Successful politicians know not just when to seize the moment; they have an acute awareness of which moment to seize. When it comes to advancing policy, timing is everything. If there is a momentum to build on, the adroit political operator will promptly identify it. There has been an understandable public outcry about the fatal shooting of Rhys Jones, 11, on Merseyside which has prompted demands for tougher legislation against gun crime.
Successful politicians know not just when to seize the moment; they have an acute awareness of which moment to seize. When it comes to advancing policy, timing is everything. If there is a momentum to build on, the adroit political operator will promptly identify it. There has been an understandable public outcry about the fatal shooting of Rhys Jones, 11, on Merseyside which has prompted demands for tougher legislation against gun crime.
New measures to combat firearms offences came into force only some nine months ago but, should there be a further hardening in the law in the wake of the Rhys Jones killing, there would be consequences for Scotland. Firearms are a reserved matter and any change in legislation at Westminster would also apply at Holyrood. It emerged at the weekend that the SNP government in Edinburgh does not want to wait for London to take the lead but would rather legislate itself on countering gun crime. That this should be the desire of Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his cabinet team is not a surprise. Their ultimate goal is an independent Scotland, determining its own future, and applying pressure on controlling the law on firearms could be seen as the SNP asserting itself by beginning to push the constitutional boundaries.
But is it the right thing to do, at this time, on this issue? The Scottish government must think there is an opportunity to seize from the revulsion at Rhys Jones's death to frame better firearms legislation for Scotland's benefit. Mr Salmond apparently met Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, in July during which regulating airguns was discussed. The Herald believes that the change in the law, introduced after the murder of Andrew Morton, aged two, in Glasgow, who had been hit by an airgun pellet, does not go far enough.
The legislation targets the suppliers of airguns but largely misses buyers and users. The Home Office's rejection of a ban similar to the one on handguns, pistols and other weapons led to calls for Scotland to go it alone. The SNP administration has taken up the challenge and now suggests that Whitehall is sympathetic to Holyrood legislating on its own in this matter. This has apparently angered the Home Office, where ministers are attempting to reassure the public that guns are not out of control. It would be a matter of great regret if the debate about regulating firearms were to be muddied by a constitutional turf war.
The focus on both sides of the border should be on rationally examining the incidence of gun-related crime, the role of the gang culture in promoting guns, the involvement of youths, the availability of firearms in the post-Dunblane legislative framework and whether the law should be stiffened against carrying guns, much in the way it has in Scotland regarding the possession of knives. Are these also areas the SNP is concerned about, or is its focus on airguns? Mr Salmond has shown a deftness of touch as First Minister. Controlling firearms is too important to be turned into a political football.
