Pointless checking at airports?

There's been much in the news this week about checks at airports. From British Airways Chairman Martin Broughton slamming the checks the Americans insist on but don't bother implementing at many of their own airports to the news that the bombs found inside printer cartridges at East Midlands Airport had been partly transported on passenger flights and not just cargo flights as first reported.

I think I probably agree with MB mainly because of the number of times I've inadvertently gone through with things I shouldn't have and have gone completely undetected. I once kept my laptop inside my bag (you're supposed to have it checked separately) but nobody noticed. I have taken bottles of water through, a nail file, various liquids in excess of 100ml and once I even took a parliament bottle of whisky through. I should explain that none of this was deliberate, I just (like everyone else) forget what goes in the hold, what goes on with you and what needs to come out the bag for them to check separately.

Once I remembered after I'd been through and went back to confess to a bottle of water!

But the point is that each time my bag has gone into that machine that searches it and each time there have been contraband items (which apparently have the potential to do great harm) and they've never noticed.

And although I was obviously not carrying anything damaging, the same can't be said of those bomb containing printer cartridges. (Good on the person who spotted them at East Midlands.) I didn't realise the USA had insisted on the checks. Nor did I know that they don't carry them out themselves. It begs the question why we are "kowtowing" as Martin Broughton said, in the first place? I'm inclined to agree with Mr B. Why don't we just decide what checks are actually necessary and then do them properly? Simples as they say on some TV ad!

Questioning Question Time

I have a cure for low blood pressure. It's called Question Time and it comes on of a Thursday evening around 10.30pm on BBC1. It's about politics in Britain. Sorry, PARTS of Britain. Apparently, according to the host David Dimbleby last night, the guests on the panel can only talk about things if they are related to the whole of the UK.

That's what he told Scotland's Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon last night when he ruled her answer to be unacceptable on the basis that she was explaining how the Scottish Government was dealing with the economic crisis and that only affected Scotland.

So what exactly was the point in having anyone from the Scottish Government or indeed the Scottish Parliament there then? Was he expecting her to answer on the basis of what she would do were she in power in the UK? How absurd!

If the rule is that panellists can only talk about UK wide issues I have 2 questions.

1) Why did David Dimbleby then, out of the blue, start talking about the Scottish Government decision to release Al Megrahi from a Scottish prison? And why did he ask all of the panellists for their opinion EXCEPT for Nicola Sturgeon, a representative of the government that actually made that decision? She got her point in but she really had to fight for the right to speak. Shocking.

2) Can we expect that all future programmes will stick to this absurd ruling and does this therefore mean I no longer have to sit through the panel talking about education and health like we all have the same education and health services but knowing that NONE of what they say applies in Scotland?

On the second point I'll be watching closely and I'll be emailing the show if they break their new rule. I'm expecting repetitive strain injuries galore!

The Milibands win

Ed Miliband has won the Labour leadership contest on just over 50% of the final vote. His brother David got just under 50% of the vote. So some folk are spinning that and saying it shows the Labour Party will be split. What? Talk about havering! How on earth can a close run thing between two individuals who have no fundamental political differences be seen as an indicator of a split? They were both part of the government that took us into the Iraq war, that lead us into the current financial mess and that tried to introduce ID cards. Neither of them spoke out at the time - when it might have made a difference.

The only difference I can see between them is in their campaigning tactics in this leadership contest. Ed talked a good game about regaining the trust of the working classes. He also criticised the decision to go to war with Iraq. David didn't. Apart from that I'm thinking it makes no difference which of the brothers leads the party. And to call it a split in Labour is just a bit daft.

Now if Diane Abbot (of whom I am not a fan but who at least has fundamentally different views and the courage to express them whether she's standing for election or not), had got 49% to Ed's 51%, then we'd have had a bit of excitement and a definite split. As it is we'll have the same old, same old in new Labour.

Join me in celebrating recovery from addicition TODAY

I'm doing the UK Recovery Walk today. I'll be joining hopefully thousands of people from around the UK. The idea is that we walk "in solidarity and create living proof that recovery can and does happen". There's a full day of events starting at Glasgow Green at 2pm but the highlights will be the walk itself at 3pm and releasing the balloons at 6pm. We will release balloons in memory of those who've lost their lives to drug problems and addictions. I know who I'll be thinking of and although I think it will be hard for everyone to be there, it's an important message to get across - that you CAN recover from addiction. Many of the walkers today will be living proof of that.

"Glad to be Gay: MSP Anne McLaughlin on Coming Out"!

Had it not been for the email I got drawing my attention to the end of my article in this month's Scotsgay, I'm quite sure I would have spotted this headline sooner! I wrote a piece about media reporting when people "come out" and how the language is invariably negative. I talk about a male relative saying he'd been "accused" of being gay and how I explained that as there is nothing wrong with it, it's not worthy of accusation. Therefore I can only laugh at the cheekily misleading headline and look forward to being asked over and over again if it's true :-)

Less funny is the reason for the initial email. Actually I got a few emails from people expressing surprise that at the end of the article I say that I can't wait for the day when nobody "gives a f_ _ _" what your sexuality is. Except the article spells it out. No dashes, no asterisks, just the "f" word in all its glory.

Except that is NOT what I wrote. My words were "when nobody gives a ****"! The irony is that I was thinking of the word "damn" but thought it might be a bit offensive to some so I'd asterisk it instead. So how it changed I do not know. I don't want to kick up a big fuss but neither do I want anyone thinking I think it's acceptable to me to swear so casually - and in writing!

Apart from anything else, to me it just looks like MSP trying to kid on she's "down with the kids"! As you all know, I AM down with the kids but it's very uncool to draw attention to that fact! Anyway why not read the article and ignore the "bad word" at the end?

It's the final countdown

Today is the day they count the votes that determine the internal lists for the SNP candidates in next year's Holyrood elections. What it, in effect means is that by Monday we will all have a pretty good idea of our chances of getting elected as MSPs on the regional list next May. I have to say the great thing about the SNP is that none of us will allow our list place to affect our campaigns to win our seats first past the post. If I'm near the top of the list (and I don't expect to be) I'll still be doing everything I can to win in Provan. If I'm near the bottom of the list, the same goes. That said, it's a tense time for a lot of people.

I WASN'T feeling tense and I still wouldn't be if it wasn't for all the other candidates phoning texting and emailing to say "how you feeling?". One laughed when I said "about what?" and he thought I was joking but I wasn't. Now, of course, I'm thinking about it all the flamin time!!

And yet, at the grand old age of whatever age I am these days, I have been through enough changes and highs and lows in my life and I've started out down enough roads only to change direction shortly thereafter, to know that I will adjust to whatever the members of Glasgow SNP decide.

I will still fight to win my seat and, if that doesn't work, well I've still not ticked "soap star", "tap dancer", "international human rights campaigner" and "celebrated writer" off my "to do" list. That said, I started this job of mine in the worst of circumstances with no expectations and a lot of trepidation. I resigned myself to doing it for two and a half years but within weeks I loved it so I would willingly postpone the tap dancing for another four years if necessary.

Anyway good luck to everyone waiting on results and PLEASE stop talking to me about it, I want to think trivial thoughts for now thank you very much!

Equality vs instinct!

I was driving to Nicola Sturgeon's house last week with Nicola in the car when I heard the words "I should know not to get in a car with you" coming from the Deputy First Minister, just as a police car starts flashing me to stop! She's right, there have been a few dramas when Nicola's been in my car eg the time she bought hot soup in a service station and was drinking it when I had to brake suddenly and it ended up all over her face! So she really should know better.

Anyway the police were very nice. They were just stopping me to tell me a brake light was out. THEY were fine, it was MY reaction that astonished both myself and Nicola. As she said it was the way that I instantly and instinctively turned on the "stupid woman" act that was so alarming. The police officer told me the brake light was out and I replied (in a very much higher register than my voice is used to)

"oh, does that mean I will have to take it to the garage officer?".

Yes, I'm ashamed and I know not where it came from! I have fixed my own brake lights before, it's just a light bulb. What on earth was I doing? If the sisterhood out there wants to disown me, I will completely understand!