Chris Mackie: Comment is free?

Last week, an exhibition of photographs was displayed in the Parliament detailing the suffering of the Palestinian people wrought, campaigners maintain, by an oppresive Israeli state.

Alongside some very graphic images of seriously injured children and information about the Scotland to Gaza Medical Appeal run by Edinburgh Direct Aid was a comments book, dutifully completed by various visitors passing the exhibition stand.

Most of the comments were sympathetic, focusing on the very real human tragedy on show. Others were critical of the UK government's response to the Palestinian question, but one in particular caught the eye:

“Israel must be (and will be inshallah) wiped off from the earth!” wrote Raza from Glasgow, closely echoing the sentiments of the former leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, whose name was placed in brackets at the end of the quote.

The remarks (see above) have caused some consternation in Holyrood, and the Tories' Jackson Carlaw has now laid down a parliamentary motion calling on MSPs to join in condemnation of the sentiments ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day which takes place on 27 January.

The event's sponsor, Labour MSP Pauline McNeill has echoed his concerns and contacted the organisers of the exhibit drawing their attention to the matter.

But the comments and the response raise some interesting questions about free speech and how it should apply in settings such as this. Hosting such a politically sensitive and - in terms of the images on show - shocking exhibition was almost certain to provoke some form of reaction, especially when it concerned the diplomatic hot potato that is the Palestine/Israeli situation. So, in many ways we should perhaps not be surprised at the thoughts on show.

In fact, it could be argued that to only attract one anti-Israeli comment with such a provocative and emotive set of images was actually something of a triumph.

Many of my colleagues were unconvinced at the significance of this, arguing that the principles of free speech should be upheld. But seeing extremist comment laid bare in the heart of the Parliament, where dozens of MSPs, government ministers, press, civil servants and visitors pass every day is still disquieting, especially when you consider that "Raza" could well be a school pupil, given the number of kids that circulate the building each day and peruse the rolling schedule of exhibits.

David Maddox: The strange habits of MSPs

Dr Ian McKee is a modest, quietly spoken man who was first thrust into the spotlight when he was wheeled out to prove that the SNP are not anti-English because he has an English accent and has made some thoughtful speeches since, mainly in health debates.

But his contribution in a Tory sponsored education debate this morning will live long in the memories of those who heard him, even though many are trying to erase from their minds.

The debate was on a motion calling for the creation of "second chance units" outside schools to deal with classroom troublemakers.

However, Dr McKee wanted to share something else with MSPs instead. He told them how he had spent a long time last night researching corporal punishment on the web.

According to the good doctor, silk handkerchiefs are helpful for reducing the pain of the cane. He also researched the price of a good cane. It may be he hoped to give his opponents a good thrashing.

The mind boggles at the thought of some of the sites he may have been seeking advice from for his contribution, but even the Tories said they felt "disturbed" although he did offer to give Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw the fruits of his labour.

The Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson, who as an Old Etonian may know a thing or two about corporal punishment, simply suggested that Dr McKee returned to the subject of the debate.

David Maddox: The Butler did it!

Labour MSP Bill Butler (pictured) has just intervened in a debate on health board elections to ask Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw what sort of champagne he was drinking.
Whilst Mr Carlaw gives the appearance of being a man of great extravagance, it perhaps is a bit rich from a man who has just made the headlines for trying to claim back a £1 charity donation, even if it was an accident. Mr Carlaw was either too gentlemanly or ill-informed to point this out.
But, to be fair on Mr Butler, he is entitled for some leeway because today's debate on the first stage of the bill to allow direct elections to health boards and its probable conclusion is the culmination of many years of hard work on his part in spreading democracy in Scotland.
His attempts to get direct health board elections were thwarted by his own party in government who were unwilling to take on the opposition to the idea from Scottish NHS boards themselves. The boards seem to believe that they should only be held to account by the health secretary.
With this bill being put forward by the SNP the principle of a minority of board members being elected will be tested in a pilot scheme imposed on an unwilling health board.
Any reporter who has dealt with local health campaigns (hospital closures, maternity unit closures etc), will know that health boards throughout the UK, not just Scotland, have a woeful record in having meaningful consultation with the public and being properly accountable to the people they serve.
So perhaps Mr Carlaw's champagne should be used to toast Mr Butler.