A sour taste

IT IS not thought that an Indian curry house, a children's play-area boss, an activist lawyer, and a £9,000 cheque have ever before come together to form the bones of a political story. But then Alex Salmond has never been one to conform to dull stereotypes.

It began last week at the Kabana restaurant on the south-side of Glasgow, where the First Minister and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, were guests of honour at a party fundraiser. It was organised by the group Scots Asians for Independence, and the proceeds were to go towards Osama Saeed, the SNP's candidate for the Glasgow Central seat. Saeed, head of the Muslim lobbying group the Scottish Islamic Foundation, has taken his fair share of controversy over recent months. But he was to fade into the sidelines as events unfolded.

Salmond and Sturgeon both gave speeches, following a sumptuous banquet. And then the business of trying to extract some cash from the healthy crowd began. Up for grabs was a lunch at the Scottish Parliament with the Scottish Government's top two. According to sources involved, a bidding war soon broke out between two tables over who could win the prize of the First Minister. As is often the case at such dinners, the auction became a battle to see who had the deeper pockets. The price rose higher and higher. And finally local businessman Amin Hussain – who runs two huge indoor play areas in Cumbernauld and Linwood – beat off the competition. It is thought the table, which included some family of the late SNP MSP Bashir Ahmed, shared the 9,000 cost. Sturgeon, meanwhile, was cheaper: local accountant and business figure Khalid Javid picked up her lunch tab for just 2,000.

When the story about the prize broke on Thursday morning, the initial reaction was mixed. Labour leader Iain Gray referred to it only obliquely in his quizzing of Salmond at First Minister's Questions, noting that with Salmond, there was "no such thing as a free lunch". But during the afternoon, the parliamentary authorities had their say. Parliamentary resources, a spokesman declared, were for use in parliamentary duties. "These resources, which include the Members' restaurant, must not be used for any other purpose, including any significant party political purposes", he added pointedly. The story now had legs. When Labour MSP Paul Martin raised the matter later, the First Minister shot back furiously – and was only quietened when the Presiding Officer turned his microphone off.

This weekend, the affair has escalated once more. Amid signs that the drip-drip of revelations was starting to damage him, Salmond opted yesterday morning to go for full disclosure. The First Minister revealed he had a total of four lunch dates planned at the parliament, all as prizes from party fundraisers. One was due to be with the lawyer Aamar Anwar. All have now been cancelled but opposition parties are crying foul and smelling blood. So has Salmond done anything wrong? And is this curious story going to damage him?

THE customers at the parliamentary restaurant at Holyrood last week were the normal array of MSPs, journalists and interested hangers-on. In one corner, a Labour MSP was having lunch with a well-known lobbyist. In another was a small collection of Edinburgh city councillors. The restaurant last year ran at a loss of 88,000 – a cost picked up by the taxpayer. Beyond the reach of visitors, whose passes prevent them from getting into the restaurant area, it is an ideal place for a spot of discreet entertaining.

The parliament's statement last Thursday – indicating that the lunch was improper – has clearly angered the SNP (in his only comment on the affair, Saeed tweeted on Friday: "Daily Record splashes front page with Alex Salmond lunch, with two inches for MPs repaying 1.1m....#SenseOfProportion"). As soon as the statement from the parliamentary authorities arrived, Salmond quickly wrote back to point out that, in the parliament's own guidelines, the restaurant was not specifically mentioned as a "parliamentary resource". And, he went on, if his lunch was out of order, then so would be – for example – a lunch held on behalf of a charity, because it too has nothing to do with parliament. An SNP source added last night: "You could even argue that (on their definition] you shouldn't have your mum or dad there, because that's nothing to do with your parliamentary duties either."

Characteristically, Salmond is going on the attack. By Friday evening, he was on the phone to Paul Grice, the parliament's chief executive, urging him to ensure that clear guidelines on whether or not the restaurant could be used were issued this coming week. But that cannot be done, says the SNP, because Labour's member of the Corporate Body, MSP Tom McCabe, is out of the country.

The case for the prosecution is now lining up. Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said last week that Salmond's behaviour had been "inappropriate." The precedent being cited is the example of Conservative leader David Cameron, who in 2007 was forced to "apologise unreservedly" for breaching the MPs' code of conduct following a similar row. After becoming leader, he invited donors who had joined his so-called "Donor's Club" (minimum payment: 50,000) to the Commons for exclusive lunches. Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards concluded: "While there is no reason in principle … why Mr Cameron cannot meet, in his office or elsewhere in the parliamentary estate, those who donate to his party, what neither he nor his party … can properly do is employ their parliamentary office as part of a party fundraising stratagem." Now, Holyrood's equivalent to Sir Philip – Stuart Allen – will have to make his own mind up, after an un-named member of the Labour Party yesterday lodged a complaint. At the same time, Labour is likely to attack Salmond on the grounds of his own Ministerial Code of Conduct, which states clearly that "ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes". Labour argues that the affair is not about the definition of the restaurant, but about the abuse of Salmond's office.

The affair is now likely to drag on for several weeks. Labour MSPs will revel in seeing Salmond under the same parliamentary spotlight as that which eventually led to the downfall of their former leader Wendy Alexander – whose own standards case was brought by an SNP member. Their desire for revenge is heightened by the lingering resentment caused when the SNP brought the Westminster cash-for-honours scandal to the attention of the police, thereby sullying the final few months of Tony Blair's time in office. They now intend to bite the biter as hard as they can.

But as even the parliamentary authorities concede, the investigation is likely to hit a distinctly grey area – a place where party fundraising has always been. All the major parties seek to take advantage of their major players. At SNP conferences, companies pay up to 10,000 to book "premier fringe events" where, in return for their money, Salmond will provide a speech and meet their delegates. At the same conferences, lobbyists are able – for several hundred pounds – to enjoy dinner with finance secretary John Swinney. At the Labour conference last year, businesses were offered the chance to attend a Business Forum attended by both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Business Secretary – all proceeds to the Labour Party. David Cameron's "Leader's Club" is a further example. And as for using parliament, last week, on the same day that Salmond was being attacked for his lunching arrangements, details emerged from Westminster of how MPs arranged lunches for companies for which they were working. They included former health secretary Patricia Hewitt, who booked rooms for BT just a few months before being made a senior director at the firm.

But even if Salmond gets away scot-free, the affair is likely to cause him damage. "It all looks bad," says one SNP source. "There's an arrogance there that says, 'we don't care'. That's coming across now to the public". This week's affair may not result in any official sanction for the First Minister. The real and more significant verdict could be delivered at the ballot box.

Controversial campaigner

A PORTRAIT of Malcolm X hangs in the stairwell of Aamer Anwar's Glasgow home, where he lives with his wife, Ifet, and young son, Qais. The quotation by the black political icon reads: "Liberate our minds by any means necessary".

A second portrait hangs on the wall of the solicitor's Glasgow office, a hurled brick away from the Sheriff Court. It is of Anwar, his face dripping blood after his mind was 'liberated' by the violent action of Strathclyde Police. A student radical, he was caught flyposting, beaten and allegedly told by a police officer: "This is what happens to black boys with big mouths."

Anwar, 42, went on to make legal history by successfully suing Strathclyde Police for racial assault and won 4,500 in damages.

This was to inspire a legal career that has seen him become one of Scotland's most controversial campaigning lawyers. A prominent member of the Stop the War coalition, he has campaigned against the G8 Summit and Dungavel Detention Centre for failed asylum seekers.

In 2008, he became the first lawyer in the UK to be put on trial for contempt of court. After the conviction of his client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, on terrorism charges, Anwar described the prosecution as "driven by the state" in an "atmosphere of hostility" after the attack on Glasgow Airport.

Lord Carloway, the trial judge, disagreed, accusing the solicitor of speaking his own personal views, not that of his client. He was later cleared of the charges.

Anwar made his name as the Scottish organiser of the Anti-Nazi League in the early 1990s. He led a march on the London HQ of the BNP which later descended into a riot. Anwar blamed the police on the bus home.

He protested against the closure of the Timex factory in Dundee, when he befriended Tommy Sheridan, the former Scottish Socialist Party leader, whom he represents ahead of his forthcoming perjury trial.