The release of Abdelbaset Ali al Megrahi to Libya seems to have focussed the London media's attention on Scotland in a way that we haven't seen since the SNP came to power. Gerry Hassan believes that the al Megrahi case has revealed an English ignorance of Scotland's constitutional status:
A whole host of English based commentators: Alexander Chancellor, the Daily Mail, The Sun and more, seem to barely know Scotland exists as a nation with a separate judicial and legal system, which long predates devolution and stretches back hundreds of years. This ignorance, this absence of an understanding of Scotland and the nature of the union, matters, and matters when it spills over into in places to uncontrollable rage and fury at a small nation and polity daring to do things differently.
Tony Travers, writing for the Local Government Chronicle, encourages us to support Scotland's freedom but recognises that for many in England this affair is demonstration of an abrogation of Westminster sovereignty.
For the people of England, the revelation that a Scottish politician can make such a life-and-death decision with massive international ramifications serves to point out how privileged the Scots now are within the UK’s so-called constitution.
The New Statesman's James Macintyre believes that devolution itself is to blame and suggests that "the furore over the Lockerbie release may hasten the decline of the union":
This is precisely the sort of decision that should be taken - and be seen to be taken - at a national level by the British government, not by nationalists in one part of the UK. But devolution has led to a grave failure of accountability.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the decision to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, who do you think should take this sort of decision?
More wrongly, the Scottish press appear once again to be entirely out of their depth, unaccustomed have they become to dealing with global impacting issues. The coverage has been abysmal and the level of investigative journalism woeful.
Hence poll results that might as well have asked
"Should we have hanged al Megrahi"
As I believe that Scotland should be independent I voted Scottish Parliament. It was a big decision and I think that it should have been discussed properly by representatives of the Scottish people.
Although I think that it was an issue which warrented a debate in both the Scottish and UK parliaments before Al Megrahi was released, ultimately the decision is the responsibility of the Scottish justice minister and I see no problem with this decision being made by him alone. Ultimately I think we should be grateful that he had the guts to make this decision without referal to the UK government as it has done a great deal of good in exposing the fact that Scotland has the power and a government that can deal with issues of such international importance. The question being asked by many English people who have lived like mushrooms for the last 10 years is if Scotland is running her own affairs to this extent, why are Scotland's elected representatives having a say (or ultimate power in the case of the dear leader)in how England is run?
Good on the SNP and their Justice Minister for showing true independence with the decision. The Scottish government have laid down a marker for the world in showing that they want to be seen as capable of standing up for themselves. Now,when are we going to get the same autonomy for England....?
"Not by nationalists in one part of the UK ..."
Does that mean that James Macintyre wouldn't have objected so much if a Labour or Lib Dem Scottish Justice Minister had been making the decision?
The circumstances of the al-Megrahi release are so particular a Scottish Government may never face such a situation ever again. It's just a case of people who like to whinge about devolution finding something new to whinge about.
I agree with MacAskill's decision on principle. However, I regret that the principle of compassionate release was compromised by the fact that it was done as a reaction to the Libyan request for release under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the British Government. This meant that it couldn't be divorced from political considerations.
Brown Central were clearly hoping to put the SNP Government in an awkward position, knowing that whatever response they made to the Libyan request would be difficult both legally and politically. It's not entirely clear whether a decision to refuse prisoner transfer would not have been open to a legal challenge, given that it had been negotiated between two sovereign states, and Ivan Lewis had said the British Government say no obstacle to release under the terms of the PTA.
Depending on your view, the SNP government, either side-stepped a trap set by the UK government, or walk straight into one. But by choosing compassionate release under these circumstances MacAskill, unforgivably, used the sentiments of the US Government and US relatives to turn down prisoner transfer and then trampled all over those same sentiments in then releasing Megrahi back to Libya.
How could we have got to this state of affairs? I suppose the answer is through the desperation of both Labour and the SNP. This is yet another example of why I feel the present constitutional arrangements are bad for Scotland and bad for the people in the other nations of the UK.
PS. Gordon Brown’s silence is part of a Labour Party strategy and has precious little to do with not interfering with a quasi-judicial devolved process. Fortunately, that strategy has back-fired and this episode has been as damaging to Brown as it had been to the SNP.
Had Megrahi been transferred under a prisoner transfer agreement isn’t it possible that the Libyan authorities could have released him on compassionate grounds themselves, citing our own laws as their precedent? And the Scottish Government would still have ended up being accused of naivety and appeasement.
If Megrahi had remained in Scotland can you imagine the media circus any death watch would have generated, regardless of whether Megrahi was treated in prison or elsewhere? I’ve noticed one or two BBC journalists have insinuated that Megrahi isn’t terminally ill – a pretty serious accusation under the circumstances.
I voted for the Scottish Justice Minister. The Scottish government under the devolution arrangements have power in these matters so as a democrat I support him. The fact that it was a stupid decision is something the Scots will have to deal with.
"However, I regret that the principle of compassionate release was compromised by the fact that it was done as a reaction to the Libyan request for release under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the British Government."
One more in a litany of fallacies surrounding this issue. Compassionate release was considered - and could only be considered - in response to an application from the prisoner in question. It categorically was NOT a "reaction" to the Libyan government's application for release under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. It is impossible for this to have been so because the Scottish authorities had no power to initiate compassionate release proceedings.