Post Salmond

So this afternoon Alex Salmond has announced that he stepping down as leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland. So as well as asking what next for the UK nation as a whole we are now asking what next for the SNP?

Firstly as has long been muted Salmond himself has already been grooming his successor, it was she who had a major role in planning the referendum agenda and steering the Yes Campaign. Nicola Sturgeon the MSP for Glasgow Southside has been the Deputy First Minister since 2007 and been the Depute Leader of the SNP for the last 10 years. If she were to fulfill what many see as her destiny, if a little earlier than they expected she would be the first women to lead any devolved power in the UK.

But the question is would there be a coronation or would there be a challenger? If the latter who might the competition come from.

One possibility is like Alex Salmond an alumni of Linlithgow Academy and with his was also expelled from the party for being part of the 79 Group his long term friend Kenny MacAskill. While Alex has mellowed on the demand for a republican socialist stance, MacAskill has said that once Scotland voted for Independence there would be a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy. He stepped down from standing with Sturgeon on a joint ticket to be her Depute when Salmond decided to restand for the leadership himself on a ticket with her instead. It is possible that that loyalty may be repaid with him become her deputy ten years on so that may be one reason why he wouldn't want to upset the apple cart.

Another alternative might be John Swinney who had been leader between Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond from 2000-2004. Since 2007 he has been the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth a job which many within the party would say he has be great at. Especially in his first four years when he had to get through his budget as a minority administration. He is closely associated with the gradualist wing of the party, which in light of the failure to secure independence might come to the fore of people's thinking as something that is needed to make the most of the negotiations that will ensue for more powers for Scotland. The down side to a Swinney bid is that in his previous term in charge, unlike Salmond  who had been successful first time, he saw the parties fortunes slump.

The only other person with potential serious intent to lead the party is the man who challenged Swinney back in 2000. Alex Neil had the backing of the fundamentalist wing of the party. Instead of looking for a gradulaist approach it may be that some within the party are seeking a figure head to keep up the fundamentalist approach, if so Neil would be the natural figurehead for such feelings. Some may well feel that Salmond wasn't seeking to separate enough from the rest of the UK and was really fighting on a ticket of keeping the best bits of being in the UK and therefore the voters knew it wasn't real independence. Only if that is the case would Neil stand a serious chance of taking the leadership but it is the mood of the party that is important.

Nicola is in pole position, but as she also was heavily involved in the referendum campaign it is unlikely that she will go totally unchallenged from within. It depends which wing of the party is most angry with the way the referendum campaign was built up to be a success only to fall 10% short that may well decide who will take her on, and such a challenge may even come from both wings.

One thing though is certain. We live in interesting times.

Oil Be There For You*

There are 2,500 families of the victims of the IRA's Libyan supplied Semtex.But the latest news over Westminster's 'special relationship' with Libya is that Gordon Brown vetoed attempts to force Libya to pay compensation as it would affect Trade Talks.

Lawyers for the victims are wanting the government to get a US-style scheme of compensation which has paid out $2.7 billion (£1.6 billion) to their 270 victims on Pan-Am flight 103. The latest revelation coming hot on the heels of Jack Straw's admission that oil deals with Libya were partially a factor in the talks about Megrahi. However, Gordon Brown in his silence breaking statement Wednesday appears to tell a different tale from his Justice Secretary when he said:

"On our part there was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to influence Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to Colonel Gaddafi

"As I told Colonel Gaddafi at the only meeting with him I have had, a decision on Megrahi was the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government. So when I met him I could not give him comfort or any assurance at all about [al-Megrahi's] fate."

Too much is unravelling, there is something going on behind the scenes that is trying not to look out for those UK citizens affected by Libya sponsored terrorism down the years. Just want stance is the Government taking with our seemingly new best friends (with oil)? There are mixed messages coming from Westminster which are making Iain Grey the leader in Scotland look more and more out of the loop and ridiculous as he attacks Kenny MacAskill. It also seems to be that questions need to be asked of Brown and Straw rather than finger wagging at the Scottish Justice Minister.

None of this affects my previous thoughts on the rightness of the decision at the time, although there does now appear to be even greater subterfuge into the points leading up to that. The unfairness of the treatment of the terrorists over the victims and their families, the deals that were going on behind the scenes. Just what does the Prime Minister et al know that has yet to come out.

*The title of course is a take on a title of the Rembrandts' song used in the title sequence of Friends.

Time to Stop This Political Fitba Match

"I think most opinion in Scotland is in favour of the decision to release him [Megrahi] on compassionate grounds."

Now that is the sort of considered, public listened to response I would expect from a Liberal Democrat leader. Unfortunately they were the words of Lord David Steel our former leader and not those of Tavish Scott who asked in the chamber:

"Doesn't Kenny MacAskill's comment on the need for Scottish compassion mean that no prisoner - however bad their crime - will ever have a request turned down?"

Although Kenny MacAskill's response to cite Jim Wallace's situation which was due to a loophole in The Mental Health Act (Scotland) 1984 which Labour and the Lib Dems since closed down was the wrong way to deal with it.

The answer to Tavish's question is of course no, each case should continue to be looked at on a case by case basis. Although it the severity of the situation that is to be considered, it should not be clouded by the response the prisoner received on his release. Some have asked how can a man with prostate cancer manage to climb the steps of a plane. Seeing as my father walking into hospital one Monday for a check up on his and was dead the following evening I'd say easily and horribly that is no indication.

The compassion being shown is not so much to Megrahi is as has been pointed out not so much to the man himself but his family. Some have pointed out that his wife and children have had access to him in Glasgow, but one other issue that the man himself made to journalists on the flight to Libya was his elderly mother. He urged the press not to let her know just how ill he was.

America with their more punitive justice system, if Megrahi had of be tried there, would most likely depending on state have been sitting on death row. But that doesn't give their comparative upstart of a youthful legal system the right to intervene in others. Of course they have the right to consultation and I understand that this did indeed occur. But just because you have been listened to and consulted with doesn't suddenly give you the right to have a say over another nations rule of law. That is lesson that the USA seem to be forgetting as they seem more and more to be turning the whole world into some lawless 'wild west' with them alone wearing the sheriff's badge.

While we are right from all sides to condemn the reception laid on for Megrahi on arrival at Tripoli, it is wrong to outrightly condemn the decision. It would have been easy for Kenny MacAskill to take the easy option and bow to international pressure. How anyone can see it, in light of the foreseeable reaction, as point scoring is beyond me. He made a tough decision, and bar visiting the prisoner personally, it would seem a considered one on factual criteria.

The fact that the three main* opposition parties didn't force a vote yesterday either indicates they are worried of a different public reaction against them, or aren't sure they'd carry their own votes. I don't necessarily think that Scotland's place in this world is in "tatters" not from the Americans I've seen around Edinburgh over the weekend. But the more we play political football with a legal football the more we will appear so.

*Sorry, James corrected as promised.

Back to the Simple Life: A Guide for Americans to Boycott Scotland

So the Americans wish to boycott Scotland and all that means after the release of al-Megrahi last week, let me help you out.

First turn off the TV right now, as that was invented by John Logie Baird a Scot. You're just going to have to find other things to do with your time. But you're not going to be able to arrange it by telephone as that was invented by Alexander Graham Bell another Scot.

Yes America you are actually going to have to go around and visit people. But you can't go by car as the pneumatic tyre was invented by Scot John Dunlop and the tarmac technique of paving most roads was developed by another John Loudon McAdam.

If you get ill we can't prescribe you penicillin as Alexander Fleming discovered that. Also ultrasound, Ian Donald, and MRI Scans, John Mallard, are also out. If I were you I'd opt for the Obama health plan if you're doing away with the Scottish influence.

As for McDonalds well with a name like that it's bound to be Scottish.

Where the Mockery Really Lies

Well my post on the release of al-Megrahi caused a little bit of a reaction over the weekend. Including this from an American reader (I've deleted the expletives):

"As an American I would just like to say.....You release a convicted murderer and then you blog about how the people in the states just don't understand how compassionate you are? F*** all of you highlander, lowlander, gaelic-wanna be, kilt-wearing, eurotrash. Thank God my ancestors left your stinking s***-hole of an island!"

As Callum replied in the comments 'Thanks for your constructive comment Lincoln County. Not showing a lot of compassion with your blatant racism are ya?'. Then today I have Jack McConnell the former Labour First Minister saying that the majority of Scotland is against the decision that the Justice Minister made. I'm not too sure on that, yes there is a vocal section against the decision, there is another vocal section against the way it was made. But the former is largely from Labour, with support from the Tories. So by accusing the Nats of politicising the release decision he appears to be also doing so in his attack.

There is also a letter today from former FBI director Robert Mueller in which he calls the release a 'mockery to justice'. I'm sorry I beg to differ, al-Megrahi was not given a release based on a judicial decision over the legal ramifications of his case. On regular occasions these appeals were quite rightly turned down. However, there is a situation where medical evidence can be taken into account for the grounds of a compassionate release in the dying days of someone with time still to serve.

The former head of the FBI has decided to take this occasion to break his own pledge of never 'comment on the actions of other prosecutors' to break his silence, concluding by saying.

"You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand. You have given Megrahi a ''jubilant welcome'' in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?"

Of course the neature of his return to Libya was outside our control beyond teh request for it to be low key. But as I did say on Friday there was no comment of the type of the start of that concluding paragraph, it's on the the back of the letter from seven US Senators, including Ted Kennedy. However, Kennedy is only recently a convert to the case that terrorist should serve out their sentence and not be shown compassion. Up until then he was largely supported of the Irish Republicans in Massachusetts for his own political gain. Indeed it was only after 9/11 when Gerry Adams and Martin Maginness were actually moving towards democracy over violence Kennedy actually distanced himself from their cause.

So of course there was no outcry about a mockery of justice from America about early release of Northern Ireland Terrorists who had killed in total more than that fateful night, many of whom showed no remorse. Indeed when Mo Mowlam stalled the release programme in 1999 when the IRA had broken the terms on arms procurement it was the Americans who spoke to urge her to carry on. Of course the Northern Ireland release programme was the right thing to do in the light of the peace process just as al-Megrahi's is right in terms of his own imminent death.

But of course the Americans, either collectively or on occasion the odd individual, this week are showing signs of selective memory over justice as far as killing by terrorism is concerned. That sadly is what is the real mockery, not the actions taken impartially on medical evidence by the Scottish Justice Minister

MacAskill Makes Sound Judgement in Face of Emmotive Opposition

On the 12 December 1988 I was about 5 minutes further towards London Waterloo than the Clapham Rail disaster occurred.

On the Saturday of that week the 17th me and a friend were driving past Lockerbie on the then A74 at about 7pm. Wednesday the next week Pan Am Flight 103 came crashing out of the sky there.

Also that Christmas while I was home I was out for a run, came in showered, went down to watch the news and saw a bomb had gone off in the last hour along my route of that night.

December that year was a memorable one for that young student at the end of his first term of tertiary education. Being raised in Northern Ireland of course I was also used to seeing the families of victims of terrorism on TV all the time. Therefore the reactions to the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate got me thinking back to those more troubled times.

On the TV those families had one of two reactions, there was either bitter anger or a forgiving compassionate response. I long knew which type of person I'd far rather spend more time with. The latter weren't hurting any less than the former but showed compassion, maturity, not wishing to escalate what was often a volatile situation any further.

If like many other times this year there was a story about a terminally ill prisoner being given compassionate release from prison, it may have made the front page of a local paper, but a column inch, if that, in the national's other news section. It is because of who it is and the nature and extent of the crime that this got this attention.

I was mischievous earlier about Kenny MacAskill sounding more like a Kirk Minister than a Government one. But unlike Daniel Hannan's playing to an American audience and forgetting the home viewers reaction, MacAskill was playing to both. He attempted to appease both sides with the promise that the decision was hard come by.That he eulogised about a higher power and a greater inescapable sentence being imposed, but it failed to quell the anger of some of the American families.

There were issues with the handling of the build up but the resultant outcome was the right one. America can shout and scream all it wants to but they have a legal system lacking compassion. In reality they have an Old Testament legality overlooking the New Testament, there an eye for an eye still holds true, here we believe in re-education and reintegration.

Back to the Northern Irish situation the peace dividend, after many Americans supported the IRA cause, has led to many of those who carried out killings to be released. Did we see a hoopla in the States about any of the IRA murderers being released early, not even on grounds of compassion due to imminent terminal disease? No, of course we didn't, but then these releases were also right in a different way.

The Americans are sadly,to an extent, largely, a selfish people, it is part of their inward lookingness. Their national champions in some sports after all are called World Champions. But some of the squawking about the shame to Scotland and the Scottish people shows the shame to the American people.

Back to those scenes on the TV in Northern Ireland and just over a year before Lockerbie one of the most emotive appearances for Gordon Wilson who held unto his dying daughter Marie's hand under the rubble of the Enniskillen Remembrance Day bomb. He was a victim physically and emotionally as someone present and as someone losing a dear one. His initial and lasting reaction was not to condemn those who had carried out the atrocity but to work for a lasting peace. After the release by Scotland of al-Megrahi some American statesmen are saying this will change how they deal with Libya. Why? How? Surely that is the wrong way to build a lasting peace. Libya are trying to get involved in the global fight against terrorism these days, steps have been made to a reconciliation, so why do Americans react this way?

A nation that shows compassion finds it easier to look past the past, one that hold grudges finds it harder to let it go. So while the triumphalism of al-Megrahi's return to Libyan soil was over the top so too has been the heightened of tension, deepening of old wounds that the American political class and media has stirred up.

MacAskill made a tough decision, but made a right one based on the medical evidence and leaving emotions out of it. If emotions cloud our rationale in making these sort of decisions we end up getting involved in trying to justify those actions with dubious facts (WMD in Iraq anyone?).

Don't Drink and U-Turn

Be careful that Kenny MacAskill hasn't been drinking before performing the next hand brake turn in SNP policy. For as a comment on Kez's blog also failed to omit any mention of plans to review alcohol policy possibly because this is going to be watered down from what was originally announced it seems.

The SNP were promising that they would lift the minimum age for off sales to 21 across Scotland, yet it seems that MacAskill is leaving this decision up to local authorities rather than making a central decision. There is also a problem with the pledge to make business pay for the social problems associated with alcohol. The proposed separate checkout for alcohol sales is also likely to be dropped.

Don't forget that no matter what ends up remaining in the policy paper brought forward the Nats had promised far reaching steps to deal with a major problem. If they are truly watering down their plans it is not because they are being less authoritarian probably more to do with trying to get at least part of this one through. But again it is another climb down as they are unable to argue their corner.

Child Porn Compared to Drinking At Home!

"There is some suggestion that what you do in your own home doesn't really matter. That you can drink yourself to oblivion and it's your right. I think there are two arguments against that.

"First, we don't simply allow people to do anything they want. We don't allow people to watch internet porn relating to children or some other vile matters in their own home because it impacts on others. We don't allow people to consume recreational drugs in their own home because they want to and they say it won't do any harm.

"There are things that we decide as a society, and as a Government, as a Parliament, that are inappropriate. That's why we say that there has to be a speed limit, that there have to be restrictions on illicit substances, that there have to be constraints on pornography. These things, some argue, are harmless. No, they are not. And secondly what we have to say is that the abuse of alcohol by an individual in their own house does impact on others."

So says Kenny MacAskill, now nicknamed Kenny MacAskilljoy by Scotland on Sunday in defence of the SNP's latest policy initiatives regarding alcohol consumption. I thought the quote would have to be given in full and I just find it unbelievable that such far reaching comparisons were made. In this statement Mr MacAskill does appear to be lumping all home consumers of alcohol with child pornographers, illegal drug takes and speed fiends on our roads. While these three all do hold serious consequences either for the person involved or others drinking at home does not always affect others adversely.

So while Mr MacAskill does seem to pointing out the extremes of drinking at home and how it affects others surely this is covered under domestic violence legislation etc. The plans to raise costs, ages of purchasing from off licences are not going to affect these hard core drinkers he seems out to stop. They have a disease which needs treating, these actions aren't going to affect their ability or willingness to get hold of their daily does of alcohol. What all these plans does do is inconvenience the mild drinkers disproportionately. Don't label all at home drinkers along with child pornographers or shooting up drug addicts, that is overkill, using the same fear tactics that Labour seem so prone to push to when nobody else will agree with them.

Weekend Can You Spot the Real Thing Competition

Hat tip to Dundee's finest Cllr Fraser Macpherson for setting me off on this treasure trove.

First off Spot Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond below.

Now spot the people trusted the other day with transporting young offenders from court to custody.

What do you mean you don't see a Reliance Van above? I'm sure Nicol Stephen is sure that Alex and Kenny know the difference.