There was a rash of statements to the House this afternoon, including one by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, on the al-Megrahi affair, which still leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth and has done immense damage to Britain’s international standing.
William Hague, speaking for the opposition, made a hugely pertinent comment on the actions of the Scottish Executive in releasing al-Megrahi:
One of the most bizarre aspects of the decision to release al-Megrahi was the fact that the Scottish Executive, having concluded that they could not transfer him under the prisoner transfer agreement because it would breach assurances given to the United States, then concluded that it was appropriate to release him altogether. Would it not have been more sensible to conclude that if it was inappropriate to return him to Libya as a prisoner, it was even more inappropriate to release him as a free man?
It will be interesting to hear the Scottish justice minister’s response.
The ignorance here is staggering.
Firstly, the Scottish Government were always opposed to the PTA deal negotiated by Labour.
Second, the agreement reached with the Americans forbade the release under such a deal.
So, the SNP both were against such a transfer and also elected to honour the agreement reached between the USA and the UK.
The application for compassionate release is fundamentally different under Scots law than under English law. The default position in Scots law has always been that the prisoner is granted release if the conditions of the application are met.
The conditions were indeed met, that is why the Scottish legal body supported the decision, they knew it upheld the fundamental tenets of Scots law; justice tempered with compassion.
The decision was not political and that is why it was the correct decision. What would have been inappropriate would have been for the decision to have been taken for political reasons.
Your ignorance is understandable, however the ignorance of Scottish politicians who ought to be aware of how their own legal system operates and of it’s traditions is not.
A child murderer had been freed by the previous Scottish justice minister, that too was the legally correct decision.
The decision has enhanced Scotland’s standing, there have been messages of support from around the world. The UK’s standing has suffered due to Iraq, nothing to do with the compassionate release of Megrahi.
It shuld be remembered of course that the USA were only too keen to see Megrahi back in Libya, that’s why they sanctioned the UK Governments secret deals on PTA.
The UK’s standing was also damaged the day Pinochet was allowed to go back to Chile – a mass murderer if ever there was one.
Megrahi’s guilt will technically remain, however the evidence that this was an unsafe verdict is now overwhelming.
Finally, the Scottish Justice Minister has made all of his statements on the matter. He will appear before the justice committee soon in order to answer questions on the process – even they are now realising that the decision was technically correct, although the Unionist majority on that committee will no doubt ensure a typical anti SNP verdict is reached.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish voice of your party didn’t want the man to die in prison; she knew (as your previous commentator has noted), that would be unacceptable according to Scottish Law.
She wanted him to die in a Scottish Hospice!
Do you agree with her?
I’m not sure of the geography relating to your constituency, but there are three hospices serving your general area: St Kentergen, St David and Ty Gobaith.
Would you want this man and his press, publicity and security measures imposed on any of our local hospices ? I wouldn’t. And I wouldn’t want them imposed on the Scottish hospice system either.