The Sketch: Strange Scottish allies asking a proper question
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.To start at the end: Business Questions put Eric Forth and Robin Cook up together, two Scots, strange allies in Parliament's struggle against the Government. Mr Forth asked the most serious question available to the Tories. What was the Attorney General's legal advice in regard to the coming military action? Given the increasing belief, Mr Forth said, that there was no legal cover for what was about to happen, it was essential the advice was given to Parliament before they debated the war. He urged Mr Cook not to hide behind the Prime Minister's defence that this advice was utterly confidential. He quoted Erskine May, that the release of such advice was at the discretion of the minister involved. Mr Forth told the House it was not only expedient to do so, but proper.
I don't know quite why, but that word "proper", issued in Mr Forth's correct Scots accent, has the power to bring a hot prickling to the edge of my eyes.
Mr Cook said he was grateful for Mr Forth's sombre tone. He agreed that Erskine May had been accurately summarised. There was provision in exceptional circumstances to release the Attorney General's advice. He would reflect on it, he said, and make sure that his colleagues were aware of it.
This sounded quite subversive, and maybe because of that, he added: "There is no question of going to war unless on a sound, legal basis." Does that mean we're not going to war? Or that the Attorney General has been squared? We'll find out sooner rather than later.
Every minister impresses his style on his frontbench team. Education has a new minister and he has developed a new way of dealing with questions.
Estelle Morris used to disappear behind a cloud of administrative jargon (it wasn't quite thick enough to conceal the fact that she didn't have a degree). Charles Clarke's regime deals with hostile questions by laughing at them. The team members all have a different style. Mr Clarke himself chortles. Margaret Hodge titters. Clever David Miliband rolls his mouth around sardonically. There are other junior ministers who may or may not have names. They snigger. The Labour backbenches chuckle supportively. It's all pretty horrible to watch, Mrs Hodge tittering Mr Clarke (you didn't know "to titter" could be a transitive verb? Neither did I until I saw Mrs Hodge in action).
It's amazing she's still there, the sole survivor from the Blunkett era (and we didn't know Blunkett could be a transitive verb either, until we saw what he could do to civil liberties).
Mrs Hodge is the source of the government-appointed Access Regulator, an academic commissar who is to preside over university admissions and make sure diversity targets are met. Her idea was immediately slapped down by her new boss (hence the tittering). Now she says access is entirely a matter for universities themselves. That's when I started sniggering.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments