[The following relates to the subject matter of another recent post, but this one was sent as an unpublished letter to the Scotsman, and as usual it's a slight consolation to post it on here for the delectation of my substantially smaller but no doubt considerably more discerning readership ;0)]
In attempting to reconcile past and current statements made by Kenny MacAskill on the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Bruce Skivington (Letters, 23 July) arguably underlines the contradictory nature of the justice secretary's utterances.
Mr Skivington points out that last year's statement by Mr MacAskill - the decision was "his and his alone" - refers to the fact that it was not for anyone else to decide.
However, to decide something necessitates some exercise of discretion, but Mr Skivington also points out that Mr MacAskill effectively had no choice in the matter, being bound by established precedent on the compassionate release of dying prisoners.
Indeed, the justice secretary's statement to that effect last week - that he had "little discretion in the matter" - seems totally at odds with the the process presented last August; he certainly didn't convey the impression then that the decision on Megrahi's release was effectively a fait accompli.
Thus If Mr Skivington is correct than last year's rigmarole amounted to little more than geopolitical grandstanding by the justice secretary.
Moreover, if Mr MacAskill effectively had a legal duty to release Megrahi then in the domestic context the Scottish public were proffered little better than a political and legal charade.
The people of Falkirk deserve better
1 hour ago
2 comments:
Hi Stuart
I've not much more to say on this matter except that I disagree with your assertion about MacAskill partaking in "geopolitical grandstanding".
I'm sure the SNP knew last year that the release was bound to be unpopular in many quarters, so what other motivation was there?
You seem to imply that by attracting publicity, they promoted the SNP and Scotland as a nation on the world stage. That might have been a fair point were it not for Salmond and MacAskill's refusal to attend the ill-thought out Senate Committee Hearing.
George Galloway seems to think Salmond would have no problem handling Senate questions, and what better opportunity for "geopolitical grandstanding?"
Hi Andrew
I think this relates back to what was said at the time about the decision being quasi-judicial rather than political, but the justice secretary spoiled this slightly by the sermonising nature of the speeches he gave, not to mention the "wha's like us" ethos of some of the things he said, which seemed more (geo)political rather than purely q-j.
However, it would perhaps be wrong to overplay that aspect of things, but in view of the more recent claim that Mr MacAskill had effectively no choice but to grant the compassionate release then this perhaps adds credence to the original grandstanding perspective.
As for the Senate Committee hearing, presumably there are numerous pros and cons in whether or not to attend, but perhaps Salmond and MacAskill felt that attending would look too much like kowtowing to the Great Satan - clearly a widespread view, and not one confined to nationalist sympathisers - which I'm inclined to agree with personally as well.
And clearly it's also a widespread view that the senators have wrongly conflated the interests of Blair/BP et al with that of the SNP Government, which of course few here would try to do. Indeed I recall saying this at the time when some American thought seemed to take the slightly ludicrous view that the justice secretary had merely been acting on instructions from Labour in Westminster.
In truth, Andrew, do you really think Mr Salmond would have spurned the opportunity if he had thought the pros would outweigh the cons?
On a similar point, I suspect that Mr MacAskill probably viewed the Megrahi decision as something of a poisoned chalice, but on the other hand as a politician he would endeavour to do what he could to exploit the issue to best advantage.
As for Geordie Galloway, perhaps the fact that he was a backbench MP rather than a head of government meant that the dynamic of his turning up in Washington vis-a-vis the Senate Committee was different to that of Scotland's first minister. From Galloway's perspective he probably took the view that there was no possible downside at all.
Post a Comment