On the wonderful Joan McAlpine blog:
That White House press conference demonstrates why Scotland needs independence. Since foreign affairs are not devolved to Edinburgh, David Cameron officially speaks for us. On this occasion he trashed us in front of the world. Where were we? We should have had a right to reply at least.
I think Joan rather sums up my hitherto vague frustration over this whole episode so I thought the above point was worth repeating.
Scotland is in the world’s headlines once again, either directly or indirectly depending on the publication. Those headlines tend to include Cameron’s insistence that releasing Megrahi was “a mistake” or Miliband’s assertion that it was “clearly wrong”. Precious few news stories on the matter include Salmond’s calm statement today that he regrets nothing over the matter or Kenny MacAskill’s repeating of the perfectly reasonable logic surrounding how he came to his decision. I seem to remember that the country was split reasonably 50/50 over this matter at the time, maybe closer to 60/40 against the release in some polls, but the narrative that this was some sort of ‘accident’, some sort of breakdown in the political process rather than a straightforward interpretation and application of Scots Law (by a trained lawyer I hasten to add) is insulting. I would hope that even those who (quite reasonably) disagreed with the decision to release Al-Megrahi would agree that Cameron should respect the decision and defend it to some extent on an international stage when Scotland has no distinct voice.
It is easy to be indifferent to independence because on the vast majority of days it makes little difference either way. You still have to get up and go to work, buy the messages, cook your dinner, take the dog out and so on and so forth regardless of whether you have a First Minister of Scotland or a Prime Minister. But on those key days - the Iraq War invasion days, the EU election days, the renewal of Trident days and, now, the unsettling days when you realise that what you perceive your country to be is top billing on the news but those who are speaking up for your viewpoint don’t get their say, well, it just makes you wonder about your place in the world.
Pure and simple, Cameron needs to be more of a team player on these issues and, even if he doesn’t personally agree with it, he needs to communicate the rationale for Kenny MacAskill’s decision alongside his own reservations. He can’t just slam us against the wall in front of the world’s media knowing there is little comeback from the many who think differently on the matter.
David Cameron claimed that if you cut him open he would have the Union Jack running through him like a stick of rock. Well, he needs to start showing it, he needs to start covering every opinion on these islands when he represents us globally or he will find that the top part of his British stick of rock will be breaking off before too long.
SNP Tax
10 minutes ago
14 comments:
Let us not make this a Scotland/England debate here. It was a horrible decision that was simply reckless and pitiful. We look like a corrupt nation, an irresponsible nation and at the very least, mere pawns in a much bigger game. Everyone has the right to insult it. Freeing him was not NOT the Scottish opinion, it was the SNP decision!
Presumably - and I speak slightly tongue-in-cheek here - this whole situation would have been avoided had Scotland not had a devolved administration in the first place...
An argument for a more closely integrated Union, perhaps?
Ha, I like it Keith and I had thought too actually. However, it still would have been a Scottish decision taken by the appropriate legal authority (procurator fiscal?) rather than at Westminster.
You would have to collapse Scots Law into rUK Law rather than simply shut down Holyrood before taking away the problem.
Good one though!
Nope, sorry - the Scottish Government made this bad decision, wrapped up in a bunch of sanctimonious twaddle about 'compassion' (and, some say, due to pressure from the UK govt of the time).
I'm sure UK PMs will start defending Scottish govt decisions that they disagree with as soon as First Ministers stop criticising UK govt decisions that they disagree with.
i.e. never.
Hmmm... and still no mention of the miscarrage of justice that is Megrahi's conviction from any of the main players. I would have more respect for MacAskill if he had mentioned the unsafe nature of the conviction a lot more.
Time for a public enquiry into the whole affair, the bombing, the covered up break-ins, prisoner releases. The lot!
I think Cameron is one of the few who comes out of this with any credit. Why should he defend a decision he thinks is bad? Would the Scottish Govt defend a bad decision by Glasgow City Council? At least Cameron's been consistent in his opposition to the release, and hasn't wined and dined the ultimate murderer of Lockerbie, unlike the comically hypocritical Obama - who gives the impression of not actually caring much, or even being well-briefed, about the whole thing, going by his vague requests for "any additional information".
MacAskill could get himself off the hook fairly easily by just publishing Dr Fraser's reports. If I were him, and the reports are above board, I'd be absolutely desperate to publish. I think it's fair to say the public interest outweighs medical confidentiality on this occasion.
Mark - you may think it is horrible, reckless and pitiful to allow a dying prisoner to leave jail and go home to die with his family but compassionate release has been granted to around 40 Scottish prisoners with a terminal illness since the law was introduced - by the Tories - in 1993. Many of them were murderers. If you want to change the law go out and campaign for that. But don't say we look like a corrupt nation for following our own laws. We would only be corrupt if we did not.
Keith - no, it was always devolved in the sense that Scots law has always been separate.
Commenter - I can't recall any time when an SNP minister in another country has publicly attacked the UK Government over something they believe the UK has got wrong - e.g. the war on Iraq. But sauce for the goose and all that. Let's see what happens in future now we know it's allowed.
Allan - Kenny MacAskill has to acccept the verdict of the court. Lawyers can challenge verdicts, politicians can't.
Colin asks would the Scottish Govt defend a bad decision by Glasgow City Council? Yes e.g. everything to do with the Commonwealth Games has not gone swimmingly but I didn't see the Scottish Govt telling other Commonwealth nations actually some of the Council's figures might be a bit ropey.
Re the medical report - it is published on the SG website. The names of the consultants are blacked out but the report is there. What Labour are asking for, as I understand it, is reports from individual consultants which Kenny MacAskill has not seen but which went to Dr Fraser. It is interesting that they seem to be suggesting that the Chief Medical Officer of the Scottish Prison Service could be corrupt. If they have any evidence of that they should be presenting it to the police I suggest. If they don't have any evidence it is rather poor form to attack the integrity of a public official to score party political points.
I share Colin's view: Cameron has always said it is a bad idea and just because he is now PM of the UK doesn't mean he should change his view.
I happen to agree with the concept of releasing a terminally ill man whose condition was assessed by experts. At the same time we should recognise that this decision was quite likely to annoy the US and there would be consequences. It seems that the Scottish Government has not done enough post the release to smooth the USA's ruffled feathers: should Salmond not have sent his letter 11 months ago?
Froonygreen how do you know he didn't? We are not allowed to see the correspondence between the Scottish Government and the US Government because the US has refused permission for it to be published.
Re; Cameron. He did not say that in his view it was the wrong decision. He went considerably further than that. There is a difference.
Perhaps the next time Alex Salmond is overseas he can use the occasion to condemn some aspect of UK policy in similar terms.
Frooneygreen - Cameron may, as you attest, always have thought that releasing Megrahi from Scottish custody was a bad idea, but that still doesn't explain his silence when the Prisoner Transfer Agreement was agreed.
If Megrahi's conviction was for a crime so serious that the legal provisions for compassionate release should, in Cameron's view, have been overridden, only perhaps to be later overturned by the European Court, then why has he never been equally scathing of the PTA? Had this been used, it would have broken the pledge apparently given to the US families that Megrahi would serve his sentance in Scotland, as well as allowing the Lybians to either release him or place him under a 'house arrest' identical to his current circumstances, whether we liked it or not. And that's before you mention the genesis of the agreement, with the commercial deals that we now know were being cut in paralell...
I happen to agree with the concept of releasing a terminally ill man whose condition was assessed by experts. At the same time we should recognise that this decision was quite likely to annoy the US and there would be consequences.
I think that has always been recognised. What seems to be less widely recognised is that using the PTA or leaving him to die in prison would have had negative consequences also, as David Milliband recognised before he decided to strike a different pose in his party's leadership contest.
No option was without consequences in this case. Any noise-making politician trying to make capital by pretending otherwise is being naive, disingenuous, or a combination of both.
It's shaping up that the election next year could be a mini-referendum on this issue. We may find out next year whether this decision had the blanket support of the Scottish people that Jeff assumes. For me, a Scot, living in Scotland, Cameron represented m views perfectly.
I don't feel Cameron was attacking Scotland. He was attacking a decision taken my a minorty government, a decision which many Scots find unpalatable. They may well decide next year that they don't want any more ill-judged grandstanding by Eck and co. And who could blame us.
(Indy - compassionate release is available BUT it is not automatically granted, though MacAskill and the SNP do not seem to appreciate this. He is the only justice minister thus far never to turn them down. )
Mav - Do you really think the average Scot worries more about an event that happened over 20 years ago than they do, jobs, health, education and anything else that affects their daily life?
I agree with Jeff on this one, David Cameron is entitled to his own personal and political opinion. But he should not undermine the authority of the Scottish Government. All he had to say was 'I don't agree with the decision to release Al Megrahi, however we must respect the authority of the Scottish Government and accept their decision.'
I also can't help wondering if this subject would have been raised if the BP oil spill had never happened and Al Megrahi had died three months after his release. I suspect not.
And from the nation that still advocates the death penalty and who gave us the human rights disaster of Guantanamo Bay, I find it slightly ironic that the American are lecturing us on how to deal with prisoners
Mav - no application for compassionate release which met all the criteria which Megrahi's met has ever been turned down.
You are quite correct that applications have been turned down but not when the applications were supported by all the relevant parties.
Your patronising comment that MacAskill does not seem to appreciate this is somewhat underminhed by the fact that he has published the details of all applications for compassionate release, both those which were accepted and those which were not.
Whether you like it or not Kenny's decision followed precedent.
This made me a bit angry, Cameron trashed the Scottish government, not Scotland
Post a Comment