The SNP was responsible, all the way

Beer Moth

"...al-Megrahi’s inclusion in a Prisoner Transfer Agreement was a precondition of any deal between the UK and Libyan governments,.."

Any deal regarding what? What bargain can be struck that is worth so much to the UK, that their government would seek to secure by the release of the man found guilty of murdering 270 people?

There are people now in British prisons, who have served more time than al-Megrahi, for crimes which endangered not one life.

Mycroft

Beer Moth, You are confusing the prisoner transfer agreement, in which someone would be transferred to Libya to serve out his sentence there, with the release that was granted to the supposed Lockerbie bomber by the Scottish executive.

TomTom

US hypocrisy. If they have a problem subpoena Blair and Milipede. After all Blair is at Yale so often it should be possible for Federal Marshals to arrest him under a War Crimes Warrant or if they prefer to use the One-Sided Extradition Treaty they can have him delivered.

MaxSceptic

Blaming it all on the perfidious Scots won't wash.

It is one of Britain's most shameful acts.

Our enemies are right to jeer and despise us if we act in such a cowardly and despicable manner.

Meanwhile, having lost our judicial independence with our morals, we still 'can't' extradite Abu Hamza to the US.

Jim Mack

Ditto to Beer Moth's question which suggests you don't know what you are writing about.

"A little odd, and certainly inconvenient, that al-Megrahi still lives and breathes."

No it isn't or have you been misled by this three month issue. MacAskill never said that he had to die within three months of release. You would know that if you you took time to read his statement.

"That PTA overrode Scottish jurisdiction; the SNP could have forced the Labour government into a corner."

Again this is completely wrong and you would know that if you read MacAskill's statement because he was made the arbiter of the PTA as well as a compassionate release request. The PTA would not have handed the decision to the UK government - they passed it to him.

That this makes your comment:

"Yet Salmond and McAskill bid for a moment of pious glory on and proclaimed that the free Megrahi would answer to a higher authority shortly."

Look a little snide and silly now.

"Well, Allah’s been none too compliant."

What? Have we now reached the ridiculous stage that he is going to outlive everyone who is alive today and in the future?

Besides, Cameron, as the person who inherited Tony Blair's office is still the one responsible for setting up the PTA where all this BP influence comes into play.

Tarka the Rotter

I blame the Scots.
For Brown.
For Keir Hardie
For the White Heather Club
For Tony Blair (Fettes)
For Mick McGahy
For Alistair Darling
For deep fried Mars Bars
anyone else care to contribute?

Oh yes

For bagpipes...................

Beer Moth

Mycroft

Thank you, I understand. But there seems here to be the implication that the UK government were hell-bent on pleasing the Libyans.

Why so? How many of our people do their prisons hold and of what crimes are they guilty?

glenlivetguy

"Scotland's a notoriously unhealthy place" not here on Speyside...ghosh the fallout from that unwarranted release....cancelled speccie subs now!

Mycroft

And why will it 'not wash' to blame it on the Scots? It was a purely Scottish decision. If you have devolution, incidents like this are bound to occur.

sinosimon

and still no mention of the mi6 agent who negotiated the nuclear project end with libya, advised blair, and is now closely connected to the board of BP........supine media.

David Booth

The silence from McAskill and his puppet master Salmond is almost deafening.
When the release on compassionate grounds was being negotiated, the confirmed atheist McAskill, was constantly on TV telling us all that Megrahi would be judged in a higher court, location unknown. He then tells the world that we here in Scotland have a uniquely compassionate society omitting the fact that we also have the highest murder rate in Europe, the man is a joke.
Salmond and McAskill behaved like a pair of stage struck numpties when the international spotlight was on them over the Megrahi affair but when chickens come home to roost they are both content to lurk off stage in the wings.
The very least they could do is admit it was their decision to release the mass murderer Megrahi, but that would take courage which neither of them appear to possess.

Chris lancashire

MaxSceptic is right - Whitehall's fingerprints are all over this, particularly Brown, Straw and Milliband senior. I have no doubt however, that any inquiry will fail to discover the fingerprints. Salmon was a small fish in all this.

Jess The Dog

The Scottish issue is entirely separate. Holyrood was only too keen to see the back of him.....his appeal would have been a disaster. Unsurprisingly it has been dropped, sighs of relief in the Lord Advocate's and Advocate General's offices.

Chief McTAvish

The release of Megrahi was not a shameful act of the Scots, more-so the fact that he was tried under Scots Law and found guilty was!

porkbelly

If the Scottish government was truly an independent actor here then ask yourself if the reverse scenario could have happened: what if the Scots had decided to release al_Megrahi in the face of strong opposition from Brown et al? Is there the remotest possibility they would have been permitted to go ahead with it? If this is the best Cameron and his apologists can do...

Dixon

Tarka The Rotter...
...for being ginger!

JohnAnt

Mackaskill has been far from silent - he's been suggesting he had nothing to do with Megrahi's release, even opposed it. And that the UK government had done some deal 'on oil' 'in the desert'.

The man is beyond parody. Check this interview out for arrogance and chauvinist self-interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10698089
He's forgotten that it was he alone who released Megrahi on compassionate grounds, on the say-so of one rather unsure medic.

Richard Manns

@ porkbelly

What do you mean, "if the reverse had happened"?

You ignore the single biggest fact in the entire Scottish Executive: the SNP administration, but its very definition, works to drive a wedge through the Borders at every turn. Of course the UK could have unilaterally imposed its will on this SNP stupidity. But that's exactly what the SNP wanted: make the Scots look powerless and crushed! Appeal to the victim status!

As it was, we got some borderline-racial caricature of Scots as this "compassionate" race from the SNP, the best nationalistic sop that could be dedged from the UK's failure to play ball the SNP way.

Fergus Pickering

American Democratic Senators are notoriously stupid, even by modern political standards. Iam sure most of them are unaweare that there has been a change of government here and that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are not all the same British person. Cameron's full anser is, 'It weren't me, guv, and anyway, I don't care. Your problem. Go bomb Libya or somethng.'

Bill Brinsmead

Tarka the Rotter ...

for porridge too

but all is forgiven as they gave us Malt Whisky

Alistair Hutton

@JohnAnt

did you pay attention to what MacAskill said? He said he refused to 'transfer' al-Megrahi under the much discussed UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement.

He has never shirked nor tried to avoid responsibility for 'relasing' al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

William

So, Alistair, he wouldn't transfer Megrahi to another prison but he would release him completely? And that reflects better on MacAskill?

I look forward to Peter Tobin being released by MacAskill on grounds of compassion.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

I posted the item below on the CH Wall. It should perhaps appear here:
Politics aside, maybe the reason Al Megrahi is still alive and polluting this world, is because NHS medicine is so poor that he has to be receiving better treatment in Libya.
With creatures like Straw, Milliband et al, in charge at the time, one can hardly blame the Scots, although they are equally foul. I doubt whether Cameron has the moral strength or convictions to seek out whether there is a legal case to prosecute the NuLabour government who connived in allowing this mass murderer to go free.

Noa

Bill Brinsmead - 9:05am

Report this comment

"Tarka the Rotter ...

for porridge too

but all is forgiven as they gave us Malt Whisky".

For me, as a Cognac & Saddiqi consumer, the gripe remains!

Alistair Hutton

@William

The point being that MacAskill has never denied, prevaricated or otherwise obfuscated that he took the decision to release Megrahi unlike what JohnAnt claimed.

You can criticse him for the decision but you can't claim he denied he ever did it or tried to blame anyone else for that decision.

William

Alistair, I think that's a generous interpretation of MacAskill's performance on that interview. I think he attempts to muddy the waters by continually referring to the 'British government' and BP in reference to the US objections - which include the release of Megrahi. He may think he's being clever by feigning outrage at the PTA agreement and boasting that he would never release Megrahi under such an agreement because he was sceptical about it. However, the fact is he did release Megrahi and I'm not sure many, not least in the US, would make the distinction.

The US have never bought the SNP line about 'compassionate release' and it clearly suits MacAskill and the SNP to try and blur the whole issue, bury it under a wider debate about the PTA agreement. I don't think he will fool many with this.

Alistair Hutton

Alex Salmond was more robust on the Today program this morning on Radio 4, you can listen to it on iPlayer ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t179m/Today_20_07_2010/ ) at about 2 hours 10 mintues in. I think it's in their that Salmond offers to disclose any documents to do with Megrahi's release.

Approach MacAskill's statement from this perspective, the SNP hate Labour, the SNP have never apologised or otherwise been 'sorry' for the release and have robustly defended it over the last year. The SNP have never done anything that has knowingly aided Labour in the last 3 years. MacAskill is saying two, separate things, things (A) He makes no apologies for releasing Megrahi (B) He draws attention to what he thinks is the highly dubious dealings between the UK government and Libya. And, as a corollary, (C) the machinations of (B) have nothing to do with the Scottish governments actions of (A).

Legally the transfer (not release) of Megrahi under the PTA is a completely different action than releasing him with an entirely separate international implications

George Laird

Dear All

If I was to say, equality and fairness shouldn’t apply to all, would anyone here protest?

Does the rule of law applied equally?

This is the nub of the Al Megrahi release.

If you can’t trust the government to operate honestly and fairly, should such a government deserve to be in power?

Megrahi is dying of terminal prostate cancer it will be a slow painful horrible end to his life.

Unfortunately medicine is an exact science.

The genetic code may have been mapped but not an exact date of death.

The Scottish Government acting in good faith and went with medical supplied by four doctors and the recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer of the Scottish Prison Service.

It was said at the time that three months was a reasonable estimate of Megrahi’s time left.

At this point it is worth mention that Ronnie Biggs is still alive, who was also released on compassionate grounds.

I wrote to the Scottish Government in June 2009 asking for his release on humanitarian grounds that he be granted licence while his appeal was going through the courts.

Like many people I have concerns about how his trial was conducted.

I don’t apologise for that and nor should I.

The decision to release him was correct because it followed due process and he was given equal treatment.

Not special treatment.

The only reason I would supported for refusal would be if he posed a risk to the public.

And let us be clear the Labour Government was involved in a grubby backdoor deal with Libya to get him released through PTA.

If anyone is looking to point the finger, then Blair and Brown can step up.

Finally, to Tarka the Rotter, Alastair Darling is English, born in London.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

George Laird: your organisation, and obviously you too, has a very biased view of human rights. To qualify for compassion from your sordid outfit, it helps to be a terrorist, anti democratic, and most definitely be oil-rich. Although the late maniac Moat was not in possessiion of oil wells, his depraved nature would most certainly have assured him of your support, had he not fortunately been removed from this life. His blinded victim, together with the others is of no concern to Bleeding Heart charlatans such as yourself.

Bobby Clarke

There is so many mangled "facts" in this article and in the posts, it is hard to know where to start.

The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between UK and Libya is not an issue as Al Megrahi was released but not under PTA. There are many questions to ask about PTA including whether a UK Prime Minister has the right to conclude a PTA which includes prisoners held under Scots Law. This is an interesting discussion but not directly relevant here.

Kenny McAskill will not take any blame for this. He can claim all the credit. There is no pressure on him for this decision. There never is if you are on the moral high ground.

The are many anti-Scots sentiments expressed above. Please help us to leave. Then we can all be good non-interfering neighbours.

Indy

William it may well be the case that the US have never "bought the line" about compassionate release but here's the rub. It wasn't a line.

Megrahi was released on the recommendation of the Prison Governor, the Chief Medical Officer in the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board. He was released because he is dying and therefore could not remain in prison.

So he has lived longer than 3 months - so what? No-one can put an exact time limit on how long someone will live. No-one doubts he is dying. We don't keep people who are dying in prison. End of story.

As for all the chat about enquiries and questions and so on. The Scottish Government has published all the documentation and correspondence surrounding both the application for compassionate release and the application under the Prison Transfer Agreement online (other than correspondence with the US and UK Governments which they have not been given permission to publish). Kenny MacAskill has made statement after statement. There have been committee enquiries at both Holyrood and Westminster. The SNP's political enemies (and I don't just mean the BBC) have moved heaven and earth to find something wrong with the process and failed.

So we are left with the fact that an decision was taken in line with Scots law and some people don't agree with that. Fine, we get that.

But give the conspiracy theories a break because they are just daft.

Indy

Anne Wotana Kaye 1 the criteria for compassionate leave is set out in guidance.

Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.

The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, generally it encompasses:

• those suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period;

• where the prisoner is severely incapacitated; or

• where continued imprisonment would, in light of the conditions in which the prisoner is being held, endanger or shorten his or her life expectancy.

An application from Mr Al-Megrahi requesting compassionate release was received by the Scottish Ministers on 24 July.

In accordance with normal procedure, the application was forwarded to the Scottish Prison Service, where the Prison Governor, Social Work, and medical staff provided advice on the application. Each report supported that Mr Al-Megrahi was suitable for compassionate release.

The Act requires that the Parole Board is also consulted. The Parole Board advised that Mr Al-Megrahi was suitable for compassionate release.

It may be that you think Kenny MacAskill should have refused the application anyway because of the severity of the crime. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it had nothing to do with oil. We do not need to curry either favour or oil with Libya - or indeed with the USA.

Peter Curran

When America and Obama need a scapegoat for Big Oil and an environmental disaster, it helps if the company can be linked to Britain.

Why stop there- let's link it also to Megrahi's release and to terrorism. Megrahi has conveniently failed to die after three months, so it must have been a dirty deal between the Brown government, Libya and BP. The imagined Special Relationship between Britain and America - which never existed except in the fevered imagination of UK politicians - goes to the wall, and fast ...

Do I believe the Brown government wanted such a deal? Yes, I do.

Do I believe that Libya wanted such a deal? Yes, I do.

Do I believe that BP may have wanted such a deal? Yes, I do.

Do I believe that the Scottish Government and Kenny MacAskill were a party to such a deal? No, I don't, not for a moment. The idea that the SNP government would have made such a deal is utterly ludicrous, as anyone who knows the history and nature of the relationship between it and Westminster realises.

The Scottish Government, the SNP, Alex Salmond and a large proportion of the Scottish people stand squarely behind Kenny MacAskill's brave and principled decision.

George Smith

Even if this was solely the fault of the Scottish government, surely the British government could have stopped him from leaving the country? After all, border control and immigration is a reserved issue.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Indy: Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. However, my original thoughts on this matter remain the same.

Peter Curran

George Smith: Correction - it was not the fault of the Scottish Government, it was the carefully considered, legal and compassionate decision of the Scottish Government.

Noa Zrk

George Laird speaks for Al-Megrahi, supporting the progressive liberal SNP in the shape of the shapechangers, MacAskill and Salmond.

Only Anne Wotana Kaye has spoken with a direct and profound honesty for the dead of Lockerbie.

North Briton

I would like to make two contributions to this conversation:

Firstly, I am proud as a Scot to live in a society where compassionate release subject to due process and enquiry is applied fairly by a brave minister in the face of pressure from vindictive, opportunistic and grandstanding US politicians.

I hope Mr McAskill will either ignore, or, which failing, star at the "showtrials" being organised for him in Washington solely for the purpose of electioneering by the protagonists.

Secondly, it is easy to imagine the process with BP's negotiations in Lybia. Final approval of the deal was probably being delayed by the Libyan negotiators saying that Mehgrahi's continued imprisonment was an obstacle to sign off. BP who have many discussions with different parts of HMG on a variety of issues would surely have mentioned this at some point, and this might well have triggered the discussions about the PTA which the Scottish Govt. apparently vetoed.

It is my view it is not apparent that either the Scottish Government or BP has done anything wrong or underhand here.

David Booth

Bobby Clarke. "Helping us to leave......so we can be good neighbour"
Helping to leave what, The Union?
If the SNP could motivate the majority of us to vote for a break up of the UK then the Union will break up.
However you may have noticed that the SNP has no majority in Scotland and when the people of Scotland are asked in polls about Scotland leaving the Union the majority say no.
Seeing the antics that Salmond and his henchmen get up to give me no confidence that they will run Scotland well but simply carry on blaming the English for all Scotland's problems.
Perhaps the SNP should have a new motto, might I suggest "It wasna me"

George Laird

Dear Anne Wotana Kaye 1

“To qualify for compassion from your sordid outfit, it helps to be a terrorist, anti democratic, and most definitely be oil-rich”.

No, you are wrong; my opinion is based on fairness and rule of law.

Equality has to apply to everyone even the people you don’t like.

“Although the late maniac Moat was not in possessiion of oil wells, his depraved nature would most certainly have assured him of your support, had he not fortunately been removed from this life. His blinded victim, together with the others is of no concern to Bleeding Heart charlatans such as yourself”.

Moat was a danger to himself and the wider public, he had to be arrested and there is also a matter of a trial to consider.

Before you release someone, you have to lock them up first, small point obviously worth mentioning.

Now, on to Noa Zrk.

“George Laird speaks for Al-Megrahi”.

No, I do not; he is old enough to speak for himself.

“supporting the progressive liberal SNP in the shape of the shapechangers, MacAskill and Salmond”.

If Labour had been the Government of Scotland as well as England, Megrahi would have been returned to Libya under PTA.

The deal in the desert, remember!

“Only Anne Wotana Kaye has spoken with a direct and profound honesty for the dead of Lockerbie”.

Actually in her post she never mentioned the dead of Lockerbie once, she was just having a go at me.

Keep up there is a good fellow.

I don’t detract in the slightest from the families’ loss, to imply such is beneath you.

Standards are important here among us.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Noa Zrk

"Standards are important here among us..".

They are indeed George, though yours are based on values which I do not share and consider to be reprehensible as they put consideration for the victims of Libya's aggression below consideration for their murderer.

Megrahi was convicted of murder under due process of Scottish law and should have served his full sentence unless his conviction was overturned on appeal.

The US politicians seeking a full explanation for his release are no less accountable to their electorate than the politicians at Westminster and Edinburgh who, combined, willfully or otherwise to release him.

Yours sincerely

Noa

The Campaign for the Assertion of Human Justice at Glasgow University and elsewhere

George Laird

Dear Noa zrk

Should get a guess spot on the Spectator to do a piece on why it is okay to be unfair and toss rule of law and equality out the window.

He starts off with agreeing with me:

"Standards are important here among us..".

After that we differ on the nature of values when he opines.

“They are indeed George, though yours are based on values which I do not share and consider to be reprehensible as they put consideration for the victims of Libya's aggression below consideration for their murderer”.

A court returned a guilty verdict; Megrahi was convicted and was serving his sentence while protesting his innocence.

“Megrahi was convicted of murder under due process of Scottish law and should have served his full sentence unless his conviction was overturned on appeal”.

At this point Noa recognises the value of the rule of law.

Where he then falls down in his argument is that he is willing to abandon the rule of law as indicated by indy quoting:

“Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds”.

So, law is good when it suits him, when it doesn’t, his own subjective belief carries more weight and makes my values reprehensible because I argue the rule of law must apply all the time and equally.

“The US politicians seeking a full explanation for his release are no less accountable to their electorate than the politicians at Westminster and Edinburgh who, combined, willfully or otherwise to release him”.

Actually, the public don’t get a say in Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 unless Noa is suggesting that mob rule should replace an independent process.

Is that what he means?

You can have rights only if we agree and have no objection to you exercising them!

Has he understood what the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Convention of Human Rights is all about?

“Noa
The Campaign for the Assertion of Human Justice at Glasgow University and elsewhere”

Ah the final comic touch, Fraser Nelson, as we both went to the same educational gaff could you let Noa do a piece on why it is okay to be unfair and toss rule of law and equality out the window.

I think it would be an eye opener for the troops.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Noa Zrk

George Laird
I’m afraid the joker is you in this matter.
Section 3 provides a discretionary ability, not a duty or obligation, to release prisoners serving a life sentence on compassionate grounds.
So the specious argument about the application of the rule of law, so often the last resort of fools, the naive and scoundrels, falls away. If the convicted mass murderer of over 200 people had died in prison no one would have blinked an eyelid and justice would still have been seen to be done.
If his conviction had been overturned on appeal that too, would have been acceptable and ‘withn the rule of law’. It wasn’t, though by now it could and might have been.
So the posturing, preening and self congratulation of the two SNP buffoons is all the more nauseating and their incompetence all the more obvious, when Megrahi continues to walk and talk; an obvious refutation, indeed living proof that the West cannot and will not defend its women and children.
Interesting though it may be the Prisoner Transfer Agreement is irrelevant to the Section 3 release. Manifestly it was done for partisan Scottish reasons, which both the UK and US governments rightly condemn.
Perhaps in future years we will find there was collusion in this matter between Scottish politicians North and South of the border to effect Megrahi’s release. Though personally, as I subscribe to the view that they are singularly incompetent as well as arrogant, I doubt it.
As to the plug for your blog, interesting and valid though your personal campaign may be against the administration of Glasgow University may be to you, it is irrelevant to the Megrahi’s premature evacuation.

George Laird

Dear Noa zrk

“George Laird
I’m afraid the joker is you in this matter”.

Is it really?

All law must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998, where fairness and equality is enshrined.

“Section 3 provides a discretionary ability, not a duty or obligation, to release prisoners serving a life sentence on compassionate grounds”.

Yes and that discretion would be exercised if the prisoner would upon release represent a danger to the general public.

Megrahi did not!

So who is the joker now? Certainly not me.

“So the specious argument about the application of the rule of law, so often the last resort of fools, the naive and scoundrels, falls away. If the convicted mass murderer of over 200 people had died in prison no one would have blinked an eyelid and justice would still have been seen to be done”.

In your first sentence you call me a fool for asserting the rule of law but in your second you 180 that concept because you deem it acceptable to deny his rights.

“If his conviction had been overturned on appeal that too, would have been acceptable and ‘withn the rule of law’.”

That is mighty big of you when you are adamant that Megrahi was guilty, why accept the rule of law on that?

“So the posturing, preening and self congratulation of the two SNP buffoons is all the more nauseating and their incompetence all the more obvious, when Megrahi continues to walk and talk; an obvious refutation, indeed living proof that the West cannot and will not defend its women and children”.

It seems that Iran cannot do it either when the Americans shot down a civilian airline.

“Interesting though it may be the Prisoner Transfer Agreement is irrelevant to the Section 3 release. Manifestly it was done for partisan Scottish reasons, which both the UK and US governments rightly condemn”.

It was done according to the rule of law and due process, not partisan reasons as you wrongly suggest.

“Perhaps in future years we will find there was collusion in this matter between Scottish politicians North and South of the border to effect Megrahi’s release. Though personally, as I subscribe to the view that they are singularly incompetent as well as arrogant, I doubt it”.

If that was the case have you filed against them for breach of due process?

Have you filed against them to the Standards Commissioner for neglect in public office?

“As to the plug for your blog, interesting and valid though your personal campaign may be against the administration of Glasgow University may be to you, it is irrelevant to the Megrahi’s premature evacuation”.

Do you read the Times or Glasgow Herald?

In their letters pages it is common for writers to end letters by their name and what they represent.

As to my campaign, I won’t do into details as the Spectator previously asked me not to but I would say, every ‘I’ is dotted and every ‘T’ is crossed and when people ask me to put up or shut up, I ask ‘where do you want the evidence sent’.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Noa Zrk

Dar George Laird.

Thank you for your reply.

The fact remains, that a couple of thousand words later, our respective views and conclusions remain entirely unchanged.

Tis better to travel than arrive!