Alex Massie

So, I've got this correct, the initial reaction to Kenny MacAskill's decision to free the Lockerbie bobmber was that this demonstrated nothing but the SNP's provincialism. Small-toon politicians desperate to make a mark on the international stage and all that. Now we're told that it was all just about grubby, if lucrative commercial interests and that London was quite happy to see al-Megrahi repatriated, whether on compassionate grounds or as a consequence of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement agreed with Libya. It's possible that both of these theories to be partially true. However, if the Westminster government really did want to see Megrahi sent home to Libya, it's quite possible that the SNP ministry in Edinburgh would have done everything possible to frustrate London.

One of the most tedious aspects of the UK-US relationship is the fretting that happens in Britain each and every time something happens that could possibly be construed as "damaging" the "special relationship". The tone of the commentary that follows or accompanies any such event always makes it clear that the sanctity of the Anglo-American relationship should have trumped all other considerations. Naturally, the decision to let Abdebaset Ali al-Megrahi go home to die in Libya is one such example of this phenomenon. Iain Dale, for instance, has a post headlined "How will the Al-Megrahi Decision Affect US/UK Relations?" Like that's the most important issue here! One can disagree with Kenny MacAskill's decision and there are perfectly good grounds for doing so.

I was wrong. I argued that people can disagree in good faith on the question as to whether Kenny MacAskill was correct to let Abdebaset Ali al-Megrahi return to Libya to die. I should hav known better. Those who think the decision mistaken appear to believe there are no reasons - none! - to support taking a different view. Douglas Carswell, for instance, thinks it awful that a lack of compassion (on Megrahi's part) should be met by a degree of compassion (on the part of the Scottish legal system). That's a valid point, but it's equally valid to note that our justice system is not in fact predicated upon the principle of an eye for an eye. Indeed, if you were of a religious mind, you might argue that MacAskill's choice was informed by the New Testament, not the Old.

It's important to remember that the Ashes is still tied at one test apiece. It's not as though this has been a disastrous summer for English cricket. It just feels as though it could have been better. That being said, I don't think many people are confident that England will find a way to win at the Oval and England's pusillanimous selection has both failed to inspire confidence and dampened enthusiasm for the fray. Perhaps this is too pessimistic by far. Perhaps it's a little too soon to be quite so gloomy. Nonetheless, there's a sense of foreboding about this test match. So it's good to be able to read a book that takes us back to a time when it was the Australians, not England, who were a shambles.

If you wrote this about a monarch it might seem a trifle silly; writing it about a mere politician is simply embarrassing. So, take it away Peggy Noonan: I always now think of a good president as sitting at the big desk and reaching out with his long arms and holding on to the left, and holding on to the right, and trying mightily to hold it together, letting neither spin out of control, holding on for dear life. I wish we were seeing that. I don't think we are. Heaven help us. If the President is expected to be Comforter-in-Chief, can you have an effective, let alone a sensible, politics? Noonan's hand-wringing might be answered by a dictatorship, not a republic. Over to you, messrs Wilkinson, Healy and Larison...

So, the selectors have spoken. And what a dreary story they have to tell. The selection of Jonathan Trott (and the retention of Ian Bell) for the final test of the summer is depressingly timid. Worse than that, it is recklessly timid, since it presumes that England have been more competitive in this series than is actually the case and that modest tinkering with the side is all that is required to produce a final victory. This is not an analysis that is endorsed by the facts: England were comprehensively outplayed at Cardiff and Leeds, while their victory at Lords rested upon: a) a sloppy Australian batting performance, b) an unusually incisive spell from Flintoff and c) at least three dubious umpiring decisions that went England's way.

Since the Scottish Borders is not a nationalist stronghold, we don’t often see Alex Salmond in these parts. But the SNP leader was in Melrose recently as the Scottish Government (as his ministry styles itself) held a Cabinet meeting in the town. Such events are dressed up as ‘outreach’ and an ‘opportunity’ to hear from ‘other voices’ but, in reality, are really campaign events. This was followed by a public meeting — part of Salmond’s grand National Conversation on Scotland’s constitutional future — at which, for once, more than 100 people turned up. The First Minister boasted that there had been 40 such events across the country, attended by more than 4,000 people.