Please can we not have a cross-border bidding war over abortion!

It was only a matter of time before journalists, in the wake of Jeremy Hunt's comments on abortion (that he favours a reduction in the time limit to 12 weeks), asked Alex Neil, the new Scottish health secretary, for his views on the subject. 

Scotland on Sunday got there first. There headline was "Health Secretary Alex Neil signals abortion law "change after independence"". 

This infuriated some nationalists on Twitter who complained bitterly that his words were being twisted and that he hadn't really said that.

Well, if you read the article, he was the one who seems to have brought up independence.

Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, Neil suggested that the dramatic cut backed by Hunt was unrealistic but he added the legislation should be reviewed in the event of abortion law being transferred from Westminster to Holyrood as a result of independence.

“I do thing (sic) there is a case to be had for a reduction from 24 weeks, but I don’t know if 12 weeks is realistic, frankly,” Neil said

“But I do think there is now a case, given the state of medical science and the fact that babies do survive from an much earlier stage in the pregnancy.“I do think there is a case for looking to bring down the number of weeks, but that is a personal opinion.

Now, there's a surprise, a Nationalist talking about what might happen after independence. At least we know that Neil favours a reduction in the time limit, but he doesn't speak for the whole SNP. We know Alex Salmond favours a reduction to 20 weeks. But there are also politicians in all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, who want to see it reduced to as little as 12 weeks. 

There is no point in reducing this to a bidding war as to what might happen on either side of the border. Wherever there's a parliament with responsibility, people will try at some point to reduce the time limit. What's important is that those of us who want the law to stay as it is, or for some of the restrictions such as the requirement for two doctors to sign, to be lifted, prepare our case. I think we could look to  the Equal Marriage campaign with its positive, simple, reasonable message for guidance.

Neil talked about policy being made after taking the evidence into account. He seemed to be talking about the evidence about when babies can survive from. I think it's vital to look at the effect on the mother of potentially being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, too. On evidence, there's a really good article in today's Guardian by obstetrician Wendy Savage. She said:

In 2007 the House of Commons science and technology committee published its 12th report on Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967. It concluded that although improvements in survival of babies born over 24 weeks had occurred since the upper limit was reduced in 1990, that was not the case for those under 24 weeks. This was based on the first Epicure study, a study of 4,000 premature babies (born from 22 to 26 weeks) treated in all the neonatal intensive care units in the UK and Eire, in 1995.Since then the second national study of babies born in 2006 has been published and there is no significant change in the number of extremely premature babies surviving. At 22 weeks three babies (1%) survived, one of whom is developing normally at three years, while one is moderately and the other severely handicapped. At 23 weeks 15% survived from the onset of labour and just over half had no disability at three years of age: no better than in 1995.

Some people were saying on Twitter yesterday that they thought Neil should either retract his comments or resign. I see no need for him to do that. He is in no position to restrict women's access to abortion and, frankly, I'd rather know what he wants rather than find out by accident. There is no prospect of Holyrood getting the power to decide abortion law any time soon. 

This issue has nothing to do with independence. We will have to fight the battle at Westminster at some time or other or Holyrood. This issue is emotive enough, and way too important, without it becoming hijacked by an independence bidding war. I don't think that was Alex Neil's intention. He was just doing what nationalists do. If you had asked him whether the sky was blue, he'd have found some way of saying it would be bluer after independence and the sun would shine brighter on the lovely money trees.

At least all this fuss has made me do something I should have done ages ago - joined the Abortion Rights campaign. It's only £20 for the year and I suspect it may be doing more trade than usual, courtesy of Mr Hunt. Don't forget Sophie Bridger's Your Choice campaign either.

The extra paragraph I'd have put into Willie Rennie's Scotland on Sunday article on independence question

Willie Rennie wrote for yesterday's Scotland on Sunday about the need for clarity in the question put to the Scottish people in the referendum.

His message was simple - that we need a clear, simple question in the referendum and the result must be beyond doubt.

While I would have liked there to be more than one question on the ballot paper, the succession of expert opinion (including the SNP's own favoured expert) has persuaded me that the question of independence must be settled by a simple yes/no question in a stand alone referendum. That doesn't stop the development of a consensus around further devolution of power to Holyrood across businesss, civic society and politics and the working out of a way to implement it, even if that's a second referendum, but the question of independence has to be settled separately.

Willie wrote:

A few months ago, I floated the hypothetical scenario in which 99 per cent of Scots voted for a third option, for example more devolution for Scotland within the UK, and 51 per cent voted for independence.

Under the rules proposed by the nationalists they would say that independence has won. Scotland would be permanently separated from the rest of the UK.

But you don’t have to be a maths whizz to see that this would ignore the views of the vast majority of Scots would have just voted for more powers Scotland within the United Kingdom.

It is simply not credible, or democratic, to get into a situation where the most popular option loses.

And none of the world’s experts on referendums has managed to show how this could be made to work while still honouring the SNP’s promise of a straight yes/no vote on independence.

It's interesting that the drive for two questions seems to have come, bizarrely, from the SNP, who favour independence. Alex Salmond, trying to grab the headlines from the launch of the Better Together campaign today, has apparently, according to the Times (£)  threatened that if he doesn't get his own way in negotiations with the UK Government over the Section 30 order required to make the referendum legal, he'll hold his own illegal poll on the day of the UK General Election in 2015. The SNP's drive for two questions must have something to do with polling evidence that shows that support for independence has fallen since the Yes Scotland campaign was launched last month.

As Willie said, our country's future should be decided, clearly, by the people, and not in Court. Now, I know that he was writing about that specific issue, but I do want him to be talking a little bit about our unique perspective on this debate. As I wrote last year when he set up the Home Rule Commission, we're in favour of devolving powers from as well as to Holyrood. The Better Together campaign, launching today of necessity has to be focused on arguing against independence, but there is room for Willie, outside that umbrella, to talk up our vision. I'd have liked it if he'd added something along the lines of "I'll be part of the Better Together campaign making the case for Scotland to remain in the UK. Beyond that, though, Liberal Democrats are looking at how best to give away power from as well as to Holyrood to make sure that people and communities have more control over the services they need." 


The promotion of the benefits of Scotland staying in the UK are, rightly, being co-ordinated by the Better Together campaign but the individual parties within it have very different ideas about how to continue the process of devolution. Really only the Liberal Democrats are actively talking about it. Mike Moore has been very clear that the Scotland Act is a staging post, not the end of the road and Willie Rennie is on record as saying he no more wants to be dictated from by Edinburgh as London. Sure, unite with the others where we agree on Better Together, but outside that arena, promote our own positive vision.

You can read Willie's article in full here.

Willie Rennie urges SNP Government not to compromise on equal marriage

Today's Scotland on Sunday suggests that the SNP Government will bring forward legislation to allow civil marriage for same sex couples. However, religious ceremonies, even for those organisations who want to conduct them, will not be permitted.

I really hope this isn't true. In this day and age, for the state to bow to the leadership of the churches is pretty sad, particularly when polls consistently show a significant majority of Scots in favour of equal marriage. Even the most ardent supporters of equal marriage, and I'd count myself as one of them, would not compel any church to conduct any marriage. It annoys me, though, that some churches feel they have the right to deny that right to others.

Willie Rennie has been consistently been supportive on this issue. I've been really proud of how he's happily and comfortably spoken out, more so than any other politician, I think.

He has today urged the SNP to hold firm and legislate for true marriage equality.

“Because of the heat they are getting, I can understand why the SNP Government may wish to compromise on this issue but I urge them not to compromise on equality.

“As there is no question of churches being compelled to conduct same sex marriages this change would only serve to restrict those churches who do wish to conduct such ceremonies.

“Equal marriage is not a threat to the freedom of churches so I urge the Scottish Government to confidently advocate the merits of the change they propose."

I really think it would be wrong for the Government to pander to the Scotland for Marriage campaign, especially after Gordon Wilson's outrageous claims that equal marriage would make independence less likely and might put off heterosexual couples from getting married because they might feel the institution was tainted if gay people were allowed to get married.

I hope that Nicola Sturgeon, who is known herself to be in favour of equal marriage, is able to convince her colleagues to hold firm. I fear, however, that the SNP's illiberal streak will prevail.

If, however, that does happen, I suspect it's only a matter of time before attitudes change. The awesome Liberal Youth Scotland have this week presented over 400 letters supporting equal marriage to MSPs and they'll keep their "Separate isn't Equal" campaign going.  I was quite amused to see our leader described as Will Rennie in the Pink News report.  Will is far too cool a name for him. Willie suits him much better.

In which I get to write for a proper paper #sp11

If you're my friend on Facebook, you will probably be sick to death of seeing this, so apologies.

I am a bit like a child. I should probably be more cool, but I'm quite excited that I was asked to write for a proper paper - not, you understand, that I've ever written for an improper one.

It looks quite impressive, at the bottom of page 13 of Scotland on Sunday. The online version is here.