100 Days have come and gone

Belated congratulations are in order as the SNP marked another significant milestone in reaching 100 days, not of its first term in office, but its second running the government of Scotland.  Self-congratulation appears to be off the agenda though – nothing on the SNP website, nowt from the Scottish Government either.

Right on cue, though, a trio of disparaging and dispiriting articles in the Scotsman – a political one, an almost identical analysis, and in case we hadn’t got the message, a down in the mouth leader that ponders these last 100 days and concludes, clunkily, that the SNP Government hadn’t hit the ground running but jogging.

No we haven’t witnessed 100 days of dynamic action, as we did in 2007.  But then there are fewer quick fixes to be found.  And this time, where’s the hurry?  The SNP has a whole extra year to work with – pace is going to be everything this time round.

Moreover, with three opposition parties in disarray, floundering and leaderless, there has been no one snapping at their heels;  indeed, some of the Scottish Government’s poor headlines have been of their own making (or rather the media’s, seeing it as their collective national and noble duty to offer some kind of scrutiny).  This administration will last the course – the previous minority one did not know when its number might be called – and indeed, unless Labour gets its act together might even enjoy a third term.  Who needs a hundred days when there are thousands in which to make your mark?

In any event, many of the SNP’s manifesto commitments either involve no change at all – continued council tax freeze, free personal care, free tuition fees etc – or ambitious, sweeping change – new capital investment programmes, innovative legislation, a living wage, a real shift to localism.  Such measures are hard to fashion into immediate actions and ready soundbites.

These kind of reforms take time.  As the First Minister found out, in a rare lesson in humility, with the harried anti-sectarianism bill, sometimes the old proverbs really are the best:  less haste, more speed.  Our patience is likely to be rewarded with a number of “big bills” to be announced when the Scottish Parliament returns the week after next.

The only show in town, as far as the SNP is concerned, has been the opportunity presented by the Scotland bill to maximise devolution.  Its parliamentary timetable at Westminster demanded that the Scottish Government focused its attention on securing as many additional powers as possible;  indeed, one of the most vibrant and busy committees of the next 100 days is likely to be that set up to explore, scrutinise and make the case for all the powers the First Minister has put on his shopping list.  The prospect of items being crossed off that list is highly unlikely given the dominance of the SNP on the committee and in the chamber.

But it was not just the Government which eased itself gently into this session;  the Parliament too did not exactly spring into action.  Weeks went by with minimal parliamentary activity;  committees took an age to appoint convenors;  in the seven weeks before shutting up shop for the summer, the Parliament did not even open officially.  But with a very different shape and size to parliamentary groups, as well as a whole host of new parliamentarians, the logistics of getting the show on the road this time round were harder to achieve.  And crucially, everyone seemed exhausted from the efforts expended in the election – no one had much appetite for bounding Tigger-like into this session.

Now they’ve all had the summer to recover and recuperate, to rejoin and renew, there can be no excuses.  Yet, while the press appears to have rolled its eyes and declared the summer to have been “boring”, it has largely ignored the fact that the Scottish Government has been very busy indeed.  In fact, most of the Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers have had little more than a week off.  Not only has the Scottish Cabinet been on tour around Scotland, visiting far flung places like Stranraer, Fort William and even Kirkcaldy,  its members have been on other tours and trips, immersing themselves in their portfolios in different parts of the country.  Inbetween times, some of them have even managed to find time for some constituency work and pop home for tea with the family.  There are no five holiday Cameronians in this bunch.

And yes, it might make for few headlines.  It might seem – to some – to amount to aimless wandering, but it actually purports to serve a much needed purpose.  To make clear that Holyrood is not Edinburgh’s Parliament but Scotland’s, that this SNP Government belongs to and governs for all of the country, reminding everyone that it takes its new-found responsibility as the National Party of Scotland seriously.

Taken together, it might not amount to an action-packed, thrill a minute hundred days of glory.  But if it ensures thousands more days in government, and thousands more yes votes in the independence referendum, the SNP will consider it time well spent indeed.

Tags: , , , ,

Enthusiasm goes a long way

After an extended absence on my part (what do you mean, you didn’t miss me?!) due to endless PhD drafting and then holidaying, I reckoned it was time to get back on the horse.  Figuratively speaking – given my allergy to horse hair, were I to actually do so, I’d end up in hospital.  Anyway, I was itching to write something and about something… but it really does look like there’s nothing going on here.  I mean, apart from the floods and the riots, the borderline homophobic parliamentary motions and the ongoing debates over what happens when (if?) Scotland becomes independent with regards currency etc.  But you’ve covered all that.  So what do I write about?

Well, I guess those of you who don’t have an interest in politics outside Scotland might want to look away now.  I’ve spent the last couple of weeks in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Where choice is king, everything comes with peanut butter (including pretzels, which were awesome) and an ambulance call out costs you three grand.

I do love the States though.  I love their enthusiasm for sports – college sides have 100,000-seater stadiums for their American Football teams (and graduation ceremonies).  That’s bigger than our pro-teams.  I love their enthusiasm for their colleges – their affinity with an education establishment where they attended lasts a lifetime (including dancing to the college fight songs at weddings!).  Most of all, I just love their enthusiasm.  Here we struggle to serve people with a smile – there you don’t just get told to have a nice day, its got to be a great day.  One guy saw I was off out running (in ridiculous heat) and told me to have a “great one”.  Enthusiasm.  That’s something we can learn.

You wonder where I’m going with this.  I kind of wonder too.

To politics, of course.  We’re in a down year for elections in the States, but the race for the Republican Presidential nominee to challenge President Obama is kicking off.  While I was on holiday they held a straw-poll for candidates in Iowa (first state to hold its caucus for candidates, scheduled for Feb 6th 2012) in which Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann narrowly beat out Texas Representative Ron Paul to win the non-binding poll.  There were NINE names on the ballot paper, plus a space for a ‘write-in’, in which Texas Governor Rick Perry gained the support of 3.6%, of voters – despite not actually entering the race until the day of the poll.

So, at the moment, its a crowded field for the Republicans.  There are no fewer than FIFTEEN formally declared candidates at this point, with no real front-runner.  Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (a candidate the last time around) held that position for around four months, when the race began – and is still a top-tier candidate.  But his lead is now just 2 points over the recently-announced Rick Perry.  Michelle Bachmann’s support among social and Christian conservatives looks to have dipped a little with Perry’s involvement in the race.

When I was in the States, I took this photograph of a t-shirt:

While its George W. Bush, and its mocking Obama’s “hope” slogan from the 2008 Presidential election, it does make a point:  A lot of what Obama promised to change hasn’t changed.  Yes, there have been global economic conditions which have made some of his promises difficult to achieve (healthcare, for example) but there are also things he could have done and simply has not (like closing out Guantanamo Bay).  He had a Democratic Congress for the first couple of years of his term, and it made very little difference to what he could and could not achieve in office.

The point is that this is a very winnable election for the Republicans – and that’s not something you would have expected to hear in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s election.  But if the Republicans are going to win back the White House, they have to pick a decent candidate.  From the current field, its difficult to see who that is.  And even among those who are speculated to run, but haven’t yet announced, there are not any really inspiring names.  Sarah Palin isn’t going to beat Obama – and you wouldn’t want her to even if you were a Republican.  Ditto John Bolton, the former US Ambassador to the UN.  I’ve seen a couple of interviews with him and he just comes across as an arrogant, for want of a better word, dickhead.  Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be a good bet, but given his more liberal views on some things, plus family issues, he’s unlikely to get the nomination.  There’s even a white power advocate and former Klan wizard (David Duke) planning a presidential run.  Which lets you know just how crazy the Republican race might get.

Anyway, I’ve got some friends in the States who might give us some on-the-ground chat about the Presidential race.  Not that this election will have any bearing whatsoever on events in Scotland at all.  But its an election, and we all love elections, right?

No wonder you guys didn’t miss me…

Will the National Transitional Council hand Megrahi over to the USA?

A guest post from Stuart MacLennan. Stu is a PhD Candidate in the Faculty of Law at Trinity College, University of Dublin. He is a former adviser to the Scottish Parliament Labour Group on External Affairs, which is why he wrote us a piece about Megrahi. He was also a Parliamentary Candidate – but the less said about that, the better.

Scotland may well find itself facing another diplomatic row with the United States of America. New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg have called on the Libyan National Transitional Council to hand Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi over to the United States. Until yesterday it was easy to dismiss this call as just another stunt by vote-hungry US Senators, but with the National Transitional Council (NTC) on the cusp of full control of Tripoli it has become a question that warrants some consideration.

Of course, legally and politically the situation is far more complex than Lautenberg and Menendez would have us believe. Leaving aside the dubiousness of the original conviction there are questions as to jurisdiction, international law, United States law, as well as the diplomatic, political and practical considerations.

At first glance jurisdiction seems simple. The flight blew up shortly after crossing the corner of the Solway Firth into Scotland and fell out of the sky towards Lockerbie and Langholm. Ergo, the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 is subject to the criminal law of Scotland, right? Well, things are slightly different where aircraft are concerned. The United States has never been shy about extending its jurisdiction extra-territorially, and the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 1963 creates the so-called “Aircraft Jurisdiction”. The Convention provides that the Country in which an aircraft is registered has jurisdiction over criminal acts while the aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas. The United States has therefore always claimed jurisdiction over the bombing of flight Pan Am 103.

However public international law also comes into play where the Lockerbie trial is concerned. The United States along with the United Kingdom jointly sponsored Security Council Resolution 1192, binding members to accept the jurisdiction of a Scottish Court constituted in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands as the trial venue for Megrahi and his co-accused Lamin Khalifah Fhimah. The United States cannot unilaterally ignore this resolution, though as a permanent member of the Security Council it could propose a resolution overturning it. Without a further resolution, as Professor Robert Black points out, the Federal Government would not only be in breach of International Law but also of Art. VI, Clause II of their own Constitution.

But wait! “What about double jeopardy?” I hear you ask…

The famous double jeopardy rule contained within the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not as airtight as it first appears. The dual sovereignty exception, which was developed by the Supreme Court in order to protect the rights of the federal government and the states to prosecute crimes independently of each other, appears to have been extended to foreign prosecutions [U.S. v. Richardson 580 F.2d 946 (9th Circuit 1978)]. Therefore provided the United States remains in compliance with its international obligations there is no bar on Megrahi standing trial again in the U.S.

So handing Megrahi over to the U.S. to stand trial is, theoretically speaking, possible in law however the politics make things even more difficult. The Obama administration is understandably keen to avoid being seen to be flouting Security Council Resolutions, so if they wanted Megrahi back they would have to have the acquiescence of fellow permanent member, the United Kingdom – but would they receive it?

In both Government and Opposition David Cameron has been clear about his objections to the release of the Lockerbie bomber. He has continued to maintain that he felt it was wrong that Megrahi was released though has never stated that he believes he should be returned to prison (despite what his spokesperson seemed to think today). The political row that returning Megrahi to the United States would create would be one that I believe David Cameron would wish to avoid.

Alex Salmond appears to relish in the controversy his Government has created. He has succeeded in putting successive UK Governments in a tricky spot over Megrahi, and in attracting the ire of Hillary Clinton has been elevated to the status of a world statesman. I do not believe David Cameron would put Whitehall on yet another collision course with Holyrood, particularly given the concessions the UK Government has already made to the Nationalists. Nor would Cameron wish to further enhance Alex Salmond’s quasi-Presidential status in the run-up to a referendum on Scottish Independence.

From a practical perspective – at present we do not know where Megrahi is. Megrahi was released on license and returned to a Government which for the most part doesn’t exist any more. East Renfrewshire Council, the local authority responsible for monitoring Megrahi’s release on license, admits it is in “uncharted territory” in monitoring his license and is urgently trying to make contact with him. Furthermore Tripoli could remain in turmoil for some time to come and Megrahi may well slip through the net.

Finally, given the uncertainty as to what kind of state may emerge in Libya, there’s no guarantee that the new regime will be any more acquiescent with the United States than its predecessor. Even if they manage to find Megrahi they may not hand him over. And given that it took the joint efforts of the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations Security Council and the passage of more that ten years to extradite him the first time around – Senators Lautenberg and Menendez may have to accept that Megrahi will never see the inside of a prison cell again. To paraphrase Kenny McAskill: the next judgment Megrahi faces will almost certainly be that of a higher power.

Tom Harris for leader of Scottish Labour?

Today’s big Scottish political news is undoubtedly the surprise story that Tom Harris has thrown his hat into the ring to be the next Scottish leader of the Labour party, in whatever guise that position will be once Labour has finished its review.

It is a bit of a bolt out of the blue. I mean, where the actual flippityjibbity did that come from?

It is difficult not to immediately suspect that Tom’s new blog Labour Hame was part of the same strategy, to build an online power base of sorts and show that he is helping to shape the debate that will take Scottish Labour beyond their current woes.

It would be churlish not to wish Tom good luck but it would also be dishonest to suggest that I thought he had any chance of winning. There is his somewhat right of centre views on certain topics and, going by his online presence, he certainly seems to go out of his way to avoid talking about issues north of the border. Furthermore, his at times visceral dislike of the SNP will surely count against him. Who can forget Mr Harris’ description of SNP Conference as a “hate fest“?

I suspect, though, the Glasgow South MP is just looking to shake things up and hurry the process along a bit as, as the man said himself: “Iain Gray announced he was standing down in September, which is next week, and I don’t even know if that’s going ahead.” And, to be fair, the announcement does have a ring of ‘I’ll do it if noone else will’ about it. Not overly inspiring though.

In going over the top and forcing Labour to get back on its feet, impatience may well be a virtue. I’d nonetheless suggest not taking the bookies up on Tom winning the contest at whatever odds they end up offering.

After Libya, the SNP cannot remain anti-Nato

This week marks a tipping point in Libya’s future. A tyrant reduced to playing hide and seek with the subjects that he was ruthlessly crushing a matter of weeks ago, a wave of jubilation celebrating decades of oppression finally being lifted and a country ready to be reborn.

Closer to home, this week may also see a tipping point for the SNP. Its judgement over being consistently anti-NATO deserves being called into question in light of recent events, which it surely will by opposition parties and the MSM before too long. An alliance between advanced nations where an attack on one is deemed to be an attack on all can only be a positive thing as, alongside the UN and the EU, it bonds together countries with the resources and the might to ensure global stability is maintained.

The SNP sees Nato in a different light, as a nuclear-weapon wielding relic of a bygone age when Russia was supposedly the bogeyman and ‘first strike capability’ was all that mattered. This dark imagining is a sci-fi nightmare that not only won’t happen, but is certainly not any more likely to happen through Nato’s mere existence.

It is testament to how sure-footed a politician Alex Salmond is that the First Minister’s “unpardonable folly” comments back in 1999 regarding the Nato bombing of Kosovo remain his most famous gaffe, one that Salmond himself regrets. However, that famous phrase has only served to regularly harden the belief across Scotland that the SNP is anti-Nato, even if there is strong support within the party to change this policy.

There is hardly a starker contrast between the SNP’s view of Nato and much of the rest of the world’s than the following two passages; the second a speech on Monday from President Barack Obama and the first a 2009 from Scotland’s whiter, younger, more Nationalist version, Jamie Hepburn MSP.

*S3M-3607*♦* Jamie Hepburn: 60th Anniversary of NATO
That the Parliament notes that 4 April 2009 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); recognises that the continued presence of NATO serves as a destabilising factor in the West’s relationship with Russia; notes that NATO relies heavily on the continued use of nuclear weapons as part of its operational capacity; recalls that the first Secretary General of NATO, Lord Ismay, described the organisation’s purpose as being “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”; further recognises that the world has fundamentally changed since the founding of NATO in 1949, and, given that the Cold War is meant to be over, believes that the organisation has no useful purpose in the modern world.

Barack Obama, 22nd August 2011
To our friends and allies, the Libyan intervention demonstrates what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one — although the efforts in Libya are not yet over. NATO has once more proven that it is the most capable alliance in the world and that its strength comes from both its firepower and the power of our democratic ideals. And the Arab members of our coalition have stepped up and shown what can be achieved when we act together as equal partners. Their actions send a powerful message about the unity of our effort and our support for the future of Libya.

The independence referendum may be some way off but I cannot see the SNP winning many friends by remaining so steadfastly opposed to Nato and the strategic options that it provides so soon after the organisation has enjoyed such clear successes, such as the Libyan operations in 2011.

Anyway, an independent Scotland pulling out of Nato is possibly the worst possible example of realpolitik that one could dare to consider. Let’s break down the timeline for how it would go:

– Scotland releases Libyan Lockerbie bomber and convicted murderer of numerous Americans, to outrage from the US
– America funds and organises a successful series of Nato bombing raids that results in dictator Gaddafi being deposed
– Scotland celebrates its independence and, on behalf of the new country, President Salmond says he looks forward to working constructively with the rest of the world and boosting Scotland’s international profile
– Scotland leaves Nato

Seems unlikely, doesn’t it?

In the military, the best course of action is often short and sharp, which is precisely how the SNP’s U-turn on an independent Scotland’s relationship with Nato should be if the they want to avoid this being a harmful distraction to the party’s referendum campaign.

It’s time for the SNP to kill this unnecessary sacred cow and accept Nato for what it is. Anything else is, yes you guessed it, ‘unpardonable folly’.