His opponents immediately denounced it as a "flawed opinion poll" and pointed out that less than a third of the people who received ballot papers bothered to return them.But Cardinal Thomas Winning, leader of Scotland's Catholics, said the result should not be ignored: "To do so would rightly be seen as an insult to the genuinely expressed concerns of more than a million Scots." Only a man who has not understood the concept of universal rights could say anything so crass, so let's go a little further down the prelate's road and consider what the "genuinely expressed concerns" of the people might be on some other subjects.Hanging? I think I can predict with confidence that if a referendum were carried out tomorrow, a substantial majority would favour return of the rope. Immunity for householders who kill burglars? What we might call the "Tony Martin option" would surely prove overwhelmingly popular.Castration for paedophiles? "Yes" - though only after conviction. A ban on gays and lesbians as teachers? (After all, they're adverts for an unconventional way of life.) And so it goes on, to a comparison which is valid though readers may find it offensive: after years of exposure to rabid anti-Semitic propaganda, isn't it likely that the German people would have voted, in the 1930s, to remove remaining civil rights from the Jews?The point I am making is that universal human rights, a concept which is only just beginning to be taken seriously in this country, cannot be negated by ballot. Twenty-five million people could vote to retain Section 28 and it would still be wrong in principle.

The ruling is discriminatory and encourages the bullying of gay teenagers who may have only just recognised their sexual orientation, a moment when they are most in need of acceptance and protection. It also perpetuates the myth that gay lifestyles are inferior to those of the heterosexual majority - a colossal piece of cheek, with some of the nastiest dictators of the 20th century, from Stalin to Pinochet to Enver Hoxha, being practising heterosexuals.This is exactly the kind of twisted morality we might expect from someone like Mr Souter, who is himself that walking paradox, a multi-millionaire, evangelical Christian businessman. Why he chooses to spend his time and his cash on this issue is not for me to say, although I am always intrigued by people who perceive difference as a threat But human rights are precisely that: rights. If a country wishes to be regarded as civilised, it has to respect them, even if - especially if - the people who are being targeted are an unpopular minority.That is why the Scottish Executive was right to tell Mr Souter to push off, refusing to pacify him by accepting an amendment that would have put traditional marriage at the heart of legislation to repeal Section 28. There is an irony here, in that Mr Souter is precisely the kind of self-made tycoon that Tony Blair and his mates down in London like to encourage.

They don't admire him as much as they used to, in the days when he was invited to work with Gordon Brown, but they cannot disclaim all responsibility for him or his nasty campaign.Wealthy tycoons have a long history of using their fortunes to promote dubious causes. That is why it is so dangerous for elected politicians to get too closely involved with them."We will not stand back and allow a politically correct minority to undermine the position of marriage in society and determine morality for the majority," Mr Souter ranted last week. But if ministers in Edinburgh or London were to show any sign of being prepared to change policy in response to what amounts to a maverick businessman buying votes for intolerance, they would be setting a disastrous precedent.Millionaires come along, in these affluent days, as frequently as Mr Souter's buses. The next one could be preoccupied with almost anything, from deporting all asylum-seekers to banning the wearing of beards. Who knows what barmy measure could be pressed on a horrified government by a wealthy man or woman waving a few million votes around?At the same time as Mr Souter's referendum was being dismissed, ministers announced that they wanted to hear our views on the NHS. They spent £500,000 on dumping questionnaires in a completely unscientific opinion poll, designed to discover our top three priorities in health care I did not receive one but here are my suggestions, anyway.