And another thing…

WOULD Thomas Hamilton, who murdered 16 children and their teacher in in a primary school in Dunblane 13 years ago, have been released from jail on compassionate grounds had he (a) lived to be convicted and (b) developed terminal cancer?

Most people, including the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, would, I hope, dismiss such a notion. And yet, in December 1988, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi not only murdered 17 children under the age of 16, but also 253 others. In cold blood. Without mercy. Without compassion. Without humanity.

And tonight he is flying home to the bosom of his loving and (I assume) forgiving family in Libya.

Al-Megrahi has, we are told, just three months to live. Not long, you might think. And yet for two of his victims, that is more than a lifetime: Jonathan Thomas of Southfield, Michigan, and Brittany Williams of Crown Point, New York, were each just two months old when Al-Megrahi’s task of 21 December 1988 was completed successfully with the explosion in mid-air of Pan Am Flight 103 above a previously unheard-of Scottish town.

Some may argue that the lives of child murder victims are no more precious than those of any others, and I simply use Al-Megrahi’s child victims to illustrate a point: why was he considered for compassionate release when others whose crimes were, arguably, less (in quantative terms only; not in relation to the devastation caused to victims’ families) would almost certainly not be?

MacAskill told reporters today: “I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me.” That was a false statement. If it were true, then he would not have been asked to make a decision in the first place. If the “only” basis for a decision was Al-Megrahi’s medical condition, then his release was inevitable, since the medical evidence seems to be incontrovertible. But MacAskill was asked to make a decision, a decision that had to be based on a lot more than “the medical advice I have before me.”

He had to take into account whether or not justice would be served by the mass murderer’s release. Before he became an MSP and then justice minister in the SNP Government, MacAskill was a defence solicitor. His liberal instincts which allow him to sympathise with the perpetrators, rather than the victims of crime, have not let him down today.

I can’t shake the feeling that not far beneath the surface of this debate has been an assumption — and if not an assumption, then certainly a suspicion — that Al-Megrahi is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted eight years ago. Yet even if this were the case, MacAskill’s decision was still the wrong one. The deal (unofficially) offered to the terrorist by the Scottish Government was that in order to qualify for compassionate release, he had to drop his existing appeal against his conviction. There is a widespread and near unanimous view among the families of the victims of Lockerbie that had the appeal gone ahead, it would have unearthed previously unseen evidence that could have helped answer some of the many unanswered questions surrounding the tragedy.

Thanks to MacAskill’s intervention, that will now no longer happen. In his embarrassing and unsuccessful attempts to look and sound statesmanlike today, MacAskill tried to claim “humanity” as a peculiarly Scottish characteristic. But it is too late for him to try to claim the moral high ground. This decision was made not by a minister representing the Scottish nation, but by a lawyer representing the minority Scottish Government.

His decision today was wrong on the grounds of justice and wrong on the grounds of humanity. But as long as Mr MacAskill can reassure himself that it was the right decision medically, then I’m sure he’ll be able to sleep as soundly tonight as Al-Megrahi will when he arrives home after a long but safe and comfortable flight.

IF THERE’S one thing that puts colleagues off the notion of proportional representation, it’s having experienced its effect on their home ground.

Welsh and Scottish MPs have the scars on our backs from the Assisted Places Scheme, the form of PR used for electing the Scottish Parliament. This is where those who don’t win enough support in actual constituencies, are allowed to become MSPs anyway through the regional lists. They then spend the next four years pretending they represent actual constituents which, of course, they don’t. They represent parties, not people. A few years ago there was an attempt to recognise this fact at Holyrood by cutting Assisted Places Scheme (APS) members’ office allowances to reflect their non-existent (or, at best, selective) constituency case workload. Sadly but predictably, this move was defeated.

APS MSPs are usually, though not always, intent on becoming proper MSPs at the subsequent election, so spend most of their time targeting the constituency where they plan to stand next time, or where they were defeated last time. Robert Brown, for example, describes himself as the LibDem MSP for “Glasgow, including Rutherglen and Cambuslang”. He was “elected” on the Glasgow regional list, but any guesses where he stood last time, and where he plans to stand again? Anyone? No? That’s right: Rutherglen and Cambuslang. Funny, that…

That’s how Assisted Places Scheme systems work, and that’s how AV+ would work if it were implemented in Westminster. Those candidates who failed to become MPs in a constituency would simply get into the Commons via the back door, and would spend the next four years poaching constituency cases off of the candidate who beat them in the first place. Despicable. And if colleagues have any sense, they’ll reject AV+, or at the very least, the “+” part of the equation.

The alternative vote itself I have less problem with, although I oppose its adoption for the simple reason that for the negligible improvement in proportionality that it delivers, it’s hardly worth the upheaval and the added complication to what is currently an exceptionally simply system.

And to those who will now complain that I’m being patronising for suggesting that writing numbers on a ballot paper is “too complicated” to understand, that’s now what I’m suggesting. Nevertheless, whenever we’ve changed the voting system away from first-past-the-post, the turn out has dropped.

SCOTTISH business leaders have sent proud Alex Samond homewards to think again on the so-called local* income tax (LIT).

“The wrong tax at the wrong time,” is how Norman Quirk of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce described this particular tartan tax. It is “a tax on labour at a time when government should be pulling all the levers to ensure that the economy is running at full throttle.”

Having failed to implement so much of their 2007 manifesto, LIT is an important battle for the SNP government; if they manage to implement it, and push Scots’ income tax up to three per cent more than what everyone else in the country is paying, we would lose jobs and inward investment. Then Alex and co. will turn round and blame England. Genius.

* “local” as in “not local – national”

ALCOHOL has been on my mind recently. The debate in Scotland has centred on the SNP government’s failed attempt to ban under-21s from buying booze from off-licences.

It was a flawed idea and deserved to fail. But I do wonder why there’s a smirk, or even a sneer, not far below some of the criticisms made of the nationalists’ so-called war on alcohol. Don’t politicians and the commentariat realise the immense damage done to our society and our country by the misuse of alcohol?

My late mother always used to answer criticism of her only hobby – smoking – by pointing out that the health effects of tobacco were tiny compared with those of alcohol. And she was right. I don’t have to repeat the litany, you’ve all heard it before – accident and emergency units on a Saturday night, the number of alcohol-fuelled violent attacks in the street and, arguably worse, in the home.

When was the last time you heard of someone becoming violent because they had just chain-smoked 20 Benson and Hedges?

So perhaps instead of scoring political points off each other on the issue, the political parties could work together to try to find solutions. In the current session of Holyrood, we’ve had at least three reviews of the parliament’s constitutional powers. How about a commission that may actually have a positive effect on the people we represent? What about a cross-party commission on alcohol abuse? The conclusions would not be binding on MSPs, but it would perhaps come up with two or three serious proposals that would command broader support than what the SNP has proposed and had knocked back.

I’m as much in favour of political knock-about as anyone. But alcohol – or rather, its abuse – is destroying individuals and families in every one of our communities. It’s time we started coming up with solutions instead of headlines.

BACK home now, after listening to two excellent acceptance speeches from Johann Lamont and then Iain Gray. Iain hit exactly the right tone – mixing conviction, humility and humour in exactly the right combination.

Johann provided the funniest line, however; referring to the fact that both she and her deputy leadership rival, Bill Butler, are former English teachers, she said that whatever policy differences they held, they were “in agreement on the grammatical structure of those differences.”

The press pack were on the prowl, looking for a negative line, a down side to this very good day for Scottish Labour. I’m sure they’ll think of something.

Incidentally, it is almost ten years to the day since Donald Dewar and Cathy Jamieson were elected unopposed as leader and deputy leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament. I remember the date well – I was unable to attend the special conference in Glasgow because Carolyn and I were getting married that day. Craig, our best man, started his speech by offering my apologies for being unable to attend the wedding because of the conference.

I COULDN’T have hoped for a better result: Iain Gray 57.79 per cent; Cathy Jamieson 42.21 per cent (Andy Kerr eliminated after round one).

In the deputy leadership race: Johann Lamont 60.18 per cent; Bill Butler 39.82 per cent.

HEADING into John Smith House later this morning for the announcement of leader and deputy leader of Labour at Holyrood. In case you missed it, I supported Iain Gray and Johann Lamont.

You have until about midday to let me have your predictions on the outcome.

WELL, it’s taken longer than I thought it would, but I’ve finally been designated a security risk at the Scottish Parliament. According to Yousuf Hamid’s new blog he received a “no entry” warning from the parliament’s authorities when Yousuf, very wisely, tried to log onto my site.

Can’t say I’m surprised at this; Holyrood’s IT policy is famously jobsworth-driven. Unlike Westminster-supplied PCs, onto which MPs and staff can download just about any software they like, Holyrood-supplied PCs are invulnerable to any programme that might make them more useful or productive. I’m even told that the “desktop” icon at the bottom left hand of the screen, which immediately minimises any active programme, isn’t available, and can’t be added. Why? Just because, apparently.

TRANSCRIPT of part of Morning Extra, broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland this morning:

GARY ROBERTSON (for it is he): And now we have Alex on the line. Are you there, Alex?

ALEX: Yes, Gary.

GARY: And where are you calling from this morning, Alex?

ALEX: Banff. Er, I mean, Gordon – no, Buchan. Edinburgh.

GARY: Okay… so what do you want to say to us, Alex?

ALEX: I just wanted to clarify that I think Margaret Thatcher is evil incarnate, whatever others are saying I said. I mean, just because you say something, doesn’t mean you mean it, does it?

GARY: Okay, uhm…

ALEX: I mean, the poll tax? How could anyone think that Scotland didn’t mind that? (laughs nervously). And her industrial policy! Bathgate no more, Linwood no more, Methyl no more, Lochaber no more…

GARY: Alex, if I could just stop you there, you’re just singing a Proclaimers song now…

ALEX: I would walk 500 miles-

GARY: I’m going to have to cut you off there, Alex

ALEX: No! Wait! If I can just reiterate: although I said that Scotland didn’t mind Thatcherism, I just meant it didn’t mind her economic policies – it was the consequences of her economic policies they didn’t like.

GARY: But how can you separate the two? Policies have consequences.

ALEX: Yes! Exactly! Love the policy – hate the result, that’s my motto. FREEDOM! Oh, sorry…(Whispering) Oh, Margaret, how I miss you. Come back to us…

GARY: Well, that’s clarified things for all of us. Thank you Alex. And next on the line we have Nicola from Baillieston.

NICOLA: Govan.

GARY: Sorry.

SCOTLAND didn’t mind the economics of Thatcherism, according to Alex Salmond.

The thing is, we did object very strongly, not only to the social consequences of Thatcherism, but its economic consequences. Clearly, whatever Alex said at the time, he didn’t share the nation’s opinion.

Two important points here: the first is that when Alex expresses a personal opinion, he assumes, in his own mind, that he speaks for the whole nation. The thing is, he doesn’t.

Secondly, as I’ve said here before, there is probably not a single nationalist out there who agrees with Alex on Thatcherism, but I’m willing to bet there’s also not one who will publicly criticise him; on the contrary, they will defend anything and everything he says and does, whatever their own personal opinions.