What we think

ON his election as Scotland's fourth first minister, Alex Salmond said he hoped the new session would be marked by "patience, maturity and leadership". The "overwhelming responsibility" of MSPs, he added, was to put aside party differences and work together for a better society. New politics, a concept more talked about than practised, seemed to be a real possibility.

Salmond's first test to turn words into deeds will come when he makes a decision on his final ministerial appointment. In the next fortnight, the first minister will have to decide whether to keep Elish Angiolini in place as lord advocate, or to find a replacement.

History dictates that an incoming administration appoints a law officer whose political views correspond with its own aims and objectives. There are several reasons why history should be ignored.

First, Salmond would help depoliticise the post of Lord Advocate by reappointing Angiolini. Allowing her to continue would signal a break between the post and party affiliation. Poor decision-making in the Shirley McKie affair and Lord Goldsmith's role in advising the UK government on Iraq provide examples of why key law officers should take a step back from politics. In practice, this means the lord advocate not sitting in Cabinet, a reform that Salmond signed up to before the election campaign.

Second, Angiolini deserves to stay on merit, as she does not carry the Labour baggage one would normally associate with an appointment made by Jack McConnell. She was an excellent choice, one based on talent rather than party card. Not only would her reappointment be the first time a lord advocate had survived a change of administration in the democratic era, but it would send out a signal that Salmond was willing to live up to the ideals of consensus-building.

Sticking with Angiolini and reforming her post would be a challenge for Salmond, but one we'd urge him to meet.