And Another Thing…

If Megrahi did it then it is certainly a questionable decision.

I am relatively sure he didn’t. If he is innocent then keeping him in jail is clearly unconscionable. I suspect the SNP also feel that he is innocent but that they cannot say so because it would bring the Scottish judiciary & the British & American governments into well deserved contempt. However as long as they keep claiming he was guilty they cannot occupy the moral high ground.

Before Labour MPs get to involved here it is worth remembering that Jack Straw completely reversed himeself within a month over the release of Biggs, This shows a clearing of the decks of a case which would have made the compassion justification impossible & thus shows the the Westminster government were at least as involved in this decision as the Scottish one.

The SNP are just like the Labour party was in 1997.

No debate just sheep.

But what about Mr Brown, THE Prime Minister. He has said nothing so I suspect he agrees with the SNP.

This country is in a very sorry state of affairs.

It is very much the Disunited Kingdom. Bottom line is i totaly blame Labour for their inept government. All your chickens are comming home to roost and it will be left yet again to The Conservative Party to sort out Labours mess.

Just when will this country ever learn about Labour.

While I think MacAskill made the right decision, I appreciate the opposite view. I don’t think you’re “wrong-thinking” Tom, just “different-thinking”.

Where my beef with the reaction lies is categorising the decision as predominantly party political. While I’m not naive enough to think that MacAskill’s nationalist ideology did not play some part in his decision, it is my belief that he looked at the evidence, the medical reports, took advice from experts then made the only decision that he saw fit to – release the man on compassionate grounds.

My agreement is not based on party allegiance (is you read my stuff, you know I’m not a party hack) but on my belief he made the right decision. Don’t tar us all with that brush.

I agree this is a lousy way to try to close down political debate.However you belong to the party that devised this ruse. I have watched and heard Labour party politicians do this for years on every subject under the sun, your favourite way of doing it is, “We are doing this AND IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO” usually followed by “I make no apology for this” or “I’ll take no lectures from them on this” anything to close down the debate and get incompetant Ministers like Balls and Cooper off the hook.

Whether Megrahi did it or not is totally irrelevant to the debate.

He was found guilty so legally he did it.

the debate then is “Is it right to relase a mass murderer early on compassionate grounds?”

Given the scale of his crimes, any normal person might think not.

As for the choice of doctor to assess his condition , it would appear it was the one giving the desired answer.. so the compassionate grounds are suspect.

And given the visit by MacAskill to the guilty man in jail, it would appear that he was going to be released any way possible. (and the evidence on this score is pretty clear).

Finally our PM will not comments.

Personally I think it’s an affront to justice and voters’ intelligence.
Err I mean …
well those of them that are capable of independent thought…

The whole thing has reminscences of Hutton and David Kelly: it all smelss wrong and there is enough evidence to cast doubt on the motives of all the key political playesr.

NEVER EVER trust any politician is a good rule to live by. Sooner or later they all lie..

I’m amused by the end of Angus Robertson’s quote where he says “…this issue has nothing to do with party politics, and attempts by the Labour party and the Conservatives to politicise it are extremely regrettable.”

So the issue isn’t party political… ok yeah, but why does Angus R then attack Labour and the Tories in the same breath!

Oh, the irony.

I wonder what the chances are of the Libyan doctors finding a miracle cure for his particular form of cancer ?

Totally agree with you Tom on this one.

(I know! . . amazing!)

But; as has been pointed out – your Government are the ones who ushered in this kind of ‘lock-down’ on open discussion of issues.

Still . . . at least you do have the balls to stand up and be counted against your appallingly repressive government on the odd occassion.

To your credit.

Tom

you have seem to have selective hearing.

After the debate in the Scottish Parliament the other day, I heard both Salmond and Sturgeon doing rounds of interviews – their line constantly repeated over and over agian was roughly as follows:

‘we think we have made the correct decision based on the medical evidence presented to us in-line with Scots law

we know that many people disagree and that’s fine because this is an emotive issue where people have lost loved ones

but most importantly whatever your view, whether you agree or disagree, the decision was made for the right reasons in a quasi-legal manner according to due process’

Now im sorry Tom, but that was the First and Deputy First Minister (summarised by me), they are clearly amenable to other peoples points of view.

I can understand why you would like to make it out to the contrary for you own political advantage. But people can watch the interviews and see for themselves so why dont u give it a rest.

So where do Angus Robertson’s comments fit in? And where is the single nationalist activist or blogger who opposed this decision?

Maybe there isn’t one Tom. Maybe you are right.

But then again, you’ve got Malcolm Chisholm to demonstrate that not everyone in the Labour party thought it was the wrong decision.

And to Chisholm you can add John Prescott . There are undoubtedly others, and that’s my point. I find it odd (and not believable) that every single SNP MSP and every single member of the SNP agrees with this decision.

The sheep of the SNP are very disciplined indeed, however, amongst my friends in Glasgow, the majority view is “right decision handled really badly”. Macaskil must go but for the fact that he seemed to think that the media were there about him, he is not a man to be trusted with such senior responsibility.

It is also interestingly that everyone in the Labour Party are saying this was a decision made by the SNP rather than the Scottish Government. So no attempt to score points, just debate there then.

There is a case to be made for release and detention and I’m glad it wasn’t my choice, but I would have handled it much better and he would not have go to leave prison until it was obvious he was dying then the public could see that the right thing to do was to send him back.

Maybe you haven’t read all the blogs but its the political opportunism from Iain Gray that is the most sickening event in all of this.

Incidentally, i wasn’t to in favour of Kenny Macaskill’s decision at first http://advancedmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/so-what-now-for-snp.html

Surely Gordon Brown has an opinion on this to ?

I had a Nationalist compare Lib Dems with the BNP over on my blog – which was a shame because the rest of the comments, including from that person, had been thoughtful, intelligent and a good quality of debate on both sides of the argument.

Oh and didn’t Kenny Gibson express opposition before the decision was made? Haven’t seen him since. Do you think he’s been locked in a cupboard?

Caron…

I had plenty of unionists expressing sickening things on my blog, that’s why i have comment moderation on. Its a myth that only SNP bloggers are nasty, pure myth…

As evidenced by the beautiful sentiments expressed by SNP supporters on newspapers’ comments threads.

Ah Tom, so you have also fallen into that old unionist trap ? Fake or post as a nationalist then post bile rubbish.

I think you and Foulkes should pay less attenshion to who supposedly said what on ill moderated forums.

As a famous book once wrote:

“Sanity is statistical”

I hope we don’t end up with political dissidents being sent off to re-education camps to correct their evidently faulty minds.

I agree Angus Robertson’s comment is stupid – I always tend to disagree with politicians who characterise things as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ because nothing is that simple.

I would suggest however that the decision was in line with the SNP’s core values as a party, and also that if a Labour minister was attacked in the terms that Kenny MacAskill was attacked (and by the people who attacked him) for taking a quasi-judicial decision then his party would have rallied around him as well.

You are so right ever since Kenny came out with his decision the Snippy Snp’s have been in a right bad mood if anyone dares to disagree with them and it it seems to have infected the whole herd a bit like swine flu. The decision to release is of course correct but for all the wrong reasons. Some blushes have been saved for those who now shout loudest or instead are burying their heads in the beaches of Fife

[...] Harris has observed something that has been very evident out in the Blogging World ever since Kenny MacAskill released [...]

There has been a huge amount of debate on this issue throughout the blogosphere and Tom is being more than a little disingenuous. If any party is under ‘lockdown’ it’s been Labour with the strange public pronouncements emanating form their Scottish Leader at Holyrood.

That the SNp generally attracts liberal socialists isn’t anything new, that labour should side with right wing hawkish view of this IS NOTHING NEW.

The bigger issue which your avoiding is why the PTA was rushed through, Labour are in this up to their necks, the public see’s that and see’s your double standards.

Iain Gray for Fist minister

mwha ha ha ha ha ha

I wish I could believe that you have taken the stance you have out of conscience.

But somehow I suspect that had McAskill kept the fellow banged up you’d be on here wailing for his release.

Still at least it’s getting you used to ‘Opposition’.

Fitaloon I don’t think that is the case.

However some comments are cheap. Tom, for example, suggested on his original post on this subject that Kenny as a liberal defence lawyer type synpathises with perpetrators rather than victims of crime.

Equally some Labour members have accused Kenny of suggesting that they lack compassion because they disagree with his decision.

I don’t think that is true – but if it were, it would simply be the other side of the coin of Labour members suggesting that Kenny does not care about the victims families.

All in all the lesson is perhaps that we should all try to remain calm and avoid sweeping generalisations when discussing such matters.

Tom

I support the SNP and I disagreed with the decision.

I understand the merits of the decision, the application of due process, etc.. , but am frustrated that an appeal cannot now take place. Can never take place. And that means REAL closure is now lost.

However, I respect the fact that the decision was taken openly and in good faith, and without political gain. In fact the opposite. And what has annoyed me most of all is the politicisation and senationalising of this decision. It is beyond partisan beliefs and should be debated in a sober and sensible way, if only for the victims’ families.

Furthermore, if the Scottish Parliament believes that due process was followed correctly then it should be stated as such. Blustering statements given by politicians on Sunday who don’t bother to turn up to Holyrood for the emergency session on Monday, is highly damaging to the democracy of that Parliament and I suspect to integrity of that individual.

“So what is utterly perplexing is the utterly implacable view of seemingly every single SNP member that MacAskill made the right decision”

As you know, I am an SNP voter. I am not in agreement with the MacAskill decision. I also find the hysterical reaction of SNP supporters on this issue quite frightening; just because I disagreed with the official position I was accused of being an “onionist” (sic) Just read the frothing drivel posted on Subrosa’s comment section.

They really do themselves no favours on this, but I am tiring of their Stalinist attempts to shut down debate on anything they do not like, so reminiscent of the worst excesses of some Labour blogs.

So,I agree with you entirely on this one and I dare say will suffer the consequences because, like you, I am not a mindless parrot.

“Now, I have very strong views on this, but I accept that there is a contrary case…”

I hope you view Daniel Hannan’s NHS ramblings in the same light.

Surprise: YouGov poll suggests Scots supporting release are in a minority.

Therefore most Scots are not “right”..

Logic!

In your article below, if you substitute “New-Labour” for “SNP”, “Blair” for McAskill and “Westminster” for “Holyrood”, you will have some idea as to the contempt in which most voters hold your Government.

@TH “…..I assume that this is simply the sign of a very disciplined party who always applaud any and every decision taken by any and every SNP minister on any and every subject. There appears not to be even a scintilla of doubt that MacAskill made the absolute, 100 per cent correct decision. More worrying, there is no sign of a debate on the issue within the ranks of the party that, for the time being, is exercising power at Holyrood.”

As others have said, doubts about al-Megrahi’s guilt are irrelevent: that’s what the appeal system is for.

I disagree with Tom when he says there was merit to al-Megrahi’s release. He was receiving compassionate treatment in gaol, and there should come a point when one foreit the right to choose the place of one’s death… being convicted of 270 murders is a good start.

Not only are you looking to politicise an issue that should not be politicised but you are now, Tom, looking for ways to justify the politicisation of the issue.

I find this aborrent and, frankly, I have found the behaviour of the British Government and the opposition parties in Scotland to be shocking.

I was a bit of a floating voter, tending to vote Green, undecided about the independence issue in some ways but tending to favour it. I was biased to a point but not to a point where I couldn’t be swayed by some politicians, such as your good self, whose views I often agree with.

From here on, however, I am totally dedicated to Scotland securing its independence from the British Government and from a union which seems to include or disclude us whenever it suits its agenda. I will never vote for a unionist party again under absolutely no circumstances.

The British Government cut us a drift and left us to take the slander and accusations of the US government who have treated us as if we were guilty of the Lockerbie bombing itself.

Labour have sat back in the hope that the whole affair will somehow cause the collapse of the SNP, even while the SNP have handed them exactly what they wanted (Megrahi’s release) on a plate so that they can now press ahead with securing better relations with Liibya and the Arab world.

This has been a betrayal of the Scottish people that, I think, has driven an wedge between Scotland and Britain that will never be breached. I don’t want it to be breached. I want independence and that is it.

About the decision itself. Let me make this clear – you, or Ian Gray, or whoever else, are not the moral arbiters of the universe. You are not right, Kenny MacAskill is not wrong. You are only right according to your beliefs, as he is right in accorance to his own. The arguments for releasing Megrahi or keeping him imprisoned are both strong and, indeed, reasonable arguments. I don’t think there is anything extreme about wishing to seem him burnt alive, nor do I think their is anything extreme about agreeing to release him compassionate grounds. Perhaps there are even those who would say, never mind the compassion, if his release goes some way to healing the sores of the West v Araba worlds then maybe that too is a good thing.

I think the simple case regarding SNP supporters or members is that, like me, they smell your rat. They know that you’re going to try and use this issue to bring them down, even while this issue is of such great moral complexity that there is no right or wrong about it.

I’ll still be voting Green first mostly I think, but I’m also going to join the SNP and lend my support to an independent Scotland which, in the aftermath of this, I think is almost inevitable.

Only to add, I don’t know if I agree with the decision or not. I support the ideal of compassion and think that to demonstrate compassion does show that we will never stoop to the level of terrorists.

But when I think of the families and friends of the victims, yes, it becomes hard. And, actually, I htink that my or your opnion hardly counts in the end and that the only opnions that count are those of the people who have suffered.

And there again, opinions are divided.

It is so complex an issue that I think it is grossly unfair to hold MacAskill acountable whether you agree with the decision or not. He only had two options, both of which were permissable within the law, and both of which are equally valid in the context of the law.

Perhaps this is why the SNP supporters are standing firm. They recognise that, whatever the decision, whether they agree with it or not, it is not acceptable to hold MacAskill nor the SNP accountable for a decision that is lawfully and some would say morally valid.

OK, that’s enough from me.

Megrahi should have stayed in prison to the last moment of his life.

Even so, I doubt if the guy will make a miracle recovery…or even live beyond any date deemed embarrassing to Gadafi.

Mazza1230

How many times does it have to be explained that this decision was a judicial decision, not a political decision?

It was not taken by the SNP. It is not a policy decision. No-one got to vote on it. The responsibility to take the decision rested with one person alone, Kenny MacAskill.

If there is going to be an consequence I suggest the most likely one is along the lines of Alan Miller’s suggestion, that the power to grant compassionate leave will be transferred from the Justice minister to an independent body, whether some kind of tribunal or just send it back to the courts.

That would hopefully remove some of the politics out of these types of decisions.

The significance of that responsibility-thing is beginning to dawn on Salmond and Macaskill – heck, even Indy is back-peddaling on Robertson- but others like Robertson himself and Christine “I Know Who Did It!” Graeme are carrying on like a Thames Estury dredger.

It ain’t enough to be correct, they have to have absolute truth and run their opponents into the ground. The sheer bad faith, the crowing nature of their response reveals a complete lack of political maturity and evidence of sub-state nationalism always tending towards political idiocy.

And, who can blame them. Although Salmond has desisted coupling his every reference to a compassionate judicial system with its innateness in “Scottish society”, right from the beginning Macaskill’s decision to make the announcement to coincide with the Eastern Seaboard waking-up pointed to self-aggrandizement. His immediate response, to why Americans may not be so keen to let the man convicted of the murder of 189 of their friends and families, was that “we and they have different values”.

That alone should force his resignation and, preferably, being disbarred from any political office ever again. And that’s before we get onto his calling prostate cancer a divine judgement – are other cancer patients being punished by God?

The following claims are made:

[i] Macaskill was duty bound;

[ii] This was moral.

In response to [i], refer to Section Three:One of Chapter Nine of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1993/ukpga_19930009_en_1

>> Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds (1) The Secretary of State may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.

He made a non-required decision. As morality is the name of the game, his supporters should have the moral courage to admit to this.

Three:Two states:

>> Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.

Let’s hope Strathclyde Police are lying when it says it would have provided guards for a hospice.

In response to [ii], this is inimicable to [i]. If one is required to carry out an act, it is no more im/moral than my taking a leak.

The Snuppies wanted to play at being Government so much, but like teenagers left in control of the family home whilst ma’ and pa’ were away, they have failed disasterously at their first foreign policy decision [1]: both in its handling (which is uncontested by all right thinking people); and, in my view, the actual decision.

To wish influence without responsibility is the position a courtesan takes, and courtesans are despised in the historical and literary narratives for that reason.

[1] Before Indy further beclowns himself by claiming this was no different from releasing a small-bit drug-dealer in Dundee, and that Scotland doesn’t have a foreign policy to despoil, my advice to him is to consider the previous paragraph and not say anything.

Indy, Macaskill is not a high court judge. He is a politician.

You’re taking the piss, right?

Indy: “How many times does it have to be explained that this decision was a judicial decision, not a political decision?
It was not taken by the SNP. It is not a policy decision. No-one got to vote on it. The responsibility to take the decision rested with one person alone, Kenny MacAskill.”

Wrong.

Judicial decisions are taken by judges, political (or at least executive) decisions are taken by ministers. If this were MacAskill’s decision alone, none of the other members of the Executive would be bound to support it through collective responsibility. But they are, because it is policy.

Alec,

We and the US do have different values.

They allow for the death penalty, for example. We don’t.

That’s your argument blown away in seconds.

The fact is, you’re looking for angles to attack MacAskill and the SNP but are forced to invent them, to conjure them out of thin air. That’s what all this about. It’s a pathetic spectacle. What you should be asking now is, what is the role of the UK government in this? What have they been up to? What about these meetings and alleged deals in the desert? What about their alleged failure to cooperate with MacAskill (that one needs cleared up)? And what about the claims of Megrahi’s innocence? Where do we go with that issue?

These are the issues outstanding, issues that no doubt terrify you, which is why you’re conjuring these bogus accusations against the SNP. The truth terrifies you, that’s why your avoiding it. You’re just blah blah blahing about MacAskill to deviate from the issues that really need broached.

The more I read of your kind of thinking, the more disgusted I feel. You’re just full of so many shades of a rhetorical bluff and bluster. You can’t face the realities, so you make them up.

Values, eh?

Tell me, then, what did your dear leader mean when he said this:

“But an open and adapting society also needs to be rooted, and Britain’s roots are on the most solid foundation of all – a passion for liberty anchored in a sense of duty and an intrinsic commitment to tolerance and fair play.

The values and qualities I describe are of course to be found in many other cultures and countries. But when taken together they add up to a distinctive Britishness that has been manifest throughout our history and has shaped it.”

Oh yes, Gordon, a DISTINCTIVE Britishness, which sets us apart from all those other countries and cultures who are simply not as distinctive as we are.

You guys are hypocrites to the core.

Tom you are simply wrong about this.

It was not a policy decision.

The SNP Cabinet did not vote on it or come to a decision.

The decision was taken by Kenny MacAskill alone acting in a quasi-judicial capacity (to give it the term which has been used).

The decision was taken by him acting within the same process and with the same guidance which has been used by all previous justice ministers under devolution.

The documents pertaining to the case and the advice from officials, including from the UK Govt, will be released so I think anyone tempted to play politics with it would be wise not to.

>> We and the US do have different values. They allow for the death penalty, for example. We don’t. That’s your argument blown away in seconds.

And they hang negroes! Get back to Radio Yerevan where you belong!

>> We and the US do have different values. They allow for the death penalty, for example. We don’t. That’s your argument blown away in seconds.

And they hang negroes! Get back to Radio Yerevan where you belong!

You’re forgetting the most important difference – Scotland begins with an S and ends with a D, whilst the USA doesn’t.

>> The more I read of your kind of thinking, the more disgusted I feel. You’re just full of so many shades of a rhetorical bluff and bluster.

This coming from the woman who says that Scotland does not execute people AND America does SO Scotland is better.

Would Dr. Self-Awareness please report to Lara’s head.

>> Tell me, then, what did your dear leader mean when he said this:

I am not and never have been a member of the Labour Party. You seem to be loosing your grasp… let me give you a little push.

Just a thought but do you think USA would have broken off diplomatic relations with an independent Scotland over this? They are really fizzing, democrats and republicans alike.

David, no they are not really fizzing.

If the American Govt really did not want Megrahi to be released they would have tried to stop the release.

They were given plenty of opportunities to do so.

Alec,

I’ve just spoken to Dr Self-Awareness and made an appointment for you.

Because nowhere did I (or Kenny MacAskill) say that we, the Scots, have “better” values than the US or English or the Lords of Ning or whoever. We have different values, that is all.

And yes, our values are different from those of the US. And even, shock horror, from those of the English. The US might vote in a George W. The English might vote in a David Cameron. But Scotland won’t. Why? Because our values are better? No, because they differ.

Indy, thanks for your comment.

I was however simply seeking to draw Tom’s attention to the similarity between the robotic sheep-like behaviour of the vast majority of New Labour MP’s since 1997, and the recent behaviour of SNP MSPs that Tom complains about in his Post.

(When is Indy going to explain why he knows more about parliamentary procedures than a former PUS?)

Would the real Dr. Self-Awareness please report to Lara’s head?

I may have said such-and-such, and I have said explained myself. It goes without saying that I think I’m correct, but at least I’ve made an effort.

You have not.

You have decreed that you find my opinions disgusting, but do not explain why. You throw the post-modern gag of turning a comment back at me without elaboration. You use “blahblahblah” as an argument. You inform me that I am “scared” of the SNP (because no right-thinking person could disagree with it), but do not continue.

There is the empty rhetoric.

Then, for the final sadistic twist, you argue that the families of the American dead are in no position to complain because their country executes murderers. This is irrelevent, as al-Megrahi was in a Scottish gaol and not going to be executed. To you, the continued incarceration of a mass-murderer is the same as, if not worse, the execution of murderers.

There is the posture. These were not human beings blown-out of the sky at 31,000 feet: they were just Americans.

>>Because nowhere did I (or Kenny MacAskill) say that we, the Scots, have “better” values than the US or English or the Lords of Ning or whoever. We have different values, that is all.

How old are you? Both chronologically and emotionally. Of course that is what you were saying.

PS If you wish to dispel the image of your using this as a partisan squabble, try not to assume that anyone who disagrees is a Labour member and slavish Brownite. In my experience, chucking unrelated information in is the sign of someone who’s lost and is trying to win through deceit.

Furthermore, I expect anyone here issuing fiats against all America does not issue a cheap when Gary McKinnon goes to trial.

Alec.

I think you must be arguing with some imaginary voice in your head, because it sure ain’t me.

Are you getting mixed up with different posts?

I think you need to take some time out and come back when you’re prepared to make sense.

Lara, it is clear that you are either not willing or incapable of conducting an honest discussion in which you admit to writing what is available in easily retrivable ASCII format.

This conversation is over. Goodbye.

Your point is extremely well made (although it’s clearly a trap for the naive). This was a quasi-judicial decision not a party policy (what page of our manifesto was it on?) and members of some long standing may have seen discretion as the better part of valor here. But – be fair – Scottish Labour have found a suspicious homogeneity with Scottish Conservatives on this matter.
My personal (naive) view? He should have stayed in a Scottish jail. But he was innocent. Go figure…

Mek, which page of the Labour party manifesto was Iraq on? Yet, for better for worse – or more accurately, both – it has become associated with New Labour, and several Government ministers were sufficiently opposed to resign on that matter [1].

[1] This doesn’t include Claire Short.

Alec, that’s a fair reply. But there was a UK election soon after so voters had more than enough opportunity to endorse the invasion, which (I regret to say) they did.

Alec – Indy is quite happy to explain that applications for compassionate release are nothing to do with parliamentary procedure at all.