I think Kenny took the view that if he went near anything to do with the prisoner transfer deal he would get involved in all the speculation that we are now seeing.

He therefore, as a trained lawyer, quite rightly laid all that aside and focused on the legal requirements as set down in Scottish law and the advice of the relevant authoriyties.

In effect in order to avoid political attacks he decided to treat megrahi just like any other dieing prisoner.

The public and others may not think he should have but there really is no basis in law for him to have done anything else.

The irony is that even though he played it straight by the book he is being accused of being nieave for not taking the politics into account by some and of doing so secretly by others.

He wouldn’t have been able to win whatever he did.

What idiot would be a politician?

Oh wait a minute….. me!

Peter.

Curiouser & curiouser…..

I think that we need to look beyond the immediate question of whether it was right or wrong to release Megrahi and consider two other things:

1 – What the affair tells us about the inter-relation between Edinburgh and London with regard to international diplomacy; and

2 – Implications of this affair for the standing of the SNP administration in Scotland.

On 1, I believe that there is much still hidden – and don’t expect it all to be revealed – but two things are apparent:

a – The SNP administration is not (yet ?) capable of handling international affairs well [see also Trump]. This could have ramifications for voters’ assessment as to how much clout an independant Scotland would really have.

b – The lack of transparency in Labour government circles and evident willingness to shift blame. As noted in the Populus Megrahi poll reported today, it seems that Brown comes off badly and so Labour will suffer as a result.

On 2, I think that the drop in SNP support seen in this poll is not directly as a result of voters’ views on the merits of releasing Megrahi. A more plausible explanation is that it marks the end of what has been an extended honeymoon for Salmond as FM.

It appears that for the past two years the SNP had been in full mastery of Scottish affairs. This may not have been solely due to Salmond’s ability, but down to a combination of no major problems and a lack-lustre opposition / alternative. A similar situation applied to Blair up until about 2001/02. Thus, there were no negatives to reduce SNP support and no positives to enhance support for the (divided) opposition.

What may now have happened is that voters are no longer willing to suspend their critical faculties, and will look at their choices more carefully. It does not automatically follow that the Megrahi affair will cause SNP support to drop, but it has removed the aura of invincibility.

The likely electoral impacts are varied. The SNP will still compare favourably against Labour, but voters may now look at all their choices, and this could benefit Cons and LDs in some areas.

Thus, I don’t think that it will damage the SNP in seats which are a straight SNP / Lab contest. But it will make a difference in those where Con or LD are a realistic proposition – whether currently held by SNP or in 3 or 4 way Lab-held marginals.

It will be intersting to see what the next Scotland only polls show – though if Brown were to go for an autumn election we may be putting that to a more thorough test.

I have no doubt that MacAskill acted with integrity on the basis of principle, humanity and the facts as they were presented to him, and with no desire to secure petty party political advantage. His stance since confirms his willingness to accept responsiblity for his actions.

However, integrity should not be confused with wisdom. All of the above is by no means inconsistent with him having acted naively and in ignorance of the duplicity of third parties which put in front of him the dilemma he faced. It is also fairly clear that he neither foresaw nor prepared for the reaction to the release.

Personally I don’t subscribe to the notion that the SNP used this as a means to provoke a row with London. Were that true, it has singularly back-fired. But if so, why has Edinburgh not paraded the evidence of pressure etc ? The only evidence we have in support of this thesis is that while MacAskill has tried to be open, London is resisting release of information. But to my mind, that suggests that it is London which has been scheming, not Edinburgh. That is further borne out by the UK Government’s refrain that this was entirely a devolved matter – as if ! Just ask yourself what any responsible government would say / do if a local authority were in danger of provoking an international incident.

I put good money on the Conservatives staying well below 20% of the popular vote in Scotland at any election in the next 10 years. I do not believe there is a ’shy factor’, unless you happen to live in a housing scheme in Glasgow.

Wait untill Cameron comes in, the Tories are hugely fragmented, and the European issue will bite them, as it has done for decades. Cameron knows this.

David P,

Asking Frazer Nelson, who is more or less a pratt and a tory, about Scottish politics is like asking your goldfish to make you breakfast. It will make something, but it will not be breakfast.

From this, and from his statements in the parliament before the election I came to the conclusion that he was a person of exceptional integrity, reason, principle and humanity. I am in no doubt that political considerations had no part in his judgement and that his reasons were exactly as he says.

The posters above who look for more complex explanations are basing them on the customs and practice of the Westminster parliament and are unaware of the context in which this decision would be judged by the Scottish Parliaments Procedures committee when they consider how well the parliament has lived up to its Founding Principles.

At the risk of being moderated for repetition I’ll say once again that Donald Dewar told me over half a century ago that his vision of a Home Rule parliament was that it would have principles, and that it would have a means of ensuring that it adhered to them.

The Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament has in eleven years had five leaders, each worse than the last one. They’ve come a long way.

Had Mr MacAskill chosen to play party games in the Westminster manner as his opponents have done, he could have focused on the lack of evidence to support the American families contention that assurances had been given by the UK government and on that basis he could have agreed to a prisoner transfer. That would avoid altogether the need to decide the question of compassionate release. He could also have made much more of the fact that the UK government refused to agree to the Scottish request to exclude the Scottish jurisdiction from the prisoner transfer agreement.

This would have directed American criticism towards the UK government. He did not do that and accepted full personal responsibility for a difficult decision.

I am saddened by the increasing adoption of Westminster bad habits which I attribute to the loss of Westminster escapees over the first two parliaments notably the loss of Donald Dewar and Jim Wallace and I am also surprised at Ms Goldie and the weak pretext which she used to criticise the decision.

Call me a racist if you like, but I am not surprised that the Libyans do not have the same standards of decorum and manners of an English country prelate c1930 and I thought their welcome rather restrained in the circumstances.

Perhaps Scottish backpackers should now follow the example of the Canadians and Irish. I think the former are actually officialy advised to sew the national flag on their baggage. The ones I’ve met all seem to do it.

I prefer the principle: “Never presume malice when stupidity will suffice.”

It’s quite possible that Justice Minister for the Scottish Executive, quite simply, made a decision that many think to be appalling, but others agree with.

@ Paul H-J

Are you sure that Salmond is centre-right? He was a leading member of the left-wing 79 group, so entryist and left-wing that they were expelled in ‘82.

They have shot themselves in the foot with a high risk strategy that has backfired.

And I think the initial polling reflects that.

Firstly as i expected on the Megrahi issue women are slightly more sympathetic than men although it’s probably down to more than being undecided.

What surprised me was the age breakdown as I suspected the young to be more supporting than the old (shows what I know). Equally the ABC1s are more supportive than the C2DEs.

The odd thing that this throws up is that the more supportive groups aren’t necessarily also the most supportive of the SNP, particularly the ABC1s.

This does throw up at least the possibility that the Megrahi decision isn’t actually the factor that is driving the changes in voting patterns. People have definite and strong opinions about the issue of compassionate release but it might not have altered their voting intentions.

Something has changed but I am not sure it is the Libyan affair is the only factor. Problem is I can’t think of anything else over the summer that has had the potential to cause the change.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

Peter.