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.