And another thing…

SIPPING water during last Thursday’s Scottish Politician of the Year Awards ceremony in Edinburgh (I was driving), there was some tension in the run-up to the announcement of the winner of the night’s main award. In fact I had already written (but not posted) a Tweet announcing: “Mahatmakaskill named Scottish Politician of the Year 2009 – even Nicola would have been an improvement!”

In the event, the very decent and well-liked John Swinney snatched the title. I’m sure MacAskill was philosophical about it; after all, if a “Higher Power” ordained it, there’s nothing he could do about it.

But as the case for the three nominees was being summarised from the stage, and footage of the Justice Minister announcing the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on the basis that he only had three months to live was shown, the Lord Foulkes MSP (Labour, Lothians) shouted from a sedentary position: “He’s still alive!”

Aye, there’s the rub.

Who knows how much longer the mass murderer has to live? The media are playing a rather sick game here, regularly reporting on the fact that Al-Megrahi hasn’t – yet – shuffled off this mortal coil to have his inevitable difficult conversation with that Higher Power. Now, I oppose capital punishment, and I do not want Al-Megrahi or anyone else to die (well, no-one that you have ever heard of, anyway). And neither does MacAskill.Yet Al-Megrahi’s continuing survival threatens the minister with embarrassment at best and the end of his career in government at worst.

I’m not doubting that the bomber is terminally ill. And neither do I believe he’s entered himself in the 2010 Tripoli Marathon. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear news any day that he’s succumbed to his illness.

But he shouldn’t have been released; he should have been allowed to die in prison – a very minor punishment, given the nature of his crime. MacAskill has assuaged his own conscience – of that I have no doubt. But the continued survival of Al-Megrahi must surely be the source of unpleasant dreams for Kenny MacAskill.

How Al-Megrahi appears in Kenny MacAskill's nightmares

Incidentally, the host of the event, the BBC’s Colin Mackay, came up with the best line of the night: “2009 was the Year of Homecoming, both here and in Libya.” It did sound rather familiar, mind you.

IS IT FAIR to ask certain Muslim organisations in the UK to disavow a certain brand of Islamic teaching?

If the brand of Islamic teaching in question is that of Abu Ala Mawdudi, who Ed Husain today describes as “the godfather of Islamism”, and if the Muslim organisations in question are receiving government grants, then surely the unequivocal answer is yes.

Here’s a taste of what Mawdudi believes:

It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confirm this rule to a single state or to a handful of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than a world revolution.

(Jihad in Islam by AA Mawdudi, chapter 3, p10)

Husain, author of the excellent The Islamist, offers a challenge to ministers who are approving the payment of so-called “Prevent” money to groups such as the Islamic Society of Britain, the UK Islamic Mission, the Islamic Foundation, the London Muslim Centre, Da’watul Islam and the Muslim Council of Britain: make repudiation of Mawdudi’s views a condition for receiving future funding.

To the list above, I would add the Scottish Islamic Foundation, who have already received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the SNP government since Alex Salmond’s friend, former advisor and SNP parliamentary candidate (all one person, incidentally) founded it last year.

These organisations may protest. Why should they have to condemn anyone’s teaching? Answer: they don’t. They simply have to find an alternative source of income if they cannot show, by word and by deed, that they absolutely oppose Mawdudi’s malignant and arrogant message of hatred and intolerance.

WHENEVER the subject of Islamist terrorism is raised, there’s always someone at the back who tentatively sticks his hand up and suggests that we should negotiate with Al-Quaeda in the same way we negotiated with the IRA.

Yes, well…

The thing is, although their methods were murderous and completely unacceptable, the IRA’s political demands were not: civil rights for the Roman Catholic minority of Northern Ireland and unification of Ireland. Those were issues that negotiations could include. Compromises could be made. Deals could be struck.

But Islamism? Yeah, I’d like to see how that would work…

David Miliband (for it is he): Welcome to the negotiating table, Mr Bin Laden. I trust you had a pleasant journey?

OBL: Indeed, yes, Foreign Secretary. CIA flights are most efficient, though uncomfortable.

DM: More comfortable than your cave, though?

OBL: Well, you’d be surprised. Mrs Bin Laden and I just got a new conservatory. There’s not much of a view but it’s very cosy. Ooh, and we’ve got Sky-Plus at last! Amazing!

DM: You watch a lot of Al-Jazeera, I assume?

OBL: Well, mostly “Dave” actually. The wife loves Mock the Week.

DM: Well, we have quite a lot of ground to cover. Would you like any refreshments before we start?

OBL: A little fruit, perhaps?

DM: How about this banana? I’ve been carrying it around for a while. No-one else seems to want it… Anyway, down to business. What is your starting position in these negotiations?

OBL: Ah, yes, I have taken the liberty of writing them down (takes paper from his wallet). First of all, just to clear the decks, you understand, we’d like the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

DM: I see.

OBL: It’s not just me, you understand – it’s my organisation. They’re rather old fashioned about this sort of thing. But they’re sweethearts deep down, really.

DM: Yes, well, that may cause us a bit of a problem, I’m afraid. You know what the Foreign Office is like – quite conservative…

OBL: With a small “c”, I hope, eh, David!

(Both men laugh)

OBL: You don’t mind if I call you David, do you?

DM: Of course not, Osama, of course not. The thing is, the destruction of Israel… well, it’s quite a tall order, isn’t it?

OBL: Really? Oh, how disappointing. I opened with that because it was one of the more moderate of our policies.

DM: Well, not to worry. Tell you what – let’s put a pin in it, as our American chums might say, and we’ll put it up there and come back to it later. Sound fair?

OBL: Of course, David.

DM: So, what next?

OBL: Well, to be honest, I’m not sure how much progress we can make on this next one, given how little we made on the first…

DM: Try me.

OBL: Well, we’d like to see every American killed.

DM: I see. Every American citizen?

OBL: Well, perhaps that could be a matter for negotiations down the line, as you say. Perhaps initially, just those who don’t like Scrubs. But ultimately, yes, all of the evil, Satan-worshipping dogs. What do you think? Could that be a goer, do you think?

DM: Well again, Mr Bin Laden…

OBL: Osama, please.

DM: Of course, Osama… but again, that does present the government – and not just my government, but probably quite a few others – with some major diplomatic problems.

OBL: You know, David, I wouldn’t want to leave here empty-handed. It would look very bad publicly.

DM: I understand the pressure you’re under. You wouldn’t want to lose face among your fellow Islamists.

OBL: Well, not just that – Frankie Boyle and High Dennis might make fun of me again and then the wife has a field day – her and her Scottish accent! I hate it.

DM: (Under his breath) Yeah, I’m with you there.

Anyway, I think that’s another one we might have to put a pin in and come back to later, yes? What’s the third demand?

OBL: Well, it hardly seems worth it now…

DM: Don’t be discouraged, Osama. Come on, try me. You never know, it might be one we can concede.

OBL: Oh, alright. Well, would it be okay to have a one-world Islamic government based on Sharia law?

DM: A one-world… I’m sorry, a what?

OBL: A one-world Islamic government based on Sharia law.

DM: And how would that work, exactly?

OBL: Oh, it basically does what it says on the tin: one world, so, you know, everyone’s included, and inclusiveness always goes down well in the West, yeah? Islamic, obviously. And based on Sharia Law which, in its favour – and I can see that look of scepticism in your face, David, but bear with me – which in its favour is given by God and therefore is perfect, unlike man-made laws. So, you know… everyone wins.

DM: Everyone?

OBL: Well, not women, obviously. Frankly, I don’t see a place in the government for Harriet Harman.

DM: And is there a downside?

OBL: Everyone else would have to convert to my particular form of Islam, obviously. And no gays allowed. To be honest, I don’t anticipate a particularly warm welcome for the Worldwide Caliphate from the LGBTs.

DM: Osama, I wonder if we could-…

OBL: Put a pin in it?

DM: Yes, would you mind?

OBL: Well, if you insist, but I’m not sure where we could go from here.

DM: I was hoping we could agree something on a slightly more modest scale.

OBN: For instance?

DM: Well, how about humous?

OBL: Humous?

DM: Some bright spark in the FCO thought of it, and I think it’s splendid. We ditch any idea of destroying Israel, killing Americans or abolishing all non-Sharia governments in the world, and instead we offer free humous to you, your organisation and all their dependents.

OBL: Hmmm… Okay, it’s a deal!

UPDATE at 12.25 pm on Wednesday: On a more serious note, those interested in the subject of Islamism in the UK should read this Comment is Free article by Ed Husain.

I WONDER how long it will be before someone theorizes that the would-be airplane bombers convicted today are innocent patsies set up by… oh, I don’t know, MI5 or someone?

Far easier for some people to believe that Britain’s security services are complicit in organising attacks against the public than to face the truth: that some Islamists believe it is not only justifiable but admirable to cause the deaths of innocent people, the more the better.

But facts don’t matter. To those people, Islamism will never seem as threatening as the government, and there will never be a shortage of appeasers who can justify the terrorists’ actions by pointing to British foreign policy.

IT’S AT times like this that I’m glad I cancelled my New Statesman subscription.

James Macintyre just posted a piece entitled “The hypocrisy of Eric Joyce”, which basically claims that if you supported the invasion of Iraq (which both Eric and I did), you therefore have no right to suggest that the public’s patience might be running out with the argument that British efforts in Afghanistan are aimed at preventing terrorism in Britain.

And Macintyre (who isn’t nearly as funny as his brother Michael, by the way) resurrects that old, dishonest, craven and blindingly stupid argument that the war in Iraq “actually brought Islamist terror to Britain’s streets for the first time.” In Macintyre’s mind, Islamist terrorism never existed before 7/7/05, despite the oft-repeated mantra that we now live in a globalised world, and despite the fact that Islamists have been murdering their political and religious opponents in cold blood and in great numbers for decades. But until 2005, not in Britain, so that’s okay.

Isn’t it wonderful how some on the Left try to pin the blame for terrorism on the British government, and not on the murdering psychopaths who actually set off the explosives on London’s transport system?

As it happens, I don’t agree with Eric’s reasons for resigning; the war in Afghanistan is sadly necessary and the public’s impatience with the mission’s progress can have no bearing on the rights or wrongs of our presence there.

But hypocrite he is not.

IT WILL take a little more time for the dust to settle on the Al-Megrahi affair (if it ever does), but with hindsight on events so far, there is at least one very odd aspect to all of this: the response of the SNP and its members.

Now, I have very strong views on this, but I accept that there is a contrary case — that taken by Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government. And I concede that, whatever my disagreements with it, it is a stance that has merit. Of course there is a humanitarian argument to be made in favour of Al-Megrahi’s release; I just happen to think that the arguments for justice and punishment should have carried more weight. I know at least a few local Labour Party members who agree with MacAskill and disagree with me. And that’s okay, surely? Natural. Unavoidable, even, to have disagreements and a debate within a party, particularly on such a complicated and controversial issue?

So what is utterly perplexing is the utterly implacable view of seemingly every single SNP member that MacAskill made the right decision. Given how complicated the issue is, legally and morally, I assume that this is simply the sign of a very disciplined party who always applaud any and every decision taken by any and every SNP minister on any and every subject. There appears not to be even a scintilla of doubt that MacAskill made the absolute, 100 per cent correct decision. More worrying, there is no sign of a debate on the issue within the ranks of the party that, for the time being, is exercising power at Holyrood.

And now we have Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, saying:

It is plain to most right thinking people that Kenny MacAskill made the right decision and, above all, he made it for the right reasons.

So, if you disagree with the decision you aren’t a “right-thinking” person? This is taking party politics not to a new low, but into another dimension.

SCOTLAND’S national flag has been seen on TV screens across the world today, being enthusiastically waved by those giving an inevitable hero’s welcome to the Lockerbie mass murderer.

Surely even the most enthusiastic supporter of the SNP minority government will feel uneasy about this?

JOHN Maples, the Tory MP, asked Harriert Harman today at PMQs to remind the House why British troops were in Afghanistan. It was an appropriate question, given that the names of seven servicemen had been added to the list of the fallen at the start of the session.

The controversy that will always surround the subject of Iraq is often extended to Afghanistan. You often hear anti-war types condemning British involvement in "Iraq and Afghanistan", as if the circumstances of our involvement were identical. 

(Remember Paul Marsden? He was the Labour MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham who defected to the LibDems shortly after troop deployment in Afghanistan. He did so because of his opposition to the war in Afghanistan. Problem was, the LibDems had supported the military intervention there as well. Poor Paul…)

There is no question over the legality of action in Afghanistan, or its legitimacy in terms of UN authorisation. Given the offensive action taken against America by a certain honoured guest of the Taleban at the time, the US had no choice but to demand bin Laden be handed over. The Taleban’s refusal to do so was in effect an invitation to the international community to invade. Which the international community rightly accepted.

So the legal basis for invasion and occupation was firmly established, as was the UN’s moral justification. But beyond the immediate necessity of bringing bin Laden to justice, there was an added reason to support the Afghan campaign: the fight against fascism.

If you persecute gays, treat women as second class citizens, rule by intimidation and violence, deny citizens the basic tenets of democracy and consider those of a different ethnicity, race or religion to be worthy of death and imprisonment, then you are a fascist. And the Taleban, being able to tick all of these boxes, were and remain fascists.

Some on the Left in Britain try to give the impression that they’re opposed to fascism while marching in support of the Taleban and Saddam’s former regime, a regime modelled deliberately on Nazism in many respects. They are liars and hypocrites. Their voices have not been listened to in this debate, and neither should they be. British soldiers are fighting and dying in the campaign to build a democratic and free Afghanistan. We should be hoping and praying for their safety and for their success against the remnants of a vile and disgusting fascist regime.

I THOUGHT I would take up Iain Dale’s suggestion that those of us who were in London on 7 July 2005 might want to share our memories of that day.

What I recall almost as vividly was the day before. I was Patricia Hewitt’s PPS at the time and was sitting in on a meeting she was conducting. I received a pager message saying: "London wins 2012 Olympics." I never interrupted Patricia’s flow, but I felt this occasion warranted it. Everyone in the room was gleeful (even though the topic we were supposed to be discussing was rather serious).

There was such a fantastic atmosphere in London and in the Palace that day. I called Carolyn and she was as excited as I was. Neither of us had expected to feel so euphoric, partly, I guess, because no-one really expected us to win.

My oldest son was visiting me that week. That night we went back to the flat and before watching "Fargo" on DVD, watched the wall-to-wall coverage of our capital city’s triumph. He was only 13 at the time, but was clearly caught up in the moment.

Next morning it was dull but dry, so I decided we should avoid the Underground and walk into the Commons. On the way I received a phone call from my assistant in Glasgow saying there had been a power outage on the Underground and that parts of it were suspended. I recall thinking this was unusual but didn’t think much more about it until I arrived at the House. My son, not being a pass holder, had to go through security every day. But members don’t. Even on my first day as an MP, when I arrived at St Stephen’s entrance without any proof of ID, I was escorted straight inside the building simply by stating I was a new Member.

But on 7 July 2005, the policeman told me I would have to go through security. I thought that perhaps he didn’t realise I was an MP. I showed him my pass. "Everyone has to go through security this morning, sir," he replied, and I knew something was most definitely up.

In the terrace canteen eating breakfast, another call from my Glasgow office. The police feared suicide bombers. I was shocked but not surprised. Ever since 9/11 the prospect of Islamists launching such an attack had become a very real possibility. I had assumed it was inevitable. So although distressed and upset and angry, I’m afraid I wasn’t surprised. Except, perhaps, at how long they had taken to organise the attack.

I told my son to call his mother to reassure her of his safety. But I hadn’t been able to get in touch with Carolyn. She’s the worrying type and I knew that if she saw the pictures being broadcast on TV, she would panic and fear the worst. Donald, in my constituency office, managed to call her to tell her he had been in touch with me and that my son and I were fine. That call from Donald was the first inkling she had had of what had happened.

My one abiding memory of the whole day was walking home along Victoria Street. My son was fairly cheerful, though nervous, and had been a bit thrown by what was being reported. And then I saw the buses. And the bus stops. People queuing, people travelling on the same kind of vehicle that only a few hours had been destroyed by the selfish and insane actions of a psychopathic murderer. But they were still travelling. Yes, of course, they had to find some way of getting home. And yes, I’m sure they were nervous. But there they were: stoical, determined, even cheerful.

And I felt a sudden burst of unexpected pride in my fellow countrymen and women. I turned to my son and said something to that effect. Look at these people. They’re not letting the terrorists win.

The day before I had shared in the pride of the nation at winning the honour of hosting the 2012 Olympics. A day later, the pride was still there, far stronger and more warranted than the day before.

SO BOB Quick has resigned.

There will, no doubt, be those who will rub their hands in glee, since this was the officer who dared criticise the Conservative Party during the Damian Green investigation.

But it says a lot about our society that in the middle of a crucial anti-terrorist operation, there are some who are rubbing their hands in glee at the removal of someone they saw as a poliical enemy.

Whether it was right or not for him to pay for a mistake with his job, I can’t accept that now was a good time to quit.