Sixth form college to ban students from smoking in "neighbouring roads"

I was on BBC Cambridgeshire this morning discussing this statement by Long Road Sixth Form College:

Dear Student, Parents and Carers.

We have decided that from 9th June 2014 Long Road Sixth Form College will be a completely no smoking College. This will mean that students can no longer smoke on any area of the College campus nor on the adjoining roads. Addenbrooke’s hospital successfully introduced such a ban in January of this year so smoking has not been permitted on Robinson Way for the last 4 months. The no smoking rules will be implemented between 8.30am and 4.30pm and our students may not leave the site to smoke and then return to lessons. We will be monitoring the local roads, especially Long Road, Luard Road and Sedley Taylor Road.

There are several reasons for us to consider this is a sensible move to make.

Firstly, it is illegal to sell cigarettes to people aged under 18. Since October 2007 it is illegal to sell tobacco products, including cigarettes, tobacco and cigarette rolling papers to anyone under the age of 18. In January 2014, the government proposed to extend the ban to e-cigarettes and so we are including e-cigarettes in our definition of smoking.

Secondly, the well documented health risks associated with smoking. Every year around 100,000 people die from smoking, with many more deaths caused by smoking-related illnesses.

Thirdly, we believe that we need to prepare young people for the place of work and an increasing number of companies ask their workforce not to smoke in the environs of their buildings (eg Addenbrooke’s). In addition, there is no longer any safe place for students to smoke either on or close to the College site. The current smoking area has been designated for new buildings and there is no alternative location.

What we know about student smokers:
In January 2014 we surveyed the existing smoking area. At its busiest time there were 168 students in the area (although not all were smoking). 168 students represents 8% of the student population.

One third of the smokers said they had made a New Year resolution to give up smoking. A significant number had started smoking since the age of 16.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What support is available?
We have trained 2 members of staff as smoking cessation support staff and they will be running advice clinics and groups for students with immediate effect.

We will be working closely with [NHS] Smoke free, Action on Smoking and Health and other agencies to support people to stop smoking.

What happens to students who continue to smoke during the College day?
The College has a very effective disciplinary system based upon 3 warnings after which a student is asked to leave the college. We hope that it will not be necessary to use this, but for students who do not comply with the College rules we do implement this and will do so if there is a breach of the no smoking rules.

What about our neighbours?
The College has always endeavoured to work effectively with people who are employed or who live close to our premises. It is for this reason that we are asking students not to smoke in the adjoining roads or during the College day. We are part of the local community and want to continue to work in co-operation with everyone.

Will the rules apply to students aged over 18?
Yes, the College is a community for everybody and all the rules in place apply to all students regardless of their age. It would be impossible to have some rules which apply to some students but not to others. By enrolling at the College for an academic year, all students agree to comply with the Code of Conduct for the entire year.

Now, I don't advocate students smoking on college grounds, especially if they are under 18, but the new policy strikes me as excessive.

After all, if students are 18 or older is it really the college's business whether they smoke in the "neighbouring roads"?

The college threatens to "monitor" the adjoining roads. How? CCTV cameras are expensive so I assume they are going to give the job to teachers who will be asked to patrol the area or lurk in the bushes.

If students are entitled to leave the grounds during the day, as sixth form students usually are, the "neighbouring roads" are presumably public areas, so what authority does the college have to "monitor" them?

And at what point will "neighbouring roads" be extended to other areas?

What really bothers me is the mindless anti-smoking mantra, the preference for prohibition in place of education (or smoking areas!), and the undercurrent of intolerance.

Many of the students threatened with expulsion are not even children. They're 18, adults in the eyes of the law.

Ironically the April 2014 edition of the Long Road Sixth Form College newsletter has a block quote from a student that reads:

"I'm ready to be independent ... to be treated as an adult."

Perhaps Long Road should practise what it preaches.

"Campaigners have to wean themselves off the idea that nicotine is bad"

Further to my previous post, the BBC has the ASH e-cig survey here:

E-cigarette users in UK have 'tripled' since 2010

My comments are reported as follows:

Simon Clark, director of Forest, a group that supports smokers, said it welcomed the rise of e-cigarettes and was glad people had a choice of what to smoke.

But he suggested that most smokers using e-cigarettes were experimenting with them rather than using them to give up smoking altogether.

"We haven't seen a significant fall in smokers. Most smokers still find electronic cigarettes quite basic and it will take a few more years for the technology to improve."

The Scotsman covers the poll (from a Scottish angle) here:

Five-fold rise in e-cigarette smokers in Scotland

It also includes a short quote from me. My full response was:

"The increasing popularity of e-cigarettes is not surprising because for the first time we have a nicotine delivery system that mimics the act of smoking.

"They are a useful aid for smokers who wish to cut down or quit but they also provide an alternative to cigarettes in places where smoking is forbidden.

"There has been a lot of scaremongering about e-cigarettes but campaigners have to wean themselves off the idea that nicotine is bad. It can be addictive but it's no more harmful than caffeine.

"Government must resist the temptation to over-regulate e-cigarettes because there is no evidence they are harmful to the user or anyone else.

"Banning e-cigarettes in non-smoking environments makes no sense because the product is very different to a real cigarette. There's no combustion, no smoke, and no evidence that vaping encourages anyone to start smoking."

Charles Hamshaw-Thomas, legal and corporate affairs director of E-Lites, is also quoted in one or two newspapers, including the Guardian, but let's not be in any doubt who's driving this story, and why.

I'll return to this subject later.

ASH: "No evidence that e-cigarettes are acting as a gateway into smoking"

Here's the ASH press release on e-cigarettes.

The headline figure has already been published – by the Sunday Times on April 13 – so what we get today is a bit more detail about people's attitudes to e-cigarettes and vaping.

Significantly, ASH CEO Deborah Arnott admits that "there is no evidence from our research that e-cigarettes are acting as a gateway into smoking" and "usage among non-smokers remains negligible".

The full press release reads:

Over 2 million Britons now regularly use electronic cigarettes

Figures released by health charity ASH on the day the ASA’s consultation on the advertising of electronic cigarettes closes reveal that usage of electronic cigarettes among adults in Britain has tripled over the past two years from an estimated 700,000 users in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2014. Nearly two-thirds of users are smokers and one third are ex-smokers, an increase in the proportion of ex-smokers compared to previous years. Once again, current use of electronic cigarettes amongst self-reported non-smokers is negligible (0.1%) and only around 1% of never smokers report ever trying electronic cigarettes.

The YouGov survey, commissioned by ASH, reveals a dramatic rise in the number of current and ex-smokers who have tried electronic cigarettes over the past four years. In 2010, only 8.2 per cent of current or ex-smokers had ever tried electronic cigarettes. By 2014, this figure had risen to 51.7 per cent.

There has been a consistent rise in the number of current or ex-smokers who use electronic cigarettes on a regular basis from 2.7 per cent in 2010 to 17.7 per cent in 2014.

Just over a third (35%) of British adults believe that electronic cigarettes are good for public health while around a quarter (22%) disagree.

For the first time, the ASH YouGov survey asked about the type of electronic cigarette commonly used. Over a half of electronic cigarette users started off using rechargeable electronic cigarettes with prefilled cartridges, with only one in four starting by using cigarettes with a tank or reservoir. But amongst current users the balance is more evenly split with 47% most often using rechargeable e-cigarettes with prefilled cartridges and 41% using rechargeable devices with a separate tank. Only 20% started off using disposable electronic cigarettes and only 8% most often use disposable e-cigs currently.

There are a variety of reasons given by current and ex-smokers for why they use or have tried electronic cigarettes. Among current users of electronic cigarettes:

The main reasons given by ex-smokers are “to help me stop smoking entirely” (71%) and “to help me keep off tobacco” (48%).

The main reason given by current smokers is to “help me reduce the amount of tobacco I smoke, but not stop completely” (48%) followed by “to save money compared with smoking tobacco” (37%); and “to help me stop smoking entirely” (36%).

Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of health charity ASH said: “The dramatic rise in use of electronic cigarettes over the past four years suggests that smokers are increasingly turning to these devices to help them cut down or quit smoking. Significantly, usage among non-smokers remains negligible.

"While it is important to control the advertising of electronic cigarettes to make sure children and non-smokers are not being targeted, there is no evidence from our research that e-cigarettes are acting as a gateway into smoking.”

A separate ongoing survey - the Smoking Toolkit Study carried out in England – has also found that smokers are increasingly using electronic cigarettes as an aid to quitting, overtaking use of medicinal nicotine products such as patches and gum. [4] The proportion of smokers who have quit in the last year has increased and smoking rates in England are continuing to fall.

Commenting on the findings, leader of the study, Professor Robert West, said: “Despite claims that use of electronic cigarettes risks renormalizing smoking, we found no evidence to support this view. On the contrary, electronic cigarettes may be helping to reduce smoking as more people use them as an aid to quitting.”

(For further information on the YouGov survey data see the ASH fact sheet on Use of electronic cigarettes in Great Britain.)

ASH Scotland has issued its own press release in response to the YouGov poll. Note the difference in the tone of the comments:

Use of electronic cigarettes soars in Scotland - survey finds five-fold rise in smokers who ‘vape’

The use of electronic cigarettes among adult smokers in Scotland has increased by over five times in the past four years, from 3% in 2010 to 17% in 2014.

The finding comes from a new YouGov survey commissioned by health charity ASH Scotland.

It also shows use of e-cigarettes among adult ex-smokers in Scotland was 3% in 2014.

The poll reveals a dramatic rise in the number of current smokers in Scotland who have tried electronic cigarettes over the past four years. In 2010, only 7% of current smokers had ever tried electronic cigarettes. By 2014, the figure had risen to 45%.

Just under a third (31%) of adults in Scotland who have heard of e-cigarettes believe that they will be good for public health while around a quarter (23%) disagree. Agreement was even higher among smokers (55%).

Current use of e-cigarettes amongst those who have never smoked is negligible (zero or nearly zero) and only around 1% of never-smokers report ever trying e-cigarettes.

ASH Scotland Chief Executive Sheila Duffy said: “These new figures emphasise the growing popularity of e-cigarettes and we believe there needs to be a vigorous public debate about their use.

“Our interest is in helping people improve their health and so we welcome harm reduction as a principle. We believe that ‘vaping’ will prove to be less harmful than smoking – but not harmless, as some supporters suggest.

“We are calling for regulation of the market in e-cigarettes - and other new nicotine delivery devices - because nicotine is a highly addictive substance and the companies involved are under strong commercial pressure to recruit young people into using it.

“To minimise the risk of drawing the next generation into nicotine addiction, we also want an under-18 age restriction on the sale of e-cigarettes in Scotland, as is already being planned for England and Wales, and we need restrictions on how these products are promoted.

“However, including e-cigarettes in the smoke-free enclosed public spaces legislation would require scientific evidence that harm from ‘second-hand’ e-cigarette emissions is likely. This is not the situation to date. But we support venues that have banned vaping to protect smoke-free environments.

“There are particular concerns with the growing involvement of tobacco companies in this market because of their history of prioritising profits over people and misleading consumers. It is not in their interest for people to become free of nicotine addiction. We must defend Scotland’s vision for creating a generation free from tobacco and ensure that e-cigarettes work for this, not against it.”

The Scotsman has the story here: Five-fold rise in e-cigarette smokers in Scotland.

It includes a short quote from me.

When is an embargo not an embargo?

There's an unwritten rule that you don't reveal the contents of an embargoed press release before the stipulated date.

It's a game most people are willing to play although it can be a risky strategy if the story is compelling because the pressure on journalists to get an exclusive story is strong and there's always a risk someone may break rank.

It happened to me once and it could have been a disaster, negating a year's hard work.

I was director of the Media Monitoring Unit which was set up in the mid Eighties to monitor television current affairs programmes for political bias.

For twelve long months I sat in a darkened room watching videos of Panorama, World In Action and numerous other programmes, making notes and assessing (as objectively as I could!) whether they met the conditions laid down by the Broadcasting Act (as it was).

The analysis and results were then published in a report that was as big as a telephone directory and made an impressive thud when dropped on a desk.

We issued an embargoed press release but someone at the London Evening Standard decided to break the embargo and the story was splashed all over the front page the day before the report was due to be launched at a press conference at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall.

Luckily for us the Standard report (headlined 'YES, THE BBC IS BIASED') created a storm of interest and the story was instantly followed up by almost every national newspaper the following day.

Our press conference, which went ahead after the Standard report had appeared, was a bit of a damp squib (see Pedigree of a TV watchdog) but we got away with it, albeit more by luck than judgement.

Anyway, the reason I am writing about embargoes is because ASH have issued a press release about a survey on e-cigarettes that was conducted by YouGov in March.

It's embargoed until 00.01hrs Monday April 28 and I'm not going to break it. When I read it, though, it seemed familiar and a tiny bit of investigation revealed that the headline result is already in the public domain because it was published by the Sunday Times on April 13.

Of course ASH aren't the first to recycle the result of a poll or survey. We all do it. But embargoing a press release – giving the impression the figures have never previously been published – seems a bit, well, unethical.

The question I am asking myself is this: if I link to the Sunday Times report am I breaking the embargo? After all, I will effectively be revealing the 'story' that ASH doesn't want us to know about until Monday morning.

As it happens the press release is not without interest. In particular some of the comments by ASH CEO Deborah Arnott about e-cigs will be welcomed by many people in the vaping community and beyond.

I'll post it here tomorrow night – at 00.01hrs, naturally.

Outlawed: e-cigarettes "pose a challenge to smoke-free campus enforcement"

E-cigarettes are to be banned in and around all health facilities in Ireland, including hospital grounds.

Here are two reports of the same story: E-cigarettes to be banned in Republic of Ireland health facilities (BBC News) and HSE bans use and sale of e-cigarettes in all health facilities (Irish Times).

The decision was announced by the Health Services Executive. According to the HSE's Dr Stephanie O’Keeffe, "e-cigarettes pose a challenge to smoke-free campus enforcement and come with safety concerns for a healthcare environment".

He added:

“Smoking is the single leading cause of illness in our nation, responsible for a range of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and cancers, and for over 5,200 deaths every year.”

“The Health Services are responsible for health promotion and caring for illnesses and disease. Ensuring that health service buildings and grounds are smoke-free is an integral part of our approach to reducing tobacco use and harm in Ireland.”

Forest Eireann responded as follows:

Smokers' group blasts ban on e-cigarettes in hospital grounds

The smokers' group Forest Eireann has criticised the HSE's decision to ban e-cigarettes from hospitals and other health centres.

According to the HSE, e-cigarettes challenge the Smoke-Free Campus policy.

John Mallon, spokesman for Forest Eireann, said: "It may have escaped the HSE's notice, but vaping is quite different to smoking.

"There is no evidence e-cigarettes are harmful to the user or anyone else, nor is there evidence they are a gateway to tobacco.

"Nicotine may be addictive but it's no more harmful than caffeine. E-cigarettes offer a nicotine delivery system that mimics the act of smoking, which is why they're popular with many smokers, but that's all.

"They offer a useful alternative to smoking and have helped many smokers quit.

"Banning e-cigarettes demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of human behaviour and is incompatible with the government's goal of a smoke free Ireland."

Our reaction was picked up by a host of Irish radio stations. Here's a list of stations John has appeared on today:

Newstalk, Today FM, Ocean FM, 4FM, FM104, Northern Sound, Kildare FM, Q102, Shannonside, Galway Bay FM, Limerick 95FM, South East Radio and Tipp FM.

One interview began with the presenter suggesting – goodness knows why – that John must be opposed to e-cigs and would therefore support the ban.

John's response was to correct him and draw this analogy:

"I asked him if he liked the odd glass of wine, which he did. I then asked if he'd tried non-alcoholic wine, and he said it was disgusting.

"I then explained that a REAL cigarette offered far more satisfaction to a smoker than an e-cig but for smokers who want to quit they are the best method."

I should add that John is a smoker and a vaper so these are not some off the cuff comments.

Anyway there's no real point to this post other than to flag up yet another instance of prohibition that can't be justified with any evidence, and to highlight Forest's ongoing fight in support of consumer choice.

See also: Evidence missing in action as Ireland bans e-cigarettes in health facilities (City AM).

Update: Forest Eireann quoted by the Irish Examiner, Irish Independent, Irish Times, Irish Daily Mail, Irish Mirror and Irish Sun (which described John Mallon as an "expert"!).

Could "mystery" of plain packaging attract consumers?

If it pushes ahead with plain packaging the Government could be in for a surprise.

It's reported that Doritos has launched a range of chips in America using plain coloured packs, "removing all visual aid".

It's part of a "co-creation" exercise whereby customers get to choose their favourite new flavour with the most popular being added to the company's product range later in the year.

What's interesting, and perhaps pertinent to plain packaging of tobacco, is the suggestion that it "would draw existing customers to the brand".

Admittedly the co-creation concept is a significant part of the attraction but the "mystery" aspect of the promotion, highlighted by the packaging, can't be ignored.

Nor can these comments:

"It will make existing customers feel like a part of the brand ... and attract new customers to try the brand."

In the light of this ministers should consider whether putting tobacco in plain packs could have a similar albeit unintended effect.

In other words, instead of repelling people the "mystery" of plain packaging might (a) encourage loyalty from existing customers and (b) attract new customers.

With no evidence that plain packs have reduced consumption (or smoking rates) in Australia, how ironic would that be?

See: Doritos teases consumers with plain packaging (Marketing).

National Union of Students, still crazy after all these years

Jennifer Salisbury-Jones, a third year student at Bristol University, has written an amusing article about the recent NUS conference.

Jennifer got elected as a delegate after promising to spend the money Bristol give the union on something far more useful - namely alcohol.

The downside was she had to attend the conference - see The NUS don’t care about you and they are making your life worse (The Tab).

Anyway, it brought back memories of a similar episode when I was at university and editing a fiercely anti NUS publication called Campus.

Our candidate for NUS conference stood on the platform of 'Not Going'. Like Jennifer he got elected which suggests many students - then and now - have a far more healthy attitude to life than their po-faced political peers.

The funny thing was, all the other successful candidates expected him to go and were dumbstruck when he stuck to his manifesto and refused the kind offer of a weekend in Blackpool at taxpayers' expense.

One student politician took the decision very much to heart and was genuinely upset we could treat his beloved union in such a cavalier fashion. He didn't speak to us for weeks.

My other NUS story took place a few years later when we relaunched Campus as a national student magazine and sent someone to distribute several hundred copies to delegates attending the 1984 NUS conference.

Twenty years later the person concerned could be found working in a senior position at Conservative Central Office. In those days however he was a bit of a head case and utterly fearless - just the sort of person to send into enemy territory.

No-one, in my opinion, was more likely to find a way into the Winter Gardens in Blackpool without accreditation and I was right.

Not only did he slip past security via a back door, he managed to sneak on to the balcony where he is alleged to have dropped 200 copies of Campus on to the heads of the delegates below.

It so happened the relevant issue featured a full page cartoon in which a nuclear weapon (Willie Warhead) was seen shaking hands with a tampon. The caption read 'NATO guarantees peaceful periods' which we thought was quite funny.

Delegates thought otherwise and there were reports that Liberal students in particular were in tears.

Campus was subsequently banned by 40 humourless student unions, which forced us to sell it door-to-door, and our efforts even made the front page of National Student, the piss poor NUS newspaper.

I therefore take my hat off to Jennifer Salisbury-Jones and everyone who voted for her. To paraphrase Paul Simon ...

The National Union of Students, still crazy after all these years.

From the archive: Brian Monteith

In 1997 I was sharing an office in Leith with Brian Monteith.

I was a freelance journalist, Brian was a PR consultant. He was also spokesman for Forest in Scotland.

Two years later I was back in London working for Forest and Brian was a member of the devolved Scottish Parliament.

In summer 2000 I interviewed him for the Forest magazine Free Choice:

GREAT SCOT

Evidence that the Scottish Parliament was beginning to buckle under the self-imposed pressure of political correctness caught even the most cynical observers by surprise.

Months after being warned that Presiding Officer Sir David Steel intended to crack down on smoking ("There should be no smoking within the entire Parliamentary complex and we intend to vigorously enforce this"), smokers were instructed to walk down the street, well away from the building and – wait for it – remove their accreditation badges so no-one would recognise them!

Perfect timing, or so it seemed, to launch a campaign that would stand up for Scottish smokers and poke fun at those pathetic little Hitlers in the puritanical health lobby. One of the MSPs who has agreed to support the campaign is Brian Monteith. OK, so he's a former Forest spokesman but, take my word for it, Monteith is no poodle. He's not even a traditional Scottish Tory.

Born and bred in Edinburgh, he and his family are all state educated (something of a novelty in a city where private schools are ten a penny) and he genuinely loves his football (hunting, shooting and fishing being strangers to him). In 16 years as a PR consultant clients included Budweiser, Fosters, Caldeonian Brewery and at least four Indian restaurants, a fact which may explain his slowly expanding waistline.

All things considered, Brian Monteith is as 'normal' a politician as you could wish to meet. He is also incredibly laid back. Even relegation for his beloved Hibernian in 1998 was met with a shrug of the shoulders and a sense of perspective rare among red-blooded season ticket holders.

Get him on the subject of smoking however and Monteith is as close as he ever gets to fuming. An occasional smoker who enjoys the odd cigar, he has watched with dismay as politically correct politicians of all parties have lined up to lecture his countrymen about the evils of tobacco while threatening to ban smoking in public places.

Quite simply, Monteith believes that the Scottish Parliament's attitude to smoking is all wrong. "There's a danger," he reports, "that the Scottish Parliament will be seen as puritanical and in that sense quite out of touch with ordinary people. Unfortunately politicians are ambivalent and once a bandwagon has been started by a small minority, it's difficult to stop.

"I don't advocate smoking in the chamber where we're debating but if one believes in individual liberties there should be places, including bars and restaurants, which are tailored for smokers as well as non-smokers.

"Smoking," he adds, "may offer a slight health risk to me but getting into my car or playing five-a-side football also offer a slight risk and it's a choice I decide to make. So long as people are tolerant of each other's choices we should be free to make them."

He's unimpressed by organisations like ASH Scotland, a group he dismisses as "humourless and the mouthpiece of government". ASH, says Monteith, represents an outdated presbyterianism that continues to haunt Scottish life. "There is still a sense of guilt, in some quarters, about having any fun."

He agrees the state should regulate the sale of tobacco and educate people, children especially, about the health risks, but is adamant that it should not interfere in an adult's choice of lifestyle, whether it be smoking or drinking. "The warnings on cigarette packets," says Monteith, "are completely meaningless. People ignore them. A ban on tobacco advertising will also make little difference. It's the worst form of gesture politics."

Tobacco taxation? Far too high, says Monteith. "It doesn't discourage people from smoking. It encourages smuggling which creates a thriving black market and makes cheap tobacco readily available to young smokers."

Smoking in public places? Live and let live, he argues. "I see nothing wrong with smokers and non-smokers sharing the same space, so long as it's well ventilated. There is a time and a place for smoking but the idea that it should be confined to your own home, under cover of darkness, is absurd. Yet that is the logic of the anti-smoking argument."

Smokers' rights is not the only 'unpopular' cause Monteith has supported. Indeed, the fact that he finds himself in the Scottish Parliament at all is one life's little mysteries. A former chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students, Monteith was a fierce opponent of a devolved parliament and did everything he could to convince his countrymen that here was an expensive experiment they could well do without.

"Having been involved in the previous referendum in 1979 I felt it was important that the electorate should hear the arguments for and against devolution."

According to Monteith, who devised and led the vociferous 'No No' campaign almost single-handedly, it did relatively well. "We had very little money and the momentum was completely against us from the beginning, but many of the issues we raised have never gone away and have in some ways plagued the Parliament ever since."

One issue was the price of constructing a new building. "We thought it would cost as much as £50 million but it looks like it will cost four times that. We also asked why we should have so many government ministers and were told we wouldn't. We now have 22 ministers costing us over one million pounds a year."

A close ally of Scottish Tory leader David McLetchie, Monteith says, "David is now accepted as being one of the most effective parliamentarians in Scotland. Given that he also has a sense of humour, an interest in things such as football and golf, and likes a cigar, I think he has the common touch and will be a considerable asset for us."

Having the "common touch", he adds, is vital. His greatest fear is that "129 politicians will seek to find things to do and this will mean more regulation, more political correctness and more interference in people's everyday lives."

Today, shadowing ministers on education, culture and sport, Monteith has a chance to promote two of the principles closest to his heart – choice and opportunity. "What we need in education is more choice. The way to provide it is to remove schools from local authorities and create school education boards which can provide different types of education to suit parents or children's needs. Let the parents decide.

"In football I am concerned that the league structure in Scotland is effectively a restriction of practise in that the top 12 clubs can restrict who enters into the Scottish Premier League."

On culture he believes that questions must be asked about the relationship between the arts and the state. "We should ask, for example, if state funding actually undermines artistic credibility. I wouldn't expect these questions to be asked by socialists. They look for the smothering arms of the state to support the arts because it means they can control it."

More importantly, he believes the country needs to sell itself as a high quality destination for people from outside Scotland. "We need fewer tourists who spend more money. The concept of us trying to cater for large numbers is a false one because I just don't think our roads, for example, can handle them.

"You can't sell the tranquility of the glens to coachloads of people. Increasing access to the hills might be great for the health of the nation but it makes it less of an experience than it's meant to be."

Quality hospitality also means smoking and non-smoking facilities. "If we restrict choice we will drive people away." Political correctness, he argues, could damage the nation's economic health.

Realistically Monteith accepts that the Scottish Conservative party faces at least twelve, probably more, years in opposition. Undeterred he draws on his cigar, exhales lustily and declares, "This gives us time to develop policies that will be popular, have a bit of fun, and show our Scottish credentials. We've started with a blank sheet of paper so we've everything to build on. It's a great time to be in Scottish politics."

Let's hope he's right.

Postscript: Brian stood down from the Scottish Parliament in 2006 after seven years as an MSP. He currently writes a weekly column for the Scotsman and is regular contributor to Conservative Home. He also writes for and edits Forest's Free Society website.

In 2014 the Scottish Conservative party has one MP and 16 (out of 129) MSPs. It is no closer to power in Scotland than it was 14 years ago.