TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The second woman to become Prime Minister of Britain, Theresa May has begun her first full day on the job saying she wants a country that works for all, not just a privileged few.

After six years in No. 10, David Cameron left Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister.

The 59-year-old May, who campaigned against Brexit, now has the monumental task of leading the country out of the EU.

THERESA MAY, UK PRIME MINISTER: As we leave the European Union, we will forge a bold, new, positive role for ourselves in the world and we will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.

TONY JONES: Her biggest surprise was the appointment of a key Leave campaigner as her Foreign Secretary. Boris Johnson, the charismatic but gaffe-prone former London mayor is soon to be a wildcard on the global scene. In Parliament, he'll go head to head with one of his fiercest critics, the Scottish National Party's International Affairs spokesman Alex Salmond. The former Scottish first minister is pressing for a new independence referendum for his home nation so Scotland can leave Britain and remain in Europe. Alex Salmond has had a big week. He's one of the key players since the Chilcot report into the Iraq War pressing to Tony Blair to be charged with contempt of Parliament, a motion that's likely to be put next week. Unusually for a foreign politician, he's had some scathing criticisms of the former Prime Minister John Howard when I spoke to him from London earlier this evening.

Alex Salmond, thanks for joining us.

ALEX SALMOND, SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY INT. AFFAIRS SPOKESMAN: Great pleasure.

TONY JONES: Now how hard is it gonna be for new Prime Minister Theresa May to deal with the crisis created by Brexit?

ALEX SALMOND: Well it's gonna be a tough job. I mean, you know, it's not just one thing in her in-tray, it's the elephant sitting in her in-tray, it's all-pervasive, it affects everything, it affects the economy, all the services, it affects all of her international trade, it affects her relationships internationally. It is the overwhelming issue which Theresa May will have to face and it's going to be difficult.

TONY JONES: Yeah, speaking about the international relations you just mentioned, there was widespread surprise when she picked Boris Johnson as her Foreign Secretary. Do you know why she did that?

ALEX SALMOND: Well I think probably in these tough times Theresa May wanted to give some amusement to the rest of the world, so she sent the court jester internationally. It's very helpful of course for her, but gets him out the road. He'll go on an international after-dinner speaking circuit of which he'll be exceptionally good, so while the rest of you are laughing at Boris Johnson, then Theresa May can get on with the serious business of government.

TONY JONES: Yeah, but how is he going to navigate the relationship. It'll be a very tricky relationship for him, obviously, with the key players in Europe, with Germany, with France, with the people he snubbed during the Brexit campaign?

ALEX SALMOND: Well, he won't be doing that. That's why she appointed David Davis, who is a different calibre of politician altogether, a very serious politician, somebody I disagree with in his attitude to Europe, but David Davis is a very shrewd appointment by Theresa May. She's appointed somebody to do the serious negotiations because Theresa May, like just about everybody else with half a brain, knows that Boris can't be allowed out alone at night or during the day or any time, for that matter. So Boris is a bit like the cavalry in warfare - he's there to lend tone and humour to an unseemly brawl.

TONY JONES: So what is the mechanism for getting up another independence referendum in Scotland? Does the British Government have to approve that?

ALEX SALMOND: Well, the mechanism really is for the Scottish Parliament to decide to do it. Theresa May is - I wish her well, incidentally. I mean, I'm enthusiastic about seeing a new woman prime minister and I wish her well, but she's been very hardline in her opposition to Scottish aspirations - a bit like the previous Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher all these years ago. She wasn't know as a friend of Scotland. So Theresa May's got lot of work to do, but believe me, telling the people of Scotland that their own Parliament can't hold a referendum, a national referendum on independence would be an extremely bad, an extremely short-term move for Theresa May to make. So if I could offer some advice on her first full day in the job: don't mess with the people of Scotland.

TONY JONES: Well, yeah, fair enough, but what's the constitutional position and if the - presumably you're expecting the Scottish Parliament will go ahead and seek another referendum. How quickly could it happen?

ALEX SALMOND: Well Nicola Sturgeon is engaged and she's carrying virtually all Scottish opinion, serious Scottish opinion with her in trying to protect Scotland's position within the European framework. Remember, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain within Europe, and Europe, as we see from that YouGov poll, is enthusiastic about Scotland. So Nicola Sturgeon, through a series of negotiations, is examining ways to do that. When she gets to the conclusion of that negotiation, she'll take it to the Parliament and then Parliament will take what action is required. But let's be quite clear about this: our dealings with the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, and he said, "Oh, no, you can't have a referendum." But as soon as we had a majority for it in the Scottish Parliament, he backed down. It would be - if that came to pass, if that is the situation at the end of the negotiations, then exactly the same thing will happen with Theresa May.

TONY JONES: How quickly, theoretically anyway, could it happen? I mean, is it possible that by the end of this year we'll see another referendum in Scotland attempting to leave the UK?

ALEX SALMOND: Well I think the time scale would be set by the Article 50. This is what - the triggering clause that at some point Theresa May has to fire to begin the formal negotiations for UK withdrawal from the European Union, and once you trigger that clause, once you fire that starting gun, then there's a two-year period. So if Nicola Sturgeon comes to the conclusion that the only way to protect Scotland's position within Europe is through independence and if she then goes to the Scottish Parliament to get backing for that position, then it would have to be within that two-year period.

TONY JONES: And do you think that is the inevitable consequence of all this? Do you personally believe that's what will happen?

ALEX SALMOND: No, I think we should go through the process. I mean, I think independence for Scotland is inevitable and it may well be that the conclusion from Nicola Sturgeon's talks and negotiations that are taking place as we speak is - on independence, is the only way to protect Scotland's position in Europe. But we'll see if that - Nicola Sturgeon arrives at that position and then she'll take what action is required to lead Scotland forward.

TONY JONES: Let's go to the other big story that you've been involved in quite deeply. After Sir John Chilcot's report into Britain's involvement in the Iraq War, you've been backing moves to charge Tony Blair with contempt of Parliament. What are the chances of that actually happening?

ALEX SALMOND: Well, I think there's very good chances that that motion will come to Parliament next week and of course it's well justified because the Chilcot report makes it quite clear that over a period of 15 months Tony Blair as Prime Minister systematically misled the Parliament here at Westminster. He was saying one thing in private to George W. Bush, the American President, and quite another thing to MPs and to the public here at Westminster. So that's a disgraceful episode of the total misleading of a parliament and any parliament worth its salt, whether it's here in Westminster or in Scotland or in Australia, doesn't stand for being misled, particularly on an issue like peace and war which has caused such death, such casualties, such carnage that we see now.

TONY JONES: Now the - obviously the process for this is the speaker has to approve the motion, then the motion gets voted on. Surprisingly, to some anyway, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said he'd be inclined to vote for the motion against his own former leader. Do you know what the numbers are with the Conservatives, whether you'd get the numbers that you want to essentially try Tony Blair before the Bar of Parliament?

ALEX SALMOND: Well what the contempt motion does is to say, "Look, we have been misled and we are not putting up with it." That's holding - the - the Parliament is saying, "We hold you in contempt of Parliament because you have misled us." And if you look at the precedents for this, I mean, there've been a number in the last half-century. It doesn't happen very often, but there was John Profumo, who was a Government minister caught up in a sex scandal in the 1960s, and then more recently, a Government minister accused, although not found guilty, of contempt of Parliament was a guy called Stephen Byers, who had said something to a transport committee about why he'd nationalised the railways. Now, you know, I've no doubt these were really important issues, but nothing like as important as peace or war. I mean, a sex scandal and railways compared to an issue which has cost the lives of 179 British servicemen, the many dead from our allies of course as well, thousands of Americans, 200,000 Iraqis and left the Middle East in flames. So, you know, (inaudible).

TONY JONES: So Alex, how would it work actually? Would it be a bit like a trial where Blair would have to stand before the Bar of the House of Commons and explain himself and answer questions and hear accusations? Is that how it would work?

ALEX SALMOND: No, we've had the effective inquiry. That's what Chilcot's been doing for the last seven years and of course he has - Tony Blair had ample opportunity before Chilcot to spin his web of deceit and Chilcot's findings are devastating, absolutely devastating for Blair and his allies. So what Parliament does now is to decide whether or not we've been misled, whether we should hold the former Prime Minister in contempt. After that, if we do that, it gets submitted to a parliamentary committee which then has to decide the penalty, which as you rightly say could be being hauled before the Bar of the House of Commons with the contempt charge read out and the penalties that are in line would be things like withdrawing his privy councilship, banning from public office ever again. So we have Parliament indicating that somebody has misled them and we hold them in contempt.

TONY JONES: Now why was it that the Chilcot report did not examine the legality of the war?

ALEX SALMOND: Wasn't allowed to. Basically, there's been what we call freedom of information requests. We've tried to find out why Chilcot wasn't given the remit or for that matter the specialisms to judge on the legality of the war. And the documents from 2010 will tell us that. But Chilcot wasn't able to judge on the legality and therefore didn't. But of course what Chilcot did do was he said that the legal processes were, in his words, "unsatisfactory", which in terms of the civil service Mandarin language is as tough as you get within the nature and personnel of the inquiry and the remit that he had.

TONY JONES: Now you mentioned Blair's allies. A key one in this case was the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard. His response to the Chilcot review very similar to Blair's. He's always maintained that there was both a moral and a legal case for the war - that's Howard. And he says the decision was justified by the reasonable belief of leaders and the assessments of key intelligence agencies. What do you say to that?

ALEX SALMOND: Well, I mean, you know, if John Howard had been the American President, he mighta got away with that because America's presidents are allowed by their own legal code to effectively do what they like. But for the rest of us, who are bound by international law, if you can't get something sanctioned by the United Nations and if the United Nations Secretary-General at the time says it was illegal, and now of course Tony Blair's own Deputy, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, has said, "Look, it was illegal," then you're on very, very sticky ground indeed. John Howard's a great disappointment, actually. He was an example maybe in like the olden days where Australian prime ministers used to kowtow to the mother country and John Howard unfortunately was in that sort of position. And Malcolm Turnbull, a much different kettle of fish that whatever you think of Malcolm Turnbull's politics, he's somebody who's much more independent-minded and carving a different role for Australia, as I'm sure most Australians would want in the world as opposed to somebody who kinda sidles up to the British Prime Minister, whispering in his ear. I'm sure that's not what Australia wants. It's certainly not what the international community would expect.

TONY JONES: In fact we looked - it looks like John Howard was involved in a lot of serious discussions that we didn't really know about at the time. According to Chilcot's timetable, there were meetings between Blair and Howard. Mr Howard was advising Tony Blair. There was a legal case for the invasion before Blair himself had even come to that conclusion. Do you think that Howard's role may have been more significant than simply whispering in the ear of the British Prime Minister?

ALEX SALMOND: Well it does still look like a kinda advisory role. If I was an Australian - and what a proud country you are - I mean, I don't think I'd want my Prime Minister seeing his international role as nudging the British Prime Minister and saying, "Look, have you thought of this way to get to war?" That's not what Australia should be doing. I mean, Australian Prime Minister should carving out their own independent course in the world with allies and standing up for Australia, not taking part in illegal international engagements which have had disastrous consequences for the whole of humanity. Maybe you need John Chilcot, now he's finished over here, and finished Tony Blair, incidentally, maybe you want him to Australia to examine the track record of John Howard. But I think more fundamentally than that, it's about how Australia sees itself. I mean one of my great objections to the Blair era was Blair, because he couldn't be American President himself, he saw his role as sort of deputy dog to George W. Bush. George W. Bush was the sheriff, Tony Blair was the deputy. That makes John Howard - I don't know, what is he?, second deputy or has he got the keys to the jailhouse or something? These are not the roles that proud countries like Australia or Britain should have. You want to have leaders who stand up for your country, but also stand up for international law and international peace. And as I was pointing out, whatever the politics of the matter is, I think that Malcolm Turnbull, as he's shown in his track record in politics, is somebody much more of that calibre than unfortunately John Howard was.

TONY JONES: I final question for you and you've mentioned the legality of the war on several occasions. A number of people have suggested this should be brought before the International Criminal Court for arbitration, but of course, that path is blocked. The International Criminal Court can't even look at this, can it?

ALEX SALMOND: Well that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, we've got a recognised crime in international law - that's a crime of aggression. Basically a conflict which was started without just cause. You can't have a conflict started to find weapons of mass destruction when there are none. You can't have a conflict which people claim is about that, but actually we know from the documents produced by Chilcot was about regime change in Iraq. You're not allowed to do that, so there is a recognised crime of aggression. And if that crime was available to any court at the present moment, then Tony Blair and perhaps John Howard as well would be hauled before that court and asked to explain themselves. Unfortunately, the International Criminal Court, which is the court that could do that, doesn't get provenance over crimes of aggression till at least next January, according to the Kampala codes of a few years ago. So we have a crime which is recognised in international law, but we don't have an international court to take it forward at the present moment. That's a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and hopefully the whole international community and people who care about issues of peace and justice and having rules of international law will attend to that as quickly as possible.

TONY JONES: Alex Salmond, we'll have to leave you there. Thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us on Lateline.

ALEX SALMOND: Right. Great pleasure.