Geopolitical grandstanding

Alex Salmond said that his justice secretary's ruling on the release of the Lockerbie bomber was not about international power politics, but it's clear that Kenny MacAskill's decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was taken with at least one eye on the geopolitical implications, as demonstrated by his 'wha's like us' sermonising and ill-disguised chides at the UK Government, not to mention the subtext of standing up to the global superpowers.

But as regards the finding per se I find it hard to substantially disagree with Mr MacAskill - indeed, I consider his domestic law and order and liquor licensing standpoints more reprehensible than his reasoning vis-à-vis al-Megrahi - and to that extent this morning's Scotland on Sunday headline claiming that his job is on the line seems wide of the mark.

But, of course, it's not merely about whether it was right or wrong to free al-Megrahi. The idealism of opposition is usually severely compromised by the realpolitik of power; for example, the release of convicted terrorists in pursuit of the peace process in Northern Ireland. If Mr MacAskill's sense of principle has triumphed over pragmatism then clearly there's merit in that, but what of the longer term? Events both domestically and internationally since Thursday's announcement must certainly provide little encouragement for the justice secretary, and there's surely not much in this morning's newspapers that he can view as positive.

And while he may, of course, take solace in the hope that he will be viewed as a man of conviction, the sense of ensuing maelstrom for Mr MacAskill may eventually overcome even that. However, this all depends on whether the domestic opposition, the international opprobrium and the threats of boycotts are little more than a storm in a teacup and unrepresentative of broader opinion, or whether the episode will have fundamental implications for Scotland far beyond the in many ways symbolic decision regarding whether to release a terminally-ill convicted terrorist on compassionate grounds, or that perhaps issues of wider significance come to the fore and provide Mr MacAskill with an escape route.

As for the papers themselves, an eloquent and compelling Scotland on Sunday editorial is worth reading, and Michael Gove admires Scottish reluctance to bow the knee, while at the same time disagreeing with the notion of a national moral exceptionalism. In the Sunday Herald Muriel Gray agrees with the latter sentiment but argues in a slightly more colourful fashion, using the example of an Orange March and her description: "The ugly, disgusting, stupid, drunk people you see here to support the parade are hoping for a person of the religion they hate to show up so that they can assault them."

Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they? But Jim Sillars calls the affair a "mockery of justice" and looks at the geopolitical downside, while in the Independent on Sunday Christine Grahame protests al-Megrahi's innocence.

Thus despite Mr MacAskill's attempt to avoid the realpolitik, might it yet overwhelm him, or instead perhaps come to his rescue?