School boards attack Souter over 'hijack'

SSBA SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT The campaign to stop the controversial repeal of the law scrapping the promotion of homosexuality in schools is critically split after parents' representatives accused tycoon Brian Souter and his PR advisers of "hijack".

The Scottish School Boards Association has now pulled out of the Keep The Clause Campaign and says it will have nothing more to do with Souter and the PR company Media House.

The association's president, David Hutchison revealed yesterday that he had received a personal apology from Media House boss Jack Irvine for mishandling the launch of the campaign to prevent the repeal of controversial Section 28 more than a week ago.

"The SSBA was never under the banner of the Keep The Clause campaign," said Hutchison. "The launch was meant to have been for the submission the SSBA would present to the Scottish Executive, asking for other guidelines to be developed if the clause was to be repealed.

"At the launch, which Media House organised, our chief executive and treasurer were taken into a room and confronted by Keep The Clause banners. That was a complete surprise and it should not have happened. Media House obviously had its own furrow to plough."

Hutchison was adamant that the SSBA will in future have nothing whatsoever to do with the campaign, which is being bankrolled by Stagecoach boss Brian Souter, who yesterday threatened to personally lead anti-poll tax style demonstrations against the repeal of Clause 28.

The SSBA executive board took its decision on Friday night during a meeting held at New Lanark. The board had spent three hours drafting an initial press release, which received unanimous support. It recognised the willingness of the government to allow a longer consultation period, and its undertaking to prepare guidelines on sex education in schools before MSPs vote on repeal of Section 28.

The press release read: "In the light of the statement made by Education Minister Sam Galbraith and the olive branch extended by First Minister Donald Dewar, the association welcomes this opportunity to allow parents and individual school boards to present their position".

But this was reported in some newspapers, particularly the Daily Record, which is campaigning vociferously against repeal, as unanimous backing for Keep The Clause. "That is categorically wrong," said Hutchison. "The power in the SSBA lies with me. Nobody else can speak for the organisation. "By 1.30am on Saturday we had come to a unanimous decision which could be put quite clearly," said Hutchison. "The Keep The Clause campaign is entirely separate from the SSBA. The SSBA has never been a part of it."

Hutchison, who is also on the McCrone committee which will advise government on teachers' pay and conditions and a member of the General Teaching Council, insists that there is no dissent in the SSBA executives' ranks.

"There is absolutely no rift," he said. "I am quite encouraged by the maturity of the debate that took place on Friday night. I am pleased that everyone went in with the attitude that we would find a way forward, and pleased at the outcome. I am 100% confident that the organisation can now move forward positively."

The next step for the SSBA will be to ballot each one of Scotland's 3000 schools, asking for their opinions on repeal. "The ballot is being paid for by the SSBA, with the main cost being postage," said Hutchison. "We have not received any money from the Keep The Clause campaign, and we would not accept it."

Media House boss Jack Irvine, who also handles PR for the Daily Record, said he is puzzled by the SSBA's rejection of the campaign to keep the clause. "We are getting very mixed views from the committee," he said. "Last night the treasurer and other members told us they continue to support us. They obviously have a frightened and intimidated president: you have to remember he is a government appointee to other committees. There has been constant harassment of him by spin doctors, and I feel deeply sympathetic."

Hutchison denies that he has been "nobbled" by the government. "They have fallen in behind us, not us behind them," he said.

"Ministers have come round to our way of thinking, and they have given us the time to consult properly. The result of the ballot will dictate the view we take on the matter." To divert attention away from its squabble with the SSBA, the Keep the Clause campaign yesterday revealed that it will attempt to prove that the repeal of Section 28 is outwith the power of the Scottish Parliament.

The legal challenge, on the basis of counsel from former Scottish Solicitor general Paul Cullen QC, has been laughed off by the Scottish Executive and also dismissed as a "desperate tactic" by gay rights campaigners. The basis of the Keep the Clause challenge is that the purpose of repealing Clause 28 is to promote equal opportunities which it considers a reserved matter for the Westminster parliament.

Solicitor Peter Watson, who acted for American banker Pat Robertson in the ill-fated link up with the Bank of Scotland, has been instructed to challenge the proposed enactment of Section 28 at each and every stage. Irvine said he hoped to take an interdict against the government to prevent the legislation going ahead.

"We will see them in court," he said.

While proving that Section 28 was a reserved matter for Westminster would make its repeal more likely than less, the real reason behind the challenge is to delay and obstruct the passage of the legislation in the Scottish parliament.

"They hope they can push this into an election year where it might become too hot for the government to handle," said Derek Ogg of Equality Network Scotland. "It's a desperate measure but if that's how they want to use Mr Soutar's money then they can go ahead."

A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said that Section 28 was part of the Local Government Act 1998 and that local government, along with education, is clearly a devolved matter for the Scottish parliament.

"The law that we are discussing is 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Local government is a devolved matter to Scotland. We are not concerned about this challenge."

Brian Souter said yesterday that he was prepared to spend all his personal fortune fighting the repeal of Clause 28. "Money is not a material consideration. I will go back and live in a council house if I have to. That's how strongly I feel about this," he said.

"The reaction by the people of Scotland to the repeal of Section 28 today is exactly the same as the reaction by the people of Scotland to the poll tax."

When asked if he would be prepared to lead demonstrations against repeal he said: "Yes ... I am prepared to do that."

basis of counsel from former Scottish Solicitor general Paul Cullen QC, has been laughed off by the Scottish Executive and also dismissed as a "desperate tactic" by gay rights campaigners. The basis of the Keep the Clause challenge is that the purpose of repealing Clause 28 is to promote equal opportunities which it considers a reserved matter for the Westminster parliament.

Solicitor Peter Watson, who acted for American banker Pat Robertson in the ill-fated link up with the Bank of Scotland, has been instructed to challenge the proposed enactment of Section 28 at each and every stage. Irvine said he hoped to take an interdict against the government to prevent the legislation going ahead.

"We will see them in court," he said.

While proving that Section 28 was a reserved matter for Westminster would make its repeal more likely than less, the real reason behind the challenge is to delay and obstruct the passage of the legislation in the Scottish parliament.

"They hope they can push this into an election year where it might become too hot for the government to handle," said Derek Ogg of Equality Network Scotland. "It's a desperate measure but if that's how they want to use Mr Soutar's money then they can go ahead."

A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said that Section 28 was part of the Local Government Act 1998 and that local government, along with education, is clearly a devolved matter for the Scottish parliament.

"The law that we are discussing is 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Local government is a devolved matter to Scotland. We are not concerned about this challenge."

Brian Souter said yesterday that he was prepared to spend all his personal fortune fighting the repeal of Clause 28. "Money is not a material consideration. I will go back and live in a council house if I have to. That's how strongly I feel about this," he said.

"The reaction by the people of Scotland to the repeal of Section 28 today is exactly the same as the reaction by the people of Scotland to the poll tax."

When asked if he would be prepared to lead demonstrations against repeal he said: "Yes ... I am prepared to do that."

actment of Section 28 at each and every stage. Irvine said he hoped to take an interdict against the government to prevent the legislation going ahead.

"We will see them in court," he said.

While proving that Section 28 was a reserved matter for Westminster would make its repeal more likely than less, the real reason behind the challenge is to delay and obstruct the passage of the legislation in the Scottish parliament.

"They hope they can push this into an election year where it might become too hot for the government to handle," said Derek Ogg of Equality Network Scotland. "It's a desperate measure but if that's how they want to use Mr Soutar's money then they can go ahead."

A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said that Section 28 was part of the Local Government Act 1998 and that local government, along with education, is clearly a devolved matter for the Scottish parliament.

"The law that we are discussing is 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Local government is a devolved matter to Scotland. We are not concerned about this challenge."

Brian Souter said yesterday that he was prepared to spend all his personal fortune fighting the repeal of Clause 28. "Money is not a material consideration. I will go back and live in a council house if I have to. That's how strongly I feel about this," he said.

"The reaction by the people of Scotland to the repeal of Section 28 today is exactly the same as the reaction by the people of Scotland to the poll tax."

When asked if he would be prepared to lead demonstrations against repeal he said: "Yes ... I am prepared to do that."

where it might become too hot for the government to handle," said Derek Ogg of Equality Network Scotland. "It's a desperate measure but if that's how they want to use Mr Soutar's money then they can go ahead."

A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said that Section 28 was part of the Local Government Act 1998 and that local government, along with education, is clearly a devolved matter for the Scottish parliament.

"The law that we are discussing is 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Local government is a devolved matter to Scotland. We are not concerned about this challenge."

Brian Souter said yesterday that he was prepared to spend all his personal fortune fighting the repeal of Clause 28. "Money is not a material consideration. I will go back and live in a council house if I have to. That's how strongly I feel about this," he said.

"The reaction by the people of Scotland to the repeal of Section 28 today is exactly the same as the reaction by the people of Scotland to the poll tax."

When asked if he would be prepared to lead demonstrations against repeal he said: "Yes ... I am prepared to do that."

government is a devolved matter to Scotland. We are not concerned about this challenge."

Brian Souter said yesterday that he was prepared to spend all his personal fortune fighting the repeal of Clause 28. "Money is not a material consideration. I will go back and live in a council house if I have to. That's how strongly I feel about this," he said.

"The reaction by the people of Scotland to the repeal of Section 28 today is exactly the same as the reaction by the people of Scotland to the poll tax."

When asked if he would be prepared to lead demonstrations against repeal he said: "Yes ... I am prepared to do that."

We asked David Hutchison, President of the Scottish School Boards Association, to clear up the confusion over the claimed involvement of the SSBA in the Media House/ Brian Souter backed Keep The Clause campaign. Speaking after yesterday's meeting in New Lanark this is what Hutchison wanted to make clear beyond any doubt:

"We are not part of the Keep The Clause campaign - how many times do I have to say this? Nobody else can speak for the SSBA.

"The KTC campaign is Brian Souter and Media House led. Media House obviously has its own furrow to plough. Of course they bloody hijacked it!

"We have not received any money from the KTC campaign, and we would not accept it. The ballot of school boards is being paid for by the SSBA, and should cost less than #1000.

"We could have done without all this. But we have learned a lot. There will be no more naievety."

lWe offer these "guidelines" as a public service to Brian Souter, Media House and the Daily Record.

Copyright 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.