Who more important than where.

It does sound all a bit tacky but Labour haven't picked the best time to highlight it:

Parliament officials are to investigate Alex Salmond after he was accused of "selling the office of First Minister" to raise thousands of pounds for the SNP.

Mr Salmond and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon reported themselves to the Holyrood authorities yesterday after The Herald revealed they had auctioned lunches with themselves at the Scottish Parliament to raise party funds.

Lunch for four people with Mr Salmond sold for about £9,000 while lunch with Ms Sturgeon raised about £2,000.

Labour led the attack with accusations of cash for access but Tory boss Annabel Goldie and LibDem leader Tavish Scott declined to comment.

Iain Gray, the Labour leader, said: "The implication of cash for access to the First Minister and his deputy has to be answered.

There are two potential problems here which Gray would have done better to keep separate.

First: is it within the guidelines for a lunch at the Parliament to be "auctioned", regardless of who is doing the auctioning? Secondly, is it appropriate for the First Minister to be auctioning meals with himself, whereever they may take place (ie the "implication of cash for access")?

First question can be answered simply by checking up the relevant parliamentary rules and standards.

Second question is a more tricky one. During election campaigns party leaders have (or at least, should have...*ahem* Mr Brown) the most important role of chief salesman for their party. As long as there is a clear division between what they are selling on behalf of their party and what they do in any official non-party capacity, then fine, I can't see the problem- if somone is daft enough to pay almost ten grand to hear Alex wax lyrical over the curried haggis, then that should be entirely up to them. Obviously if the official non-party capacity is "First Minister of Scotland", then that division needs not only to exist but also to be seen to exist.

Gray and Labour would have been better keeping quiet at this stage whilst they do a bit of research into the business background of the lucky winners. As soon as there was the slightest whiff of any potential benefit arising from the "implied" "cash for access" is when they should have made the move. The fact that the lunch was to be had at Holyrood was far less important than the identity of the dinner guests.