COULD it be true that the actions of the SNP in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport played into the hands of Islamic extremists? Alex Salmond's fledgling government faced the toughest of tests as it called for calm in the wake of the June 30 failed plot to blow up a car laden with gas canisters and petrol on the busiest holiday weekend.
After the attack the first minister sought to unify the country and build bridges with the Muslim community, visiting mosques and meeting leaders who sought to underline that the alleged attackers were not from Scotland. But Professor Tom Gallagher, chair of Ethnic and Peace Studies at Bradford University, claims Salmond's response has been a "boost for radical Islam" in Scotland.
If a flurry of newspaper articles and TV slots Gallagher suggested only the organs of the UK state can combat terrorism and, by dint of the independence cause, the SNP could only undermine these organisations, leaving the door open to the terrorists.
This is faulty logic.
Extremism has many causes, not just religious ideology as Gallagher argues. There are a number of studies under way across the UK looking at socioeconomic factors, migration and conflict. The organs of state that counter terrorism work on many levels; international, UK-wide, Scotland and local. It is inaccurate and wrongheaded to imply that somehow Scotland would be disconnected from these were it to become more autonomous or even independent. Counterterrorism depends on co-operation at all levels, from the personal, as displayed by John Smeaton during the attack, to the global arena as the current investigation spreads far and wide.
Without any facts to support his argument Gallagher implied the SNP put "narrow tribal politics", ideology and electoral gain before the fight against terrorism. In truth the Scottish government co-operated with its UK counterparts to the point that Salmond sat in on the Cobra emergency committee meetings in the days after the attack.
While it was interesting that so early into an SNP administration Salmond found himself working so closely with Gordon Brown's Labour government, it does not follow that there are no common values or concerns. It does not follow that Salmond was more concerned with wooing the Muslim electorate of Glasgow than getting to the facts of the case and ensuring good community relations.
Gallagher also criticises Salmond for meeting Dr Azzam Tamimi and Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain, pointing out its extremist links. Yet the way forward is to build bridges - democracy needs to be poly-vocal and pluralisty.
Violence is always, without exception, criminal. However, as well as being a violent action, terrorism is also a political action. The aim of governments should be not to eliminate terrorists but terrorism.
The action of Salmond in rightly differentiating between extremists and Muslims and demonstrating the centrality of Scotland's Muslim population to the future of Scotland and the country's unity demonstrates his understanding of this. In striving to be inclusive, Salmond achieves the opposite of the terrorists' aim to disrupt, agitate and cause harm. I think Professor Gallagher's opinions on this demonstrate a misreading of the events, seeing Salmond's actions as some sort of political opportunism.
Far from being a boost for extremists it seems that Salmond seeks to avoid the exacerbation of conflict and the polarisation of society. It makes a change from politicians peddling the politics of fear.
Kate Smith is co-director of the Centre for Conflict and Genocide Studies in Edinburgh.
