New Statesman Scotland
Little Lord Hardie, the Scottish executive's Lord Advocate and top legal gun is getting himself into a pickle. That he is an unelected member of the executive (albeit non-voting) who can sound off from the floor of the Scottish Parliament has not gone down well with the SNP-Tory opposition. His handling of the case of Noel Ruddle - the man who was released from Carstairs after having gunned one of his neighbours to death - has been less than impressive. He is likely to be even more embarrassed next year when the Lockerbie suspects go on trial under Scots law in Holland, because he was the man who assured the Scots legal establishment that such a foreign-based trial had no precedent, would be unwise and could never be arranged. So what happens when it is held? Will Scotland's highest-flying legal eagle lead the prosecution in the most important criminal trial in Scots history? Or will he feel obliged to leave that to someone else?
These are awkward days for SNP politicians. The devolution settlement for which most of them fought is proving fraught with anomalies. One such rose up to bite Annabelle Ewing, the SNP's candidate at the Hamilton by-election, when she was manoeuvred by hacks into admitting she would rather be standing for the Edinburgh parliament than for Westminster. Big mistake. Her Labour opponent, Bill Tynan, gleefully seized the opportunity to accuse her of regarding Hamilton as a "second best" option and therefore looking down on the good folk whom she sought to represent.
Although Alex Salmond (acting as minder) tried to save Ms Ewing's blushes by describing Westminster as an "unfortunate reality" with which Sects had to live until the Great Day came, there is no denying the SNP's problem. If their strategy is to build an independent Scotland from inside the Edinburgh parliament, how can they fight any Westminster elections with any conviction? But if they fail to win by-elections and/or start losing the few Westminster seats they have, why should anyone outside of Scotland take them seriously? And given that so much of Scotland's business will still be decided in Westminster, how would the non-presence of the SNP go down with the Scottish voter? Could it be that Labour's ancient plan to "dish 'em with devolution" is starting to succeed?
In fact, it is becoming plain that devolution is a minefield that will need careful negotiating. Take, for instance, the soft drugs issue that flared last week. It seems that the SNP's Margo MacDonald has been given the thumbs-up to launch an early debate on cannabis and the consumption thereof. Which is more than slightly interesting. Because this will take the Edinburgh parliament into forbidden territory. Schedule Five of the Scotland Act 1998 makes it plain that the "misuse of drugs" is a matter reserved for Westminster. That includes consideration of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, sections 12 to 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 and Part V of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (drug-trafficking).
So if the powers-that-be-on-Thames decide that any such debate is beyond the vires of the parliament, will John Reid, as Secretary of State for Scotland, be obliged to step in and put a halt to the proceedings? Or will he leave that to Lynda Clark, his Advocate General?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
