I have known Charlie since about 1979. He was, and always remained, a brilliant, witty and very gentle man. His weaknesses were of the gregarious kind, one of many things we had in common. We first met on the universities debating circuit and in student politics. He became President of Glasgow University Union and I of Dundee University Students Association. As we both ran as Liberal Democrats that was uncommon. By one of life’s quirks, a generation later he was Rector of Glasgow University and I was Rector of Dundee University. We both shared a horror of the marketization of universities and an urgent desire to return to the old Scottish tradition of democratic governance, and we worked together with other Rectors to institute regular Rectors’ meetings and try to make the office of Rector relevant.
Charlie had come under the most enormous pressure not to oppose the Iraq war. The entire force of the British establishment bore down on him, including from former party leaders and from Ming Campbell, though he denies it now. Charlie showed tremendous courage and spirit in resisting the pressures to which almost everybody in authority in the Westminster power structure caved in.
Charlie told me the story of how, as party leader, he was invited by Blair to Downing Street to be shown the original key evidence on Iraqi WMD. Charlie was really worried as he walked there, that there really would be compelling evidence as Blair said, and he would then be unable to maintain the party line against the war. When he saw the actual intelligence on which the dodgy dossier was based, he was astounded. It was incredibly weak and “totally unconvincing”. Blair was not present while Charlie saw the reports, but he saw him afterwards and told Blair he was quite astonished by the paucity of the evidence. Blair went white and looked really rattled, and resorted to a plea for patriotic solidarity. He then reminded Charlie he was not allowed to reveal what he had seen. Charlie felt bound by good faith – he had been shown the intelligence in confidence – not to publish this. Not I think his best moral judgement.
Charlie was very definitely not an enthusiastic supporter of the coalition and, though a federalist not a nationalist, generally kept his distance from the Better Together campaign. He seemed to me to have lost self-confidence through the exposure of his struggles with alcohol, and probably underrated his influence. Charlie was consistent in both his faults and his principles. As President of Glasgow University Union, he was inclined to hands off sybaritism; his expenses and use of taxis became an issue, and that epicurean streak never left him. In his presence I always felt an inferior talent, and those of us who knew him 35 years ago I think all expected him to rise even higher than he did. But he never had the sociopathic streak that makes a dominant political career, and he was at base a very decent and kind man. That is how I shall remember him.
RIP Charles Kennedy. I have a good friend who was a good friend of Charles Kennedy and they are both fine people who realise that what unites us is rather more important than the differences.
I do note a shortage of Lib Dems around who are gracious enough to acknowledge that Charles Kennedy was fundamentally right on the Coalition.
Just one small quibble with Craig’s eulogy – I suspect that Craig and Charles Kennedy were not Liberal Democrats together when they were in Student Politics – the Lib Dems were not formed until 1988 and Kennedy came into politics through the SDP.
Becky Cohen
02/06/2015 8:07pm and 8:13pm
I am not sure if you have picked up that recommended safe drinking limits are different for men and women. 4 units per day for a woman would be above recommended limits.
——————————–
What are the recommended safe limits of alcohol?
•Men should drink no more than 21 units of alcohol per week, no more than four units in any one day, and have at least two alcohol-free days a week.
•Women should drink no more than 14 units of alcohol per week, no more than three units in any one day, and have at least two alcohol-free days a week.
•Pregnant women. Advice from the Department of Health states that … “pregnant women or women trying to conceive should not drink alcohol at all. If they do choose to drink, to minimise the risk to the baby, they should not drink more than 1-2 units of alcohol once or twice a week and should not get drunk”.
Where do these recommendations come from?
•The Department of Health recommends that men should not regularly drink more than 3-4 units of alcohol a day and women should not regularly drink more than 2-3 units a day. ‘Regularly’ means drinking every day or most days of the week. And if you do drink more heavily than this on any day, allow 48 alcohol-free hours afterwards to let your body recover.
•The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) advises no more than 21 units per week for men and 14 units per week for women. But also, have 2-3 alcohol-free days a week to allow the liver time to recover after drinking anything but the smallest amount of alcohol. A quote from the RCP… “in addition to quantity, safe alcohol limits must also take into account frequency. There is an increased risk of liver disease for those who drink daily or near daily compared with those who drink periodically or intermittently”.
•The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee advises that people should have at least two alcohol-free days a week.
http://patient.info/health/recommended-safe-limits-of-alcohol
——————————–
Kind regards,
John
Would anyone care to sign this petition and pass it around? Thanks.
https://www.change.org/p/labour-led-glasgow-city-council-hold-gcc-to-account-on-orangefest-the-people-of-glasgow-say-no-more
No public eulogy in any form. Twisted hypercritical culture.
For many years, it has been my practice to drink 3-4 units of alcohol (usually wine, sometimes beer or cider) on workdays and 5-6 units on days off. My health is none the worse for it. And I think my practice has been the usual one for at least the adult male part of the population in the British Isles for centuries. If it were harmful, surely that would have become obvious long ago.
Hypocrisy.
He’s too making this blog, that like it or not seems oft full of people up themselves, a little less important.
Lysias
02/06/2015 9:23pm
You are increasing the risk of damaging your health – do look into the evidence. And that’s the end of the story as far as I am concerned – I never argue with anyone about their drinking, it’s pointless. Look into it for yourself and make up your own mind.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/alcohol/Pages/Effectsofalcohol.aspx
Kind regards,
John
Molly is off her trolley now. Etymology the latest. A file must be kept on phrases and sayings I use. Obsessive.
Get you own blog, what an ass hole.
Craig your appreciation of his life was lovely.
It’s a shame that your genuine blog seems to have been taken over by trolls and hasbara.
Keep up your good work!
Thank you for your kind message John Spencer-Davis.
~~~~~
S Paterson Did you ever read Craig’s post on the Orange Order march in Edinburgh?
The Public Order Act of 1936 could be applied.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/orange-blackout/
I signed the petition anonymously. Don’t want the proddies round.
I gather that there was a good Panorama last week which exposed the state corruption in NI.
‘Britain’s Secret Terror Deals
British security forces have been accused of involvement in dozens of murders during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Reporter Darragh MacIntyre investigates allegations that the state colluded with paramilitary killers and covered up their crimes. He meets the families who have been fighting for decades to uncover the government’s darkest secrets and he confronts some of those believed to be complicit.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05x8gzs
“Which comments did Salmond make about Charles Kennedy that were “sick” Fred?
Evidence needed.”
Read what Menzies Campbell has to say on the subject.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/02/menzies-campbell-alex-salmond-charles-kennedy
As he said, today was a time for fond memories and respect, not cheap underhand political point scoring.
John Spencer-Davis,
If it is generally accepted that those with drinking problems understate to their GPs the amount of alcohol they consume (which seems to me to be highly likely), might it reasonably be assumed that the level at which the government regard the amount consumed to be unacceptable be correspondingly skewed?
I’m 52 and drink over the recommended limit on a daily basis and have been doing so for roughly 30 years. I had a check up last week and my GP told me I was in fine health.
Mary
I’ve been away being an aidworker!
Thank you for your insightful posts and great to see you back.
Stay well and ignore the troll and moll.
“troll’s moll”? “molly is off her trolley”? What the devil are you doing, Mary, purporting to be a serious supporter of the Palestinians, and a serious critic of the Israeli government, attacking a poster like Dreoilin in such a ridiculous manner?
I objected to the attacks on you by another poster, Mary, which were entirely unlike Dreoilin’s occasional questioning of you. You have never, not once, objected to the vicious and repulsive manner in which your clique support you. A manner, incidentally, so vicious and repulsive as to make the people you tediously, repetitively, call ‘trolls’ seem reasonable.
Lysias
“No, it wasn’t. What he said revealed his totally unwarranted assumption that I, presumably because I am Irish-American, supported IRA terrorism with money and arms.”
_________________________
You may have several “higher degrees”, Lysias, but you are unable to read. Or you are lying. I assume the latter.
This is what I wrote:
“(I have)Nothing against Irish-Americans – except (as I believe I mentioned before) those who supported IRA terrorists with money and arms from the safety of the US.”
“Thank you for your insightful posts and great to see you back.
Stay well and ignore the troll and moll.”
Seconded.
technicolour
It’s late in Tel Aviv go to bed? Dormitory?
Daniel
02/06/2015 9:58pm
Daniel, this is a debate I am absolutely not getting into – it is just too emotive.
I am glad you are in fine health. Does that mean, that you are going to stay that way?
I suggest that you have a talk with your GP and tell her or him honestly how much you drink, and see what she or he has to say to you about the risks.
Or you could put your queries to [email protected].
Kind regards,
John
Daniel
““It’s beginning to look like the Daily Mail has replaced Neues Deutschland as someone’s favourite reading.”
Would that be the same Daily Mail whose antisemitic proprietor and personal friend of Adolf Hitler, Lord Rothermere, propagandized against post-war Jewish immigration into the UK?”
_______________________
If you really want an answer to that question you should ask Lysias – he’s this blog’s resident expert on the Daily Mail judging by how often he links to it.
And now stop being an arse.
You said that by way of explaining why you said I exhibited the typical objectionable characteristics of Irish-Americans. It was obviously implied that you think I belong to the category of Irish-Americans who supported IRA terrorists. With zero evidence.
And you have continued to criticize me for being Irish-American. If that is not what you meant, pray tell, what was it that you meant?
Well said Craig Murray
And you only qualified your first statement (about the objectionable characteristics of Irish-Americans) in that way because I called you on it. You then recognized it was indefensible. It was just the sort of blanket condemnation of a group that so offends you (or that you pretend so offends you) when it is made against the groups that you favor.
“It’s late in Tel Aviv go to bed? Dormitory?”
yeah, yeah, English Knight – take some more steroids.
“You said that by way of explaining why you said I exhibited the typical objectionable characteristics of Irish-Americans. It was obviously implied that you think I belong to the category of Irish-Americans who supported IRA terrorists. With zero evidence.
And you have continued to criticize me for being Irish-American. If that is not what you meant, pray tell, what was it that you meant?”
Quite right.
John, my point is it’s my contention that government statistics on this are unreliable.
Technicolour
I suppose you were referring to me?
Well, almost anyone would seem reasonable when compared to the lunatics Macky, Fedup, Giyane, RoS, RobG and the like.
Not to mention the members of the Conspiracy Club (the vanished Malaysian airliner is on Diego Gracia, all public figures are blackmailed/controlled by the secret services et je m’en passe….)
Enjoy Tel Aviv and the good weather, have a glass of Anon1’s favourite Israeli wine and thank God you’re not a Loony 🙂
Habba, I’m asking you. And it’s you who is the arse.
Hasbara,
try:
http://mondoweiss.net/
And get off our web – we do not want you
Glenn Greenwald cites Daily Mail article. Two hours ago.