Why did the SNP do it?

Craig Strachan

Because they could.

PayDirt

Why did Meghai drop his appeal? Because the deal was that if he dropped it he would get compassionate release. If he didn't drop the appeal he'd likely win the appeal and then all hell would break loose for yet another wrongful conviction (remember the Birmingham Six?)

John MacLeod

I think Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government released Megrahi because it was the right thing to do. Besides, Scottish statute law is pretty explicit on the requirement to free a prisoner in those circumstances.

The SNP certainly cannot be accused of exploiting this for political gain - there is none - and the present feeding-frenzy will not last very long. The Americans - after decades of frustrating the extradition of IRA suspects and sponsoring all manner of murderous covert adventures in Latin America - are the last people to get on a high horse about 'fostering terrorism.'

MacAskill should be admired for making a hard decision, for standing by it, and for having the guts to defend it in public against the taunts of metroploitan columnists, the opportunism of David Cameron et al. Meanwhile, kindly get your tanks off our Scottish lawn.

R Blake

The entire affair will obviously not do the SNP any electoral favours. Could it be they were leaned on by the UK government, seeking a trade deal? It seems a cheap and conspiratorial explanation, and therefore not one I would normally entertain, but Alex Salmond is not a stupid man. He ought to know better than this, though the PTA idea is probable in my view. Either way, the London government has dealt with the situation contemptibly, and the SNP appears not much better.

Jeff

You're rather conveniently glossing over the fact that the man has mere weeks to live and a compassionate release would be the humane, standard approach under Scots Law.

I look forward to all nonsense (including articles such as this one) being put to one side.

Sophia Pangloss

Doesn't look foolish from where I'm standing. Principled yes, brave yes, coherent yes.
Contrast with our fractious, double-dealing glaikit Opposition parties. Even oor Auntie Bella let us down badly. It's significant that the Opposition won't put their seats where their mouths are(!) and call a no confidence motion.

charles hercock

Let's not let Gordon off the hook by getting at the SNP

Hysteria

because they see issues as tribalists - with one stroke they saw this as getting one over the English, over Labour, over the Americans and asserting their "independance".

They may also be incompetent

pete-s

This visit to Scotland by Libyan officials might be a first clue.

http://www.libyaonline.com/news/details.php?cid=75&id=8122

The release was without doubt contrived. It solved many problems; the appeal, the conviction falling apart, looking for other suspects, coup for Gaddafi. No point doing a deal with a dictator if he does not stay in power. SNP probably did not anticpate the amount of flak they got, but they got to show they are not poodles of Whitehall. Plus I expect an oil deal or some sort.

Ron Wilson

At a time when politicians are lying 'before breakfast, during lunch & aster dinner' the SNP are to be commended in doing the right thing.

This morning the former British Ambassador to Libya, Sir Oliver Miles, said on Scotland Live on BBC Radio Scotland:

“If I can make a personal comment on this, I find this rather extraordinary and rather disgusting because it seems to me that it was never intended, by the court for example that Megrahi should die in jail. The sentence he was given if he had had a normal life span it would have meant that he would’ve been considered for release in the future. To say that ‘he should have died in the prison’, seems to me the polite equivalent of the barroom language of ‘hanging is too good for him, throw away the key’. Now, I am frankly shocked, shocked, that all of our UK parties seem to by vying with each other to be more vindictive of the other. It’s enough to make me vote Scottish Nationalist, and I’m as English as they come.”

David

Because they knew it would annoy the Americans and because it allowed them to do what they like best - preen and pretend they are more moral than anyone.

Unfortunately they failed to calculate that most people would put compassion for victims before compassion for mass murderers.

Sempronius

If someone puts you in an impossible position, you may as well try to do the honourable thing. Looks to me like that's what MacAskill tried to do.

Haggisbasher

Hysteria

maybe they saw this issue as humanist - a dying man, a muslim, who wanted to go home to die with his family during Ramadan and who knew if he appealed would not be able to do so. We have room for compassion in our legislation. (cf Ronnie Biggs, anyone?)

The Scots don't have any huge need to "get one over the Americans". That unhappy state of affairs tends to lie with those English who are painfully aware of the one sidedness of the "special relationship".

and independence is spelt with four "e"s.

Nicholas

John Macleod: "Meanwhile, kindly get your tanks off our Scottish lawn."

Ha! It's not our tanks on your Scottish lawn that's the problem (I wish) - it's all your bloody MP's in our English parliament, including the No.1 eejit in No.10. Better hope it's not our tanks that have to finally winkle the bastards out but it would certainly be of more long term benefit to the country than deploying them abroad in illegal wars.

TrevorsDen

" former British Ambassador to Libya, Sir Oliver Miles" --- his comments show what a crock of shite we have in the Foreign Office.

Compasion a la Biggs is all very well. Biggs was small fry and never killed anybody never mind 270.

Brown has been exposed as saying one thing to one country in public and another (the opposite) to another in private.

Rule 1 - don't get caught. Anuyone keen to believe anything else Brown says?

Kalvis Jansons

It was a Brown move:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

Bryan Dunleavy

The SNP get to play on the International rather than the provincial stage. This will further their pretensions to autonomous government. In the long game they are big winners.

Alan B

Could it be that there were simply no ulterior motives?

Now that all the correspondence is out, it simply looks like the standard humanitarian release of a dying man - in accordance with Scots law.

And probably the dubious nature of his conviction helped to swing the decision.

Sandy Jamieson

Of course he should have died in jail though at 8.00 a.m. in the morning at the end of a rope

JohnAnt

Ghadaffi did seem frightfully keen to have Megrahi die in Libya. It has occurred to me - is it just possible that he was worried that as Megrahi came closer to death in Scotland, he might drop his protestations of innocence and - truthfully or untruthfully - admit guilt after all?

Paul Foreman

It all shows clearly that the Scots aren't capable of self government - we shall just have to keep on carrying them. Oh how the white mans burden is a tiresome yoke.

Arkletten

The correspondence released by the Scottish government shows that Alex Salmond was implacably opposed to the release of Megrahi. Why? He postured it was principled: concern for the victims, and because it contravened a 1998 UN resolution (that anyone convicted would serve out their time in Scotland).

But the real reason becomes apparent when you close read the documents.

Megrahi was a high profile bargaining chip and Salmond didn't want the UK government stealing 'his' ace in any international deals.

The tetchy, jealous resentment is there for all to see in the correspondence.

The first tactic was to put pressure on Jack Straw to exclude Megrahi from any deals with the Libyans in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.

When the Libyans wouldn't budge, Salmond seemed to accept that release was going to be necessary at some point in the UK's 'overriding national interests' but decided to play a spoiler game with London.

The compassionate release possibility was identified as early as October 1998, and Straw notified.

arkletten

BTW, John MacLeod, there was no 'requirement' that a prisoner with a life expentancy of less than three months be released on compassionate grounds.

They are entitled to apply, but any decision on the part of the justice minister is discretionary.

Megrahi could have been released to a secure location in Scotland where palliative care would have been provided and his family could have been nearby.

It was all to please the Libyans. The UK government knew that and so did the Scottish government know that this was in the national interest.

Jerry B

John Macleod: "Meanwhile, kindly get your tanks off our Scottish lawn."

oo er , its Barnett Rules time again-

couldn't care less about macgrahi and before you start, understand full well the difference between English and Scottish law----but care a lot about the £90 billion plus your lot have quietly filched out of the English over the last 31 years

and your Scottish politicians are well entrenched on our lawn - take em back.

Rob

There has got to be more to this than just posturing.Salmon knows exactly how Brown ticks and a deal must have been struck the question is what?

Dirty Euro

Scotland has not fleeced 91 billion from the rest of the UK. It is the other way round the government lied in late seventies about how much scotland subsidising the rest of the UK. It is lying now.

hysteria

you see, that's the thing I dislike most about devolution. It has turned long standing rivalry, competition and cooperation into something a lot more nasty.

I really think the Union is/was a good thing, but I also think that once released the devolution genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

cuffleyburgers

John Macleod - we'll take our tanks back if you'll have your politicos back. The sooner the better.

Hysteria - partly right, devolution was part of the problem, the rest of is just the deeply unpleasant personalities of professional politicians.

The Laughing Cavalier

Interesting snippet on R4 this morning.

Q. Was it a cock up or a conspiracy.

A. Sad answer, a cocked up conspiracy.

strapworld

The SNP trusted Brown. I believe he promised Labour support both for a Independent Referendum and their support for Independence!!

But, as in all things linked with Brown. It has been a total and abject disaster.

The Liberal Democrats could, if they play this right, be the beneficiaries.

John Lea

Nicholas - why don't you head over to The Sun's politcal blog. I think you would fit in more over there.

PauL

Time for English independence. The UK has been ruined by the Marxists. We can still rescue England, but Scotland can be damned (and it is).

Haggisbasher

Strapworld - please provide proof to your assertion that the SNP trusted Brown. Its my understanding that Alex Salmond wouldn't trust Brown or any member of NuLab (or OldLab come to that) further than he could throw them. There is and has been for years, utter and total animosity between the SNP and Labour, and especially between Salmond and Brown. Labour never figured an SNP majority into its calculations for Scotland.

Nicholas

John Lea - no thanks I'm quite content in the Coffee House (the anti-New Labour ranters are much more cogent and powerful here) but I appreciate the suggestion. I'm sure it is well-intended even if it does come across as a clever little lefty prig's put-down.

Ian C

Why did they do it?

Because a Libyan oil deal for the UK strengthens the SNP argument for 'Scottish oil for Scotland'. It's always oil...! And in a world intent on bankrupting itself taxing it.

"There's nowt so queer as people in government"!

Carlung

Roll on Scottish independence and control of our own resources. Soon we'll be as rich as Norway and England will be free of the fiscal drag of Scotland.

Stephen Gash

As an Englishman I don't want England to be in a union with other countries, least of all Scotland. The Scots have an SNP-led government so why aren't they filling Scottish streets clamouring for independence or at least their referendum? Afterall, they would have us believe they were rioting in Scottish streets in 1707 when England and Wales became burdened with Scotland. Or is that just another example of the plethora of Scottish myths?
Devolution has rubbed away the gilt of 'friendly' banter and exposed the base-metal of Scottish Anglophobia. We English have been tainted with this Scottish al-Megrahi debacle, the Scots-led banking catastrophe, Scots-led spendthrift government and the Scottish notion of devolution which demands England to be sacrificed. We've had enough of it. Scots! In God's name go!

Alec Spurner

Stephen Gash - 'We English have been tainted with this Scottish al-Megrahi debacle...'

Do you mean in the same way that Scots were tainted by the unjust conviction of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four? Not to mention England football hooligans, who drape themselves in Union Jacks before trashing bars and beating opposition fans unconscious at world footballing events? You English - no wonder other nations love you so much!

Arthur

Why do you refer to the Scottish Executive as the Scottish government? The word government has been adopted by the SNP in their campaign against the United Kingdom. The Scotland Act 1998 is quite clear when it says 'There will be a Scottish Executive.'

The SNP is using language to create a new reality of an independent Scotland. And if that happened, it would be a poor day for us all.

Bill

We refer to the Scottish Government as the Government because that is what they are.
Our Justice secretary made the right decision for the right reasons. When you refer to it will be a poor day for us all are you saying that you now believe all the lies about barnett and you will be the poorer for it.