So the Scottish Government has decided to release Al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, on compassionate grounds. The Justice Secretary is delivering his verdict as I type.
It is inevitable that Kenny MacAskill will face intense media attacks over the next few days but there was no way to avoid this. He has done his very best on this issue and his best has been more than enough.
But, with a hostile press, he couldn't win for the following reasons:
It is inevitable that Kenny MacAskill will face intense media attacks over the next few days but there was no way to avoid this. He has done his very best on this issue and his best has been more than enough.
But, with a hostile press, he couldn't win for the following reasons:
- The timing of the announcement. If the Justice Secretary had brought the decision forward, he would be caving to media pressure. If he waited for all of the evidence, he would be procrastinating.
- The news is released at 8am US East Coast time. Consequently, according to Scottish Unionist, "the chosen timing will maximise the public awareness here of the negative reaction from the USA. What do you think the SNP administration’s possible motive for that might be?". But of course, if the timing had been any different, released at 3am US time, there would be accusations of insensitivity for the American families of those who died.
- Hillary Clinton calls the Scottish Government to protest at the decision. If Kenny refuses to grant compassionate release, then he is caving to international pressure. If he accepts the compassionate release, he is pushing a nationalist agenda, deliberately thumbing his nose to the Americans to advance Scotland's standing on the world stage.
- If Kenny leaves Megrahi in jail to die he is a monster, if he sets him free he is weak.
I think, as the Justice Secretary speaks to the world, he has played a blinder over the past few weeks and months and should hold his head high.
Indeed, all of this could have been a chance for Scotland to rid herself of that Scottish cringe, to show we can take big decision on the biggest stage and not be embarrassed or awkward about it. Sadly, I am not holding my breath.
16 comments:
Totally agree Jeff. A very good summary.
His "speech" was very goo, if slightly too long.
He "gave in" to the US families on the prisoner transfer application, but remained resolute on the compassionate issue.
Several digs at the UK Govt's role in the affair.
As the Herald said today Tony Blair did a deal with Libya without taking into account that there could be anything but a Labour Executive in Scotland to dictate to.
Well done Kenny!
utter twaddle. his speech was a pathetic attempt to justify an appalling decision, bordered on grandstanding at times and was, in parts, used to try and shift some of the blame onto the UK Government. No one believes the "it was my decision and my decision only" rubbish - teh First Minister would have been invoved all the way along.
Scotland today released a man convicted of the murder of over 270 people........convicted in a Scottish court. He was released on the grounds of compassion - where was the compassion to the families of those who died on the flight and in Lockerbie?
This has damaged Scotland's reputation in America, sent an appalling message that even mass-murdering terrorists deserve compassion and will severely damage our global image. Let's see how tourism from the US is effected next year!
There should be a vote of no confidence in the Justice Minister and a vote of no confidence in his boss, the First Minister.
I can't help but shake the feeling that Angry of Edinburgh is loving this chance to be angry.
So, who are you 'AoE', Iain Gray or Richard Baker.
I genuinely have enough opportunities to be angry.....this one's made me livid.
Not a politician but I do care about the damage to Scotland's reputation and standing in the USA, and the impact this will have on trade and tourism.
However, I appreciate that these factors are not reasons to keep a man imprisoned and so I would suggested another........he was convicted of killing over 270 people and has served a fraction of his sentence.
I think he has won - game, set and match.
I don't think he 'tried' to shift some of the blame for the ambiguity over the prisoner transfer agreement to Westminster - he did blame them.
"I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.
I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.
Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.
It is for that reason that the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject."
That's pretty clear cut.
I also liked the way he dealt with the appeal/public enquiry issue:
"This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry."
That should I hope put a stop to any nonsense about a public enquiry in Scotland which would lack any real powers and would just be a talking shop for conspiracy theorists.
I thought it was a decent speech and a brave decision, though I'm not sure if it's such a good move politically, at least in the short term. It wouldn't surprise me to see a slight drop in SNP support in any forthcoming Scottish opinion poll.
In other news, fruitcake professor Tom Gallagher goes even more nuts and accuses me of being BBC Scotland journalist Glenn Campbell.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5276156/latest-lockerbie-conspiracy-megrahi-is-an-snp-agent.thtml
What kind of analysis was that? If you think the man is innocent, then say so. If not, then we should be asking why he hasn't accepted responsibility or expressed remorse for his deed. I'm an American and I've been reading the comments on the BBC's HYS section with utter disgust. It's almost like people are getting a thrill out of this at our expense. The top-rated comment calls Americans "red necks." Could you imagine a comment being allowed that similarly insulted, say, muslims or blacks?
Very hypocritical speech. On the one hand he is defending the appalling Scottish justice system, on the other hand he is releasing a convicted killer (Yes, we know there are more holes in the case that convicted Megrahi than there is in a slice of swiss cheese. But he is still a convicted killer).
I thought he reached the right conclusion, but he took the wrong path to reach that conclusion.
Allan, releasing convicted killers on compassionate grounds is part and parcel of the Scottish Justice system. Where is the hypocrisy?
Yes a good summary Jeff.
I have posted on the bbc blogs and wonder the following though:
Could he not have reached the same decision but then gave a delayed release date or wait for confirmation of a worsening condition?
The plane already here, prior to the pubic announcement etc is insensitive and makes the process look like window dressing.
He hasn't accepted respomsibility or expressed remorse because he says he didn't do it.
But that isn't the point.
Compassionate leave is not based on a prisoner expressing remorse.
It is based on them being close to death.
The Scottish Government has published the medical report that says Megrahi is dying. The prison authorities and parole board recommended release. The reasons for the approval were set out very clearly.
Very good summation Jeff, I don't envy Kenny MacAskill on having to make this decision. Whatever way he came down he would have been open to criticism. I can understand how the families of the 270 victims must feel, if I was one of them I would have wanted him to rot in prison. Some people are asking "What if he makes a miraculous recovery?" I think it's certain that that won't happen. Salmond and MacAskill know that if he did then the SNP would face electoral annihilation so they would have wanted to have been 150% sure that the diagnosis was correct. I don't really know if the decision was correct, I'll let history be the judge on that.
As an atheist, I found the religous overtones of parts of his justification nauseating, and I suspect designed to appease the uS audience, or at least give a quasi-religous defence. I think his decision was wrong, and suspect that all 3 other major parties would have drawn different conclusions. He is being sent home in a way that meant abandoning his appeal, yet the only commentators in the media who agree all think he is innocent. Either an innocent man has gone home guilty, or a guilty man has been served only 8 years for mass murder. How can this cack-handed guddle be the right thing?
It's hypocritical because MacAskill kept constantly defending the Scottish Legal system, yet he must know that this is the biggest miscarrage of justice in Scottish Legal history.
Appart from that, I agree with everything you have said.
Ah, sorry James, I misunderstood.
To be honest, I don't know much about the history of the case but I can see how a hypocrisy could be at play there...
Glad you agree with the rest!
Post a Comment