Alex's warm words not enough to tackle terror

I have also mentioned, though, that Alex has in the past made the occasional poor decision that diminishes his credibility - such as the time he accused Blair's Government of "unpardonable folly" when he railed against the Nato bombing of Serbian targets to bring an end to that regime's killing of Muslims.

Such a human weakness rather suggests that given enough political rope he will in time hang himself. It is a difficult strategy for Salmond's opponents to follow, for it requires a great deal of patience (which they lack), but already I detect that Alex is in danger of getting carried away with himself and letting his exalted position get the better of him - or at least cloud his suspect judgement.

This week he hosted at Bute House, his official residence, a reception to promote cross cultural relations in Scotland that included amongst others a number of Muslim leaders. Nothing odd in that you might say. He called for unity in opposition to terrorism. Nothing odd about that either, and you would be right. But so far as it goes it's all fine stating and repeating warm words and platitudes - but is Alex Salmond going far enough?

Is the Muslim community being encouraged to think that because they are Scots or adopted Scots that there is no problem of Muslim radicalism here that must be confronted, challenged and argued against - and that the British problem of home-grown Islamic terrorists is only an English problem?

If staying united means not challenging any Muslims that advocate Sharia law in Britain or the establishment of a World Islamic state that could encompass the whole of Europe will we not simply appease those that will condone or bring bloodshed to our streets - just as appeasing Hitler in the thirties allowed him to take power and so bring war and the deaths of millions?

Are all Muslims to be seen as the same whether they are quiet moderates or loud radicals? Does Alex Salmond discriminate between moderate and radical Muslim leaders? Should he not be elevating the importance of moderates and marginalising those that seek to radicalise, amongst whom some believe the fatwa on Salmond Rushdie is still seen as justifiable?

I'm sure Alex Salmond discusses issues regarding terrorism laws and racial and religious discrimination that effect Muslim communities - but does he make plain his opposition to the continuing fatwa on Rushdie, the growth in so-called honour killings and continuation of arranged marriages that disgust most Scottish people?

Not all Muslims are the same, just as all Christians are not the same. There are different sects and there are some who are more devout, extreme even, to the point in believing their faith gives them the right to kill others, including those of their own faith that are considered weak, corrupted or simply expendable. Such religious zealots must be challenged by our political leaders and exposed, for the vast majority of all faiths are hard working moderate and law-abiding.

It should be remembered that the greatest number of victims of Islamist-inspired terrorist murder are Muslims themselves. There is, therefore everything to be gained by working with moderate leaders - why then does Alex Salmond appear to be so comfortable with people such as Osama Saeed attending his reception?

A defender of Sharia law and a World Islamic state Mr Saeed has in the past advised Muslims in Dundee not to assist the police. He is spokesman of the Muslim Association of Britain the UK branch of the Muslim Brotherhood which has as its Palestinian branch, Hamas. The MAB is not generally thought of as moderate or representative of Muslims in Britain.

When it comes to defeating terrorism it is important that Alex Salmond makes the right judgement calls here in Edinburgh. We're all in this together, not just Scotland, not just Britain, but the whole of the Western World - Muslims, Christians and other believers or non-believers.

It is important to reassure Scotland's Muslim minority that it is a legitimate part of Scottish society, but it is also crucial to state firmly and unequivocally that any people failing to help the police and security services, or ignoring extreme beliefs and actions within their own ranks, will only undermine the efforts being made to ensure community solidarity and the protection of minorities.

Warm words will not be enough, confronting the more unpalatable and illiberal ideas in any religion must surely be the job of First Minister too.

Parliament would be better as battleground

I'VE just been reading Michael Fry's typically entertaining and challenging book The Union to gain a better understanding of the last sovereign Scottish Parliament and what led to the Acts of Union between Scotland and England.

Entertaining, because Fry is always able to bring characters to life and add provocative asides that make him the most readable of Scottish historians, and challenging, because he takes great care and even greater effort to establish fresh original sources for his work that allows him to offer different interpretations from the herd. The parliament of old certainly seems a more interesting and lively place with debates becoming so spirited that members would have to pledge they would not seek to settle matters over a dual outside.

I wager there is greater difference between the fledgling Court, Country and New parties of the early eighteenth century than there is between our current lot.

As if to emphasise this I was sent by a reader a copy of this week's press release from the Scottish Tory justice spokesman, Bill Aitken, where instead of advocating greater free trade and competition between lawyers he warns the SNP against any deregulation telling the new Scottish Government to resist any plans for liberalisation.

But the SNP has no such plans, so if that's the view of the opposition, we Scottish consumers can forget any pressure for change that will reduce our legal bills.

Unlike the old Scottish Parliament our country's problem is the lack of genuine disagreement and debate.

I wonder what historians like Fry will make of us in 300 years?