the House of Lords in March and told peers:

I would actually really appreciate a dose of honesty in this House which is that if those people who are so hostile to smoking a legal product believe that it is the killer that they allege then call for smoking to be made illegal and get done with it.

At the moment tobacco companies are legal companies and the distaste with which people talk about them, as though they should be abolished, would be better and more heartfelt if you actually argued that tobacco should be illegal. Then we’d have a different debate.

That debate will begin in Birmingham on Monday October 3. Watch this space.

Update: