The Scottish School Boards’ Association, (SSBA), was established in 1991 during the last Tory administration with a political purpose. Their structures and procedures were specified in legislation. Whilst they received some government funding for training materials, they were expected to be supportive of Conservative policies, such as the self-governing status of schools at a time when the now defunct Parents’ Coalition and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council were on the attack. Tory leader Margaret Thatcher’s promotion of so-called ‘parent power’ succeeded in developing a growing mistrust of professional teachers and the local education authority’s framework for sexual and moral education. What resulted, with a little help from some sections of the press, was a growth in the power and influence of school governors and parents.

At the time of the campaign against the repeal of Section 28, the SSBA represented 75% of schools in Scotland, but was an association whose executive was made up of representatives from only two-thirds of the 32 local authority areas in Scotland. It had uncontested school board nominations and unfilled places on its executive board. It also provided an open door for anyone seeking to exercise their religious agenda.

Against a growing tide of mounting debts within the association, the Scottish Executive announced it would bail out the SSBA, an otherwise independent and non-statutory body, to the tune of £17,740. Weeks later, the SSBA announced Brian Souter’s ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign would be fronting their campaign against repeal of Section 28 in Scotland.

It wasn’t only in Scotland that school boards were seen to champion homophobia. Around the same time, the school board in Orange County California school district also feared the ‘indoctrination’ of gay lifestyles at El Modena High School. Students there had formed a Gay/Straight Student Alliance. The school board took away the decision of the high school administration to decide the club’s fate and held public meetings - which became little more than a sounding board for the ‘moral right’ - before banning it. The Gay/Straight Student Alliance took the school board to court and, not without irony, cited an equal access law passed in the mid-eighties, originally designed to allow religious groups to meet in public schools. They won. 62 students and eight faculty members attended their first on-campus meeting on 10 February 2000. Student leader Anthony Colin said: “That so many faculty came was neat. Nobody talked about sex, but we talked about how people can come out as gay or bi in the face of all this hate”. The next day, Orange County Unified School District trustees who had been forced to allow the meeting under the federal judge’s ruling, added new requirements. High school students had to get written parental permission before joining any student group (an impossible requirement for gay students who were not out); there would be a prohibition on any discussion of sex in any school-sponsored club and there was now required a 2.0 grade average from any student who participated. Spokesperson Judy Frutig said: “The board will continue to try to protect the youth from ideas that are potentially harmful to them”.

The announcement from the Scottish School Boards’ Association’s executive that they were to challenge the government’s repeal of Section 28 with the help of Brian Souter’s money signalled deep divisions within the SSBA. The motherly chief executive, Ann Hill took her place next to ex-Sun editor Jack Irvine at the press conference. Smiling together under a huge banner proclaiming: KEEP THE CLAUSE in blood red, columnist Anvar Khan waspishly wrote in The Herald: “…The moral future of the country may be in the hands of Max Clifford and Hattie Jacques”. Ann Hill suggested that Section 28 protected children from gay pornography. (Pornography is not mentioned in Section 28. And in any case, if ‘protecting children from pornography’ gay or straight was the aim of the SSBA, then Wendy Alexander’s promise of ‘guidelines’ would have been a more effective vehicle than Section 28, which only targets homosexuality). The Sunday Mail reported: “The Scottish School Board Association chief executive Ann Hill has claimed that authorities are stockpiling homosexual material in readiness for use once the legislation is repealed”. Ann Hill appeared more conciliatory in The Scotsman when she told them how a review of the guidelines might be enough to placate most of those opposed to repeal. She was quoted saying: “We are not against the repeal of Section 28 in principle… We are against the way it is proposed at the moment. It needs some tweaking”. That was not how it appeared in The Scottish Daily Mail! They reported her saying: “We are totally opposed to the scrapping of Clause 28. We will announce further details of our campaign next week in Edinburgh”. The full committee had not discussed the issue at this stage and were in fact split. It was six members for and six against repeal with SSBA president David Hutchison carrying the deciding vote.

James Forbes of Edinburgh added his voice in The Herald to calls “for the resignation of David Hutchison (President of the Scottish School Boards’ Association) from both the McCrone Committee and the General Teaching Council (GTC). In six years as a teacher, I have not once been invited to vote, never mind stand for any school board election. The SSBA hold no mandate from Scotland’s teachers. The teaching unions, whose delegates are elected from those of us who do the job… are clear in our stand for equality of opportunity. Mr Hutchison was one of the Secretary of State’s nominees on the GTC yet he is president of a body which would deny Scotland’s lesbian and gay pupils the same self-esteem enjoyed by heterosexual pupils… I resent paying my GTC registration fee for a person who does not trust the professional judgement of Scotland’s teachers, yet holds power to decide their suitability to teach. David Hutchison should do the decent thing, resign, and stop dabbling in education”.

In Rutherglen’s The Reformer, the chairman of Stonelaw High School Board, Michael Fuller, blasted the SSBA for being trapped by the ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign while the acting head teacher of the school, John McDonald, when asked if sexual orientation was discussed in the classroom, admitted: “It would come up in the course of conversation but it’s not part of our course content”.

Teacher Tom Pow, and a columnist in The New Statesman magazine remembered his schooldays in a piece for The Scotsman. He recalled one boy in particular whose life had been hell. “Passing from class to class, whether in the playground or in a stairwell, other boys, some years younger, would give him casual punches, slaps or kicks. No-one stood up for him or offered him any kind of protection. That would be to side with the wimps. And all of us were terrified of the public face of our incipient sexuality. The most innocent act could lead to a scream of horror and chant of ‘Poofter! Poofter! Poofter!’ Like Abigail and her gang of witch accusers in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, it was better to join in than to leave yourself open to suspicion”. And as a teacher in 1988 Pow remembered: “None of us had to push a tide of pornographic material back into our cupboards that year; nor is any such material straining for release now. If there is a classroom that has ever been a hotbed for sexual licence, neither I, nor anyone I know, has been in it. And yet, as a supporter for the retention of Section 28, cried on the radio this week: ‘Enough is enough!’”

The Sunday Herald was one of a few papers that listened to gay kids who had been bullied for being gay at school. Ben Brown told Torcuil Crichton: “We had stones and bottles thrown at us and name-calling every day. When one of the girls went to her guidance teacher, he told her it was her own fault for hanging around with other gay people”.

Andrew Johnson, co-director of the Equality and Discrimination Centre at the Faculty of Education at Strathclyde University wrote in The Herald: “Homophobia is a silent, taken-for-granted, deeply embedded discrimination witnessed in many forms. In principle and theory it is like racism, religious bigotry, and the rest: scratch the surface and generations of misinformation, ignorance, and educational silence gleam through. For the last 10 years I have taught very large classes of trainee teachers on issues of inequality, discrimination, and oppression. With my colleagues we have dealt with an analysis of how heterosexism and homophobia are reproduced and sustained. The combined numbers of students would run into several thousands, some being graduates, others undergraduates straight from school. Typically we have asked what the students learned at school about homosexuality. The overwhelming majority of students have indicated that they learned nothing or next to nothing about such matters. It is no longer surprising to us when student teachers also tell us that they have been told that incidents related to homosexuality should not be dealt with lest it be seen as ‘promoting homosexuality’. Three such instances, one including homophobic bullying, have been brought to our attention in the last three months. What we need to counter this silence is a Lawrence-type campaign (which challenged racism) against homophobia, even a formal inquiry! What we have is a campaign, nurturing moral panic from the media and hoarding sound-bites. Its growth and sustenance rely on well-cultivated educational ignorance, silence, and sometimes threats…”

The Scottish Daily Mail smugly reported “the Scottish School’s Boards’ Association has a unit to monitor bullying and it revealed there had not been one complaint about it in three years”.

One of the other key figures behind the SSBA’s vociferous opposition to repeal of Section 28 was its treasurer Alan Smith. Smith was a financial consultant with deep religious convictions who lived and worked in Paisley before becoming employed with Sun Life Financial of Canada. In Glasgow’s Evening Times, morally conservative Smith attacked a board game, based on the popular TV show Friends. The report read: “The saucy nature of some questions has prompted Scottish School Boards’ Association spokesman Alan Smith to urge the makers to clean up their act…” He claimed: “Dubious questions include ‘where is the G-spot?’, ‘has anyone been injured during sex?’ and ‘does your mum know what a flavoured condom is?’ Less repeatable subjects cover fancying your girlfriend’s mother and various kinds of sexual behaviour”. Alan Smith was reported suggesting the game was harmful. He said: “It’s shocking children have access to this sort of unsuitable material”. Under the headline “PARENTS IN FURY OVER RUDE QUIZ”, five “fans” had their say. Maureen Kane, 24 of Royston called the game “shocking”. Christine Curzon, 30 of Milton wanted to protect her godson. “I don’t think he should know some of the things mentioned in the game”. Janice Gallagher, 41 of Netherlee said: “Parents don’t want their children to have access to cheeky questions”. Young mum Adele Witkowski, 21 of Knightswood said: “Parents don’t always read small print - it’s up to the makers to warn about adult content in big letters on the front of the box” and there was just enough space for James Findlay, 53 of Newton Mearns to gasp: “I’m shocked”.

The SSBA executive faced a growing challenge from members who felt the Executive had properly consulted neither school boards nor parents. On Monday, 17 January 2000 a letter appeared from Joanne Beaumont, one of the 33 Executive Board members of the SSBA in The Herald. She insisted that the SSBA “supports the repeal of Clause 28…” with the rider that the Board had to have time to consult parents and consider the timing of Wendy Alexander’s proposal of ‘guidelines’ once Section 28 was repealed. Communities Minister Wendy Alexander wrote to reassure the SSBA, a month before Souter had announced his involvement, if they wished; she would review and strengthen the guidelines in the wake of abolition. Ms Beaumont went on to quote the relevant minutes of the meeting and pulled no punches. “I certainly have not allied myself to any Church campaign, or any campaign to stop the repeal of Clause 28. I categorically refuse to lend support to any campaign in the absence of a thorough consultation with parents, and teachers, who also participate in boards”.

Treasurer, Alan Smith’s angry response appeared the next day in The Herald. He was “extremely disappointed” with Ms Beaumont and told Glasgow’s Evening Times: “She does not speak for the board”.

A letter to The Scotsman from Scotstoun Primary School Board also went on the attack: “How dare Ann Hill… appear in the media purporting to represent school boards… when there has been absolutely no consultation on the matter with any school board whatsoever”.

In a letter to the The Herald, Kim Connelly from Glasgow and 17 other signatories including a group of carers and parents felt the SSBA had “failed in any meaningful way to inform and consult parents like ourselves over this sensitive issue. Nor has it displayed any understanding or balance in the media broadcasts. The SSBA has created a moral panic and opened the door to prejudice and intolerance. Who exactly does Ann Hill, the Chief Executive of the SSBA actually represent?”

Pauline M Kelly in Glasgow wrote: “Unlike the Scottish School Boards’ Association, the Scottish Parliament invited contributions to be made during the consultations period… The Scottish School Boards’ Executive has put itself at the forefront of a well-funded high-profile campaign to oppose repeal without initiating any formal consultation with school boards in Scotland”.

Some boards, including the Bell Baxter High School in Cupar wrote to the SSBA in disgust. Others withheld their SSBA subscriptions or plotted to depose the association’s leadership at their elections in March. Fife council was equally upset when it discovered the SSBA had accused it of buying graphic sex education material from Avon health authority in Somerset, a story that found its way into the newspapers. Fife council leader Christine May said they had requested a copy of the information pack, but returned it because of reservations about its content.

The chairman of Harris Academy School, Fiona Jurk wrote to Ann Hill accusing her of acting unconstitutionally and claimed there was no evidence the majority of parents supported the retention of Section 28.

In support of the SSBA, Dr Sam McKinstry wrote to The Herald to say: “On November 18 the Scottish Executive sent out some 6,500 consultation documents to community councils, local authorities and councils, certain churches, unions, health and education authorities, all private schools, and gay interest groups. The Executive’s staff cannot furnish me with a complete circulation list, so no-one can say exactly who has or has not been consulted… or how comprehensive the process was. The consultation documents were still being distributed… in December… I can tell you that the chance of organisations such as these, which tend only to meet monthly, managing to discuss these documents and return them by January 14 was always going to be somewhat slim…”

As the press turned its attention to the SSBA, fronting the ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign, pages from the SSBA website were mysteriously removed. Journalists trying to contact Ann Hill at the head office of the SSBA in Dumfries did so in vain. Callers were simply told by someone answering the phone: “No-one is giving anything out at the moment”. Ann Hill had fled to Stornoway on the Shetland Isles “on business”. Messages left on her answer machine went unanswered.

On Sunday, 16 January 2000, Derek Ogg QC made Brian Souter aware of the potential illegality of using charity funds to bankroll a political campaign. It was brought to light by The Sunday Times Scotland and repeated (this time drawing attention to Ogg’s sexuality) in The Daily Record: “Derek Ogg, who is gay, has written to the Lord Advocate…” Tom Brown wrote in the tabloid: “Brian Souter is ‘very relaxed,’ despite the vilification he has received from the gay lobby” and claimed Brian Souter had told him: “I’m not bothered about being labelled ‘politically incorrect’ – I’m in good company”.

Within days, the Kirk Moderator Rt. Rev John Cairns threw his weight behind the abolishment of Section 28. “CHURCH LEADERS IN SPLIT ON GAY LESSONS”, The Scottish Sun’s front page squealed on Wednesday, 19 January. “Rev Cairns’ support came as the Scots Executive revealed that three out of four people who responded to a consultation process on Clause 28, backed their plans to scrap it”. The Scottish Daily Mail bellowed: “KIRK FURY AS LEADER BACKS GAY SEX LAW ABOLITION… The Right Reverend John Cairns was immediately accused by Kirk officials, ministers and politicians of losing touch with the views of most ordinary members of the church”. This appeared to be as good a time as any for the tabloid to add bitterly: “The Moderator’s comments come at a time when the Church of Scotland is suffering a dramatic decline in congregations. The latest figures showed membership had nosedived from a million ten years ago to just over 6,000,000 today”. The Catholic Church wasn’t exactly bursting at the seams with new members, either.

The Daily Record accused the Kirk’s Moderator, John Cairns of not showing “Christian solidarity – not to mention leadership – on such a clear moral issue”. They even had the temerity to conclude: “There were suggestions from Kirk members that the Moderator was prepared to ignore the strength of public opinion because he did not want to upset his own gay friends”. The Record declared an “embarrassing split” in the Church. One of the tabloid’s favourite Church ‘spokespersons’, Mrs Ann Allen, the convener of the Kirk’s ridiculously named Board of Social Responsibility was, of course, firmly behind The Record in keeping the clause and expressed her opposition to the views of the Moderator of the General Assembly.

If the very title, the Board of Social Responsibility sounded quaintly Victorian, its agenda could be described as patently medieval. In 2003, with a panel of ministers and psychiatrists, the Kirk launched a study amid concerns it was not doing enough for people possessed of demons. The Catholic Church already had a number of priests in Scotland who performed exorcisms. The Board of Social Responsibility was one of the country’s largest volunteer social work agencies employing around 1,600 people. Amidst controversy over its closure of homes for the elderly, they formed the Deliverance Group, which planned to look at how other churches performed exorcism, consider ways of funding ministers working in this field and tackle public scepticism.

The Kirk’s Moderator, John Cairns did not speak for the Church of Scotland, since he was only a first amongst equals. Any judgement on the Kirk’s position would have had to be determined by consulting its ministers and elders, a fact The Record hadn’t missed. “The danger is… many Scots will believe that the Kirk is in favour of repealing Section 28. They may also believe that the Roman Catholic Church has more spiritual certainty, upholds standards of decency better and represents family values more and therefore has taken the moral high ground”. The Record was driven to ask, “who REALLY speaks for the people in the pews of Scotland’s kirks?” A Catholic spokesman told The Record: “We will not criticise the views of another Christian leader” but “we have been inundated with phone calls of support”.

Scottish Socialist Party MSP Tommy Sheridan, The Daily Record’s token “radical voice” pointed out in his column: “Priests are celibate – also a different sexual orientation to the majority”. The tabloid wasn’t listening. Smelling the scent of victory, on Wednesday, 19 January, its front page roared: “2:1 AGAINST GAY LESSONS”. The Record celebrated with a chest-thumping editorial: “The people have spoken… The Record poll vindicated Cardinal Thomas Winning – who wants Section 28 retained and describes homosexuality as a ‘perversion’.” The praises flooded in from some predictable sources. “The Record would seem to have its finger on the pulse”, said Jack Irvine, running Brian Souter’s ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign. “The Record poll mirrors my own belief”, said Tory spokesman Phil Gallie. The ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign was tapping the moral indignation of conservative populism and milking it for all it was worth. Some wondered if they should not now demand the return of hanging since the majority would inevitably go against a government elected to act on the higher values of informed opinion.

Mrs Anne Allen didn’t get an easy time from Isobel Fraser on BBC Radio Scotland’s, Good Morning Scotland who tackled her on the church’s so-called ‘split’ and her opinion on ‘promoting’ homosexuality. The religious stance of The Scottish Sun would provide Mrs Allen with a better window of opportunity to express her discomfort over the Moderator’s support for repeal: “We are a broad church and he is entitled to his personal views”. But added: “…There will be many people in the church who will be deeply dismayed that he has made his views public when we want to encourage as much informed discussion as possible on this issue”. Not everyone on the Kirk’s Board of Social Responsibilty agreed with Anne Allen. One of its members was a certain retired minister by the name of Douglas Alexander, Wendy Alexander’s father. Brian Souter’s spokesman, Jack Irvine dismissed Rt. Rev John Cairns, as “out of touch” and stressed: “Brian’s view is that he does not approve of homosexuality. But that does not mean he does not love men and women who are homosexual”.

The Moderator was more in touch than he had been given credit for and expressed his awareness of how the injustice of Section 28 had been instrumental in putting gay human rights firmly on the political agenda. It was somewhat ironic that the establishment of such gay groups as Outrage! and Stonewall owed much to the measure.

In the morning’s edition of The Scottish Mirror on Wednesday, 19 January a selection of familiar faces were asked their views on getting rid of the clause. Jim Kerr of the band, Simple Minds “made it plain that he could never back the lobby supporting Section 28”. Kerr and Simple Minds had contributed to Red, Hot and Blue, a project set up to raise funds to fight AIDS. Kerr told The Scottish Mirror “he would like to see more forward thinking in Scottish education. I think teachers have a part to play in this as well as politicians, in creating a society where everyone has equal rights”. Jim Kerr was a wealthy entrepreneur. He had amassed a fortune estimated to be around £40m with interests in loft complexes, bits of restaurant chains, internet start-ups, shareholdings in football clubs and a film company. Celebrity chef Nick Nairns who had been battling to get a mention in the prestigious Michelin restaurant guides said of Section 28: “It is outdated and I find it offensive. The government is dead right – this is not about promoting homosexuality but informing children of reality”. Others were more compromising. Millionaire Brian Dempsey, a devout Catholic wanted a “better debate”. 54-year-old hairdresser to the stars, Taylor Ferguson, whose real name was Henry, appearing on a Scottish news bulletin in a chic jacket with a leather stripe embroidered across it, added: “School education should not be about sex”. Car dealer Arnold Clark, who, at 72 was a Church of Scotland elder and owner of Scotland’s largest privately-owned company which was only £19m short of the £1billion turnover mark in 2001 and making £25m a year in profits, supported Section 28 but admitted: “Brian Souter shouldn’t bankroll the campaign”. A former RAF mechanic, Clark was knighted in 2004 for his services to industry and the community. He owned the largest independent car dealership in the UK and bought a luxury 1964 Bentley S3 Convertible once owned by Sir Elton John and a 1948 coupé Sedanca Bentley formerly owned by both Alfred Heinekin and Prince Rainier of Monaco. Sir Arnold Clark was placed tenth on the The Sunday Times Scotland’s Rich List in 2006 with a personal fortune estimated at £385m.

The Scottish Mirror asked controversial comedian Bernard Manning for his opinion. Already known for his racist and homophobic patter, the tabloid reported: “…He let rip with a homophobic tirade branding homosexuals perverts. Most of it was unfit to print but he did say: ‘We don’t want our schools turning out a load of pansies’.”

At the ‘Keep the Clause’ press conference that afternoon, David Macauley proudly trotted out their list of celebrity supporters: SNP MSP Fergus Ewing; the Optical Express chief executive, David Moulsdale; the former SNP MP and Scottish Sun columnist, Jim Sillars; the Scottish Muslim leader, Bashir Maan; the convener of the Scots Asians for Independence, Bashir Ahmed; celebrity chef Nick Nairn; Jim Kerr from the band Simple Minds; motor trader Arnold Clark; hairdresser Taylor Ferguson and Kwik-Fit boss Sir Tom Farmer. All it took was for the Scottish political editor of The Mirror to point out that “Nick Nairn supports the government” and David Macauley sat down abruptly. Within hours, Jim Kerr, Nick Nairn, Arnold Clark and Sir Tom Farmer were all publicly distancing themselves from the ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign. Jack Irvine’s efforts to enlist the support of what writer Muriel Gray waspishly described as “D-list celebrities” descended into farce.

On behalf of ‘Keep the Clause’, David Macauley poured out his apologies to The Scotsman: “We are honourable people fighting an honourable cause. We are desperately sorry if we’ve embarrassed anybody. Our hearts and minds are in the right place…”

Jim Kerr was “shocked and amazed” claiming the campaign organisers had not even contacted him. He told The Sunday Herald: “The saving grace from all this is that most people were totally incredulous when they heard I was backing the campaign. The music business is the least homophobic and most idealistic industry you could find. God’s sake, I’ve done charity work for AIDS and given money to the gay community… It was a bit Kafkaesque to hear you are backing something you’ve never opened your mouth about. I got on the phone to Cassidy and asked him what the f*** was going on”. (Tom Cassidy was an executive at Media House who had held senior editorial executive positions in both Mirror Group and Express newspapers). “To their credit they were quick to admit they were wrong, but I was still angry and sickened”. A spokesman for Sir Tom Farmer said: “It is not accurate to say Sir Tom is backing this campaign”. It was later confirmed the campaign had enlisted the support of the Scottish Nationalist MSP and Catholic Fergus Ewing; spectacle boss, David Moulsdale; former MP, Jim Sillars; SNP councillor, Bashir Ahmed and Bashir Maan, an immigrant from Pakistan, who, with his partner sold cut-price alcohol – forbidden to Muslims – from a shop in Glasgow before selling his shares to run a successful cash-and-carry business and become an unofficial spokesman for the ‘Muslim community’.

The Herald’s editorial responded with biting sarcasm: “It is reassuring to learn that Media House, the public relations concern, has applied the same rigour and attention to detail in checking the extent of celebrity support for the ‘‘Keep the Clause’’ campaign as it did in researching the implications for sex education in schools of repealing Section 28. The campaign has been badly mishandled and might well have reached its nadir…” Of the SSBA’s Mrs Ann Hill, they were equally scathing: “Despite the comments of the chief executive of the Scottish School Boards’ Association, there was proper consultation on repeal. Mrs Ann Hill’s criticisms do not stand up to scrutiny… She implies that the Scottish Executive pulled the wool over parents’ eyes. Yet the SSBA had already decided on behalf of school boards what they should think about Section 28. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many boards think differently. The truth is that the SSBA, like many bodies before it, has been hijacked by people with an axe to grind. The latest accounts show that it received twice as much in grants from membership subscriptions and paid out close to the average pay for a teacher in directors’ remunerations…”

The Scottish Express’s political correspondent Angus Macleod reported how “SNP sources later indicated strongly that Mr Ewing had been carpeted by party leader Alex Salmond for not informing them of his action, and for going against party policy of supporting an end to the ban”. All there was left of Souter’s ‘high-profile’ celebrity supporters now was a slightly camp ‘hairdresser to the stars’.

Muriel Gray groaned in her Sunday Herald column: “Spare a thought for the thousands of honest, decent, moral and respectable gay people in Scotland, who for the last fortnight have had to endure the worst kind of personal attacks, a constant hurtful onslaught of bile from the press, the church and hairdressers”.

Reporter Neil Mackay wrote advisedly in The Sunday Herald: “Well, the words ‘fiasco,’ ‘disaster’ and ‘shambles’ don’t really leave even the most proficient of spin doctors much room for manoeuvre, so it’s probably better to shut up”. Jack Irvine told The Sunday Herald: “I don’t want to talk to your newspaper as I thought its coverage of the issue was less than objective last week”. (They had “highlighted some of Irvine’s greatest work in his Scottish Daily Mirror column - including describing gay men as ‘slobbering old queers,’ ‘bum chums’ and sleazy old pervs)’.” Aidan Smith in The Scotsman quoted one of Irvine’s former colleagues on the defunct newspaper, The Sunday Scot: “Anyone in a tough-boy haircut who cuts his way through traffic in his Mercedes soft-top like Jaws and who loves the fact he lives in Whitecraigs, the suburb of Glasgow, is not going to spend too much time worrying about things. He likes upsetting people - that’s his style”. In actual fact, Irvine claimed he was “acutely embarrassed” over the affair and had his first sleepless night in nine years. Media House claimed they had been the victims of a ‘malicious fax’.

Although ‘Keep the Clause’ claimed they were already talking to a number of businessmen and public figures who wanted to commit themselves to their campaign, by Sunday night, 23 January, the SSBA were already threatening to quit the ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign. Treasurer Alan Smith tried to deny the rumours and insisted that no decision on accepting the offer of guidelines offered by the Executive would be taken until the Board met that Friday, reiterating his hard-line view that “guidelines are not statutory protection for children - that is only provided by Section 28”.

garry@garryotton.com

Next issue: Cardinal Winning takes the stage