Baker's Dozin'

The whole furore over the al-Megrahi release which has been opened up by David Cameron's visit to the States and the US Senate's desire to have Scottish ministers give evidence to their committee is a sad state of affairs.  Plenty has already been written about why this is ridiculous - when will the US start to realise that it does not have jurisdiction over any more than its own shores?  I'm still a bit annoyed (and that's putting it lightly) that Messrs Salmond & MacAskill didn't just tell them to f*** o**.  But perhaps my political antenna isn't quite as in tune as theirs.

Anyway, I digress.  I just wanted to point out the utter nonsense on the issue spouted by Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Baker.  He told the BBC (who have called him "Labour's justice spokesman" which I think is a downgrade in title):

"It speaks volumes about the lack of confidence he has now in his own decision that he is running a mile from any scrutiny of it".  Apparently in his view it is "perfectly legitimate" for American politicians to ask Kenny MacAskill to go to Washington because they can pretty well do what they like.  

Okay, I may have paraphrased that last bit, but his point is daft anyway.  Of course it is legitimate to for them to ask, but it is also legitimate for the Justice Secretary to decline (just as, incidentally, Baker's own colleague and former UK Home Secretary Jack Straw did).  Wouldn't the Scottish Government be justified in inviting the US Senators (some of whom enjoy lucrative sponsorship from oil companies) to come and share their findings with a committee of the Scottish Parliament (who DO have jurisdiction in the matter?  Of course - but they won't, because they recognise that the Senators do not have a constituency over here, and no place in our democratic system.

I think, thankfully, and hopefully, that the best outcome from this sorry media frenzy is that Richard Baker is unlikely to take his present role in opposition into government in the event he is re-elected in May and his party form the government - neither of which event is, thankfully, a certainty at this point.  

Of course what he said is political point-scoring, an opposition MSP trying to paint the government as incompetent.  But I wonder if Iain Gray realises yet that if he wants to run the Scottish Government next year he'll have to do better on the personnel than the amateurs he has running the show at the moment.  But then, it isn't like he has much of a choice.

Read more...

Big Society, Little Britain

David Cameron got some points from me for his idea of a "Big Society".  His idea is very much in keeping with my view of what I guess is often described as "civic nationalism".  Leaving aside that the "nation" it encompasses is larger than I would like (being the UK and not just Scotland) I think the idea is bold and sensible, particularly in the times of financial difficulty which we currently find ourselves in. 

"Dave" wants society to help itself, to let communities run their own (non-vital) services and pull Britain back from the big (sprawling) government it has developed.  That to me is a laudable aim, particularly given that I have a "liberal" view of government as a "necessary evil" and that people shouldn't expect government to do everything for them.  If anything,  I don't think his Big Society goes far enough, but the idea is good, so as I say, points on that score.

But then he lost the points on arrival in the States when, in the words of the excellent Joan McAlpine, he "trashed" Scotland on the world stage by saying how wrong he felt the decision was to release Abdelbasset al-Megrahi, and clearly emphasised how he stood with the US against the Scottish Government on the issue.  Whether you believe the decision to be correct or not, the way in which David Cameron has blown his "respect agenda" for the devolved institutions shows a clear disregard for devolution. 

I expect he will announce a full UK-level inquiry into the decision in the coming days, further ignoring the fact that the decision was the Scottish Government's to make.  The fact that he was not PM at the time of the decision probably makes this easier for him - both in a partisan and bi-lateral, UK-US sense.  I made reference a few days ago to the UK (specifically Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary) allowing General Pinochet to be released back to Chile on medical grounds, despite charges of torture and assasination against him.  I guess the difference in that case is that he was a) backed by former US President George H. W. Bush (and the fact that his military coup was supported by the US) and b) the decision was made by a UK minister.  I don't remember David Cameron (or indeed, anyone from the US Government) speaking out against that decision, and Pinochet lived 6 YEARS after his release.  The truth of the matter is that we would not be talking about this again had al-Megrahi not survived 11 months (and counting) after his release.  A sad state of affairs indeed that government ministers from both sides of the Atlantic are waiting for a terminally ill man to die.

So yes, the "Big Society" is a good idea.  But Dave, your perception of devolution is small and petty, and the respect for it is non-existent.  Must try harder old chap.

Read more...

Does "You Lie" indicate a racist backlash for President Obama?

I've had a couple of lengthy posts about the SNP Government and the National Conversation in recent days. But my attention has been turned overseas to the big issue of the day in the US.

No, not President Obama's intended healthcare reforms. The other one - whether opposition to President Obama is based on race. (Former Democratic) President Jimmy Carter says so, so it must be true, mustn't it? This New York Times Opinion Piece thinks so. The Washington Post concurs, calling Representative Joe Wilson's (Republican, South Carolina, who shouted "You lie" during Obama's speech to Congress) actions the "escalation" of racial tension.

Now I wrote during the Presidential Campaign this time last year about the potential racial dimension the contest might take. And it is clear that some of those who voted for Senator McCain did so on the back of clearly racist views. And those views are probably still prevalent today.

However, for me there is something inherently dangerous to democracy in suggesting that if someone disagrees with Obama's plans - on whatever level - then they are racist.

It diminishes the responsibility of opposition to government. It says that opposition politicians cannot be trusted to judge the executive on their policies and cannot see beyond skin colour. It diminishes the debate itself by reducing the discussion on healthcare reform - as serious as serious, nation-dividing issues get in the States - to an argument about skin colour. And, most importantly, it diminishes the democratic system. Resorting to "you're just saying that 'coz you're racist" is the apparently grown-up equivalent of "you smell".

I get that race still divides like nothing else in the States. And that some don't like Obama as President because of his skin colour, and that is and will remain a huge problem. But the whole debate needs to grow up some. I'm not in a position to judge whether Congressman Wilson's comment was racially motivated or not. But neither, really, is anyone else. Only the Congressman himself will know for sure whether he has a prejudiced view of the President based on his skin colour, and only he will know whether that influenced his outburst.

It has taken 9 months for any opposition to Obama to be branded racist, and I'll be honest, I'm surprised it has taken that long. But American politics has to realise that when Obama was elected it was not on 100% of the vote and it did not cure all divisions in American society, whatever his message of change was. Yes there are some who maintain their views based on race. But there are also those who disagree with him on an ideological, practical or partisan position. That is where the debate needs to reside, and not on the colour of his skin.

Read more...

Emotive responses are not helpful

I've had an incredibly busy week which has meant I've been unable to comment upon the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi until now. Which is maybe just as well, given the abusive comments some in the blogosphere have taken in their posts on the subject.

Let me start by saying that, having had a few days to think about it, I think Kenny MacAskill has made the right decision. I say that not as a loyal Nat (you'll know, if you are a regular reader that that is not the case) nor as someone with an emotional connection with the case but as someone who has taken a long look at the facts, the process and the decision and has come to a rational decision based upon my interpretation of that. You may disagree with the decision - and judging by some of the comments over the weekend, you'll be pretty vocal with it - and that's fine. But I just want you to know where I'm coming from with it.

In terms of the decision itself, I think the Justice Secretary explained how he came to it and the process itself today as reasonably as he could. His tone was respectful and dignified throughout, and he explained how he came to decision himself, that it was his decision alone and that he stood by it - and would accept the consequences of that decision. In that, I think, no one could fault the man.

The process, it seems, was fine. Looking at Scots law, a more learned friend of mine informed me that the concept of compassionate release includes only 3 sentences in the statutory provisions. According to said friend, there's no real right or wrong here in terms of the law - once the medical reports have confirmed al-Megrahi's condition as terminal, it is then up to the Justice Secretary to exercise his discretion - with due regard for past precedent. And that - given the case of a predecessor as Justice Minister (Jim Wallace) releasing a convicted child killer - appears to be what has happened.

In my mind, the decision was the right one. My view is that compassion should play a larger role in the justice system - and indeed, society - than it does. Those against argue that al-Megrahi showed no compassion for his victims, thus why should he expect compassion from us. I'm of the view that two wrongs don't make a right, and that we are better than that. He (al-Megrahi) is a convicted terrorist and using him as a yardstick for morality is not just wrong, its plain stupid. It's the same reason governments should not execute people - it lowers society to the level of criminality of the offender and that serves no one.

The global response to this has, for me, been ridiculous. US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen and Director of the FBI Robert Mueller have all not just firmly stated their opposition to the move but outright condemned the decision. The FBI Director's criticism, in particular, suggests the decision is "detrimental to the cause of justice" and "makes a mockery of the rule of law." I'm sorry, but from an American - particularly one in charge of the FBI - that is ludicrously hypocritical. And then we had former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton on Newsnight last night telling us that the US "should never have allowed him to be tried in Scotland. He should have been in an American court and he should have been executed by now."

Ah yes, America - the world leader in moral authority, executioners of the mentally ill and juveniles. America that tortures terrorist suspects. America that, when the UN could not agree on a Security Council resolution in Iraq, said "screw this" and decided that they were doing it anyway - ignoring everyone else's view in the process. It seems that America can consult - and then ignore others' views, yet when someone else decides that America's view is not the right one, they throw the toys out of the pram. Boycott Scotland? Really?

UPDATE: An American friend of mine had this to add to the debate:

"Bolton's right though, we could have had a coviction by lunch and a funeral by dinner. He never would have had the chance to get cancer here, so ask yourself, who are real humanitarians?"

So Americans are compassionate because they would have killed him without a second thought. We're the bad folk who let him get cancer. Just a bizarre argument really.

Look, don't get me wrong. I love America. I'd love to live there (for a while at least). I even think their foreign policy is more right than most others on these shores (I'm a "Realist" in foreign policy circles). But I just think, at times, they need to let go of their world view that they are superior to everyone and everything else in the world. So this is not an attack on America, or on American ideals and values. It's pointing out the glaring holes in the argument that somehow America is morally superior to Scotland because we released a dying man and they would have made sure that he was already dead by now.

Of course this is an emotive issue, and one which will raise heated debate around the world, not least among the families of the victims themselves. I cannot begin to imagine the suffering felt when the scenes of al-Megrahi's return to Libya were played, though it must pale into insignificance when compared with the loss they suffered when Pan Am Flight 103 fell from the sky over Lockerbie in 1988.

However, true justice cannot be served by allowing emotions to cloud decision-making. That Kenny MacAskill consulted widely, with relatives of those lost in the tragedy, with experts both medical and criminal and with government figures in America suggests that he would have known how difficult the decision that he was to take would be. But in making the decision, he had to do so without allowing these emotional responses to get in the way of justice. Thus, when he decided to release al-Megrahi, the decision was sound in law and in justice.

A man who committed a terrible atrocity and in so doing took 270 lives on a winter's night in 1988, suffering from a terminal illness, sought and was granted, compassionate release from a Scottish prison. Those are the facts. And I think it was the right thing to do.

Read more...

Life imitating art

"Life imitates art far more than art imitates life." So said Oscar Wilde.

He might have a point.

When I read this story about a small town in Missouri electing a a new mayor a couple of weeks after he died, I couldn't help but think of this episode of The West Wing where Will Bailey guides a Democrat to victory in the notoriously Republican California 47th despite the candidate dying several weeks before the election.

Of course The West Wing is pretty accurate representation of real life prior to the event: The Season 7 Presidential Election bears an uncanny resemblance to the 2008 US Presidential election is a number of ways.

Maybe it's just good writing. Or maybe politics has become predictable.

Nah, must be the first one...

Read more...

One step forward, three steps back?

I have internet back, so I'm able to respond to comments again - which I'll get round to later. Here's a quick belated post regarding last week.

James at Two Doctors posted on this topic previously, but I wanted to highlight something about the US Election.

On the same night that the US elected an African American as their 44th President:

• Nebraska voted to Ban Affirmative Action
• California voted to Ban Gay Marriage
• Florida voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman, as did Arizona
• Arkansas voted to Ban Gay Adoption

So maybe Obama's election did not herald the end of "conservative America" as some would have it. (PS - I know that article is from 2006, but it makes the same point).

Interestingly however, the "Governorator" of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger - a Republican - called the passage of California's ban "unfortunate" and "disappointing". Which shows there are liberal Republicans out there - just as there are conservative Democrats. And while there might not be a red and blue America, it is not "purple" - as this article, and indeed, President-Elect Obama, have argued.

America remains divided, arguably no longer by partisan notions but by definitions of conservative and liberal areas. Though this piece offers a good counter-view.

So what is my point? Well, just this. Conservative America did not die last Tuesday, just as liberal America did not disappear under the Bush years. Expect to see changes for the right - the removal of swathes of neo-cons for a start - and the left as President-elect Obama takes office. The days of Reaganite economics are long gone, but the conservatives will be back. They always come back.

Read more...

Stephen Fry's America

I've been thoroughly enjoying the excellent BBC series Stephen Fry in America which the great entertainer has also written a book about (which, incidentally, is on my Christmas list if anyone is interested!).

However, one thing that has been driving me nuts about this series is not so much that it is short (6 episodes of one hour each, Sundays at 9pm) but the fact that they cram so much into each one.

For example, yesterday's episode had Stephen Fry start of on the US-Canadian border in Montana. He's briefly (like, for less than 2 minutes) shown at the continental divide in Idaho before taking his taxi through Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma and finishing at the Rio Grande at El Paso, Texas. 10 states in one hour...

That, for me, was just too much to cram into such a short time. Why didn't they make it a 10-week run? Or, at the very least 8? There's so many interesting things about each state, especially at the present time, that the BBC could have shelled out a bit more for editing (I think they've got a bit of money spare at the moment) and let us see more of Stephen's adventures.

Anyway, it's well worth a look, if, like me you are interested in the USA. But you have to concentrate hard - there's a lot to take in.

Read more...