The debate in the parliament yesterday brought out some problems in the procedure. You can agree with the substantive decision but disagree with the procedure that led to the decision (for example, I find the decision to visit Megrahi in prison when the relevant minister had 2 outstanding applications in front of him almost inexplicable and potentially legally damaging, although I believe that the decision to release on compassionate grounds was virtually legally inevitable and think it correct). I am not sure that this is what happened yesterday in the Scottish parliament but the nature of the motion before the Parliament applauding both the decision and the procedure would have placed someone like myself in a difficult position. Right result, but wrong working was not an option.

I agree with your views on the Tory approach here. Their conspiracy theory seems to operate as follows;

The UK government negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement which included Scotland when only 1 Libyan prisoner was in Scotland. The PTA was signed to further commercial interests. The PTA would allow the UK government to transfer the prisoner to Libya. The commercial deals would follow megrahi’s transfer. Problems with this theory? (a) the decision lay with the relevant minister responsible for criminal justice – in Scotland the Justice Secretary in the Scottish government. The UK government could not intervene in the decision. (b) while empowering the government of Scotland to make a decision Article 3 of the PTA precluded any transfer when there were outstanding appeals (and given one appeal was from the Lord Advocate (Scottish leading prosecutor) for an unfairly lenient sentence) nothing could be done until those appeals were dealt with – so even if Megrahi dropped his appeal (as he did) the Crown appeal continued (it was only dropped after the application for compassionate release was granted). Any suggestion that the UK government could promise release is suggesting that they would interfere with the independence of the Scottish prosecution service. (c) The idea that the Uk government could force an SNP minister to do something for Uk interests when the SNP were against the PTA (they even had an emergency statement in the Parliament on it when it was originally suggested) is laughable. The governments hate each other. (d) in any event the Uk had a formal undertaking in the run up to the Camp Zeist agreement that meant any sentence would be served in Scotland. See the comment appended to an excerpt from the Times article by professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the Lockerbie trial arrangement in his blog at http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/britain-accused-of-breaking-promise-to.html (it gives references to the international material).

If as they appear to allege the UK government did have a deal with Tripoli then it’s the worst negotiated and drafted deal in legal history – because all of the powers to transfer lay in the hands of third parties over whom they had no power: the Scottish government to make the decision; the prisoner if there was an outstanding appeal (where Art 3 of the PTA precluded transfer); and the Crown office in Scotland whose own appeal was outstanding meaning the PTA could not operate in relation to Megrahi (and Crown Office only dropped the appeal against an unduly lenient sentence following the release of Megrahi on compassionate grouonds because such an appeal is pointless if the prisoners is going to die). If Cameron and the Conservatives are suggesting that the independent Scottish prosecution service in the Crown Office could be pressured by the Westminster government to facilitate the PTA (which is the implication of their comments) that is a very serious allegation. Would they ever dream of making a similar allegation about the DPP? Of course not, because for the Conservative party at Westminster Scotland is a far away country of which they know little.

I think it’s worth pointing out, in a little more detail than there is space for in the article, the specifics of Iain Dale’s hypocrisy when he seeks to ‘pin’ the Al Megrahi release on Labour.

On 6 March 2007, Iain Dale wrote:

‘And while I’m at it, I’ll pay tribute to John Major for starting the whole process and also Tony Blair for seeing it through. Blair has done many things throughout the last few years in Northern Ireland which not only stuck in my throat, but I suspect his too. But there is little doubt that we wouldn’t have got to where we are today if he hadn’t done them.’

That is, he accepts that what Dave above refers to as ‘political pragmatism’ has been necessary.

Now, though, at a safe remove from the very real success of the government in bringing to an end the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland – a success not even he could deny in 2007, though he was keen to ensure that his party took the credit – he implies that such political pragmatism, including the early release programme, was not really necessary at all, and is something else to bash Labour with:

‘The UK government has been caught tacitly encouraging the release of a convicted terrorist…….. Some of us won’t be surprised by this after what has happened with prisoner releases in Northern Ireland, but we don’t have to support it.’

It’s only a throwaway comment in a throwaway blogpost, but I think still quite revelatory. He had no need to draw parallels with Northern Ireland, as the circumstances do not allow for it, but it would appear he couldn’t help himself.

Yes, Dave merrily accuses Labour of “double dealing” – I’d call knowingly trying to drum up a fake scandal “double dealing”.

Ok, all true. Prison hospital, anyone?

But was it really necessary to send him back to Libya, knowing full well that the
mass murderer was to receive a hero’s welcome seen on telly worldwide ?

This was no ordinary crime. Sending him back to the same country that orchestrated the same terrorist attack ain’t the same as releasing simple ailing criminal.

The Scottish parliament voted to condemn the actions of the Executive in releasing Megrahi, with all the Opposition parties uniting against the SNP.

Not all of them. The SGP sided with the SNP (as did Malcolm Chisholm), and Margo MacDonald (amongst others) abstained.

Of course the Tory response is opportunistic in the extreme. But their line of attack is effective, because Brown has a reputation for talking out of both sides of his mouth, and he’s been caught doing precisely that here. Frankly, the most unfortunate thing here is that the left seem to want to rally around Brown over this. As I’ve argued myself, this story is actually a golden opportunity to get rid of him. Like it or not, Brown’s behaviour over Lockerbie reinforces the meme that he is duplicitous and untrustworthy. Moreover, we all know that Brown is, more than anyone else, standing in the way of a Labour recovery. So why prop him up when he’s wounded? This is the time when Labour should finish him off, for all our sakes.

‘If we’re going to talk political pragmatism, releasing such prisoners was a stunning success for Labour.’

A gesture which wouldn’t have been possible if the prisoners had previously been released on compassionate grounds, or in return for Libyan oil money…

@4 Claude, isn’t it normal practice to deport not yet naturalized immigrants who commit a crime after they serve their jail time? I could be wrong, but I thought that was standard procedure. As for the hero’s welcome, may it serve him well in the cancer ward which is his new home.

@5 Dunc, whoops. Thank you.

@6 Soho. I really don’t see Gordon Brown as duplicitous. I’m not a Brown fan – I campaigned for the other guy and would have voted for him – but I don’t see the duplicity here. Maybe you can point it out.

As for Brown standing in the way of a Labour recovery, he’s no worse than anyone who would likely replace him. Besides, at least one of the potential successors has been caught in the same position as Brown himself.

@7 soru – er, what? You’re not comparing like with like. Releasing the prisoners in Northern Ireland achieved its objective; the groups which had prisoners released are now largely decommissioned. We have no idea and can only speculate as to the realpolitik that influenced the UK support for Megrahi’s release – and thus we have no idea as to whether or not it was achieved. So really you’re talking out of your bum.

Soho Politico – it’s a good post. But I’ve been arguing for ages that Gordon Brown is so tactically and politically inept that his continued leadership gives the Tories an even bigger chance of a landslide.

But it seems Labourites like being liek chickens taken to a slaughterhouse. As long as no one challenges Teh Big Boss.

@6 Dave,

Well, the Libyans were told that Brown did not want to see Megrahi die in jail. Brown did not say this in public. His only public comment was to say that the reception Megrahi received on his return digusted him. Now that looks cowardly at best, and deceptive at worst, since it looks as though Brown was secretly encouraging the Libyans to believe he was on their side, whilst taking pains to avoid giving that impression to the Americans. Was there actual duplicity, rather than the mere appearance of it? That depends on whether there was originally an agreement with the Americans that Britain would ensure that Megrahi died in prison. I understand that there is some controversy over whether that is so. If it is, Brown’s silence represents a lie by omission – a failure to tell an ally that the govenrment’s position had changed. Regardless, though, Brown has committed diplomatic suicide, on behalf of the country. He has failed to state the position of the government openly and accurately to a key ally. He has damaging Britain’s diplomatic standing, and hurting Labour’s reputation for probity. I’m not saying it’s the worst mistake a PM has ever made, or that it’s a capital offence. But, for a man who is daily draining the life and soul out of the biggest left-wing party in the country, it’s enough of a reason to hang him out to dry.

@ 10 Sunny,

By my calculation, there are about 300 lefties in the whole country who disagree with you there. Unfortunately, though, they are all Labour MPs…

Spot on Soho Politico with that post at 11.
The sheer ineptitude of Brown over all this is staggering.
The SNP have emerged from the shit-storm that he hoped might engulf them with enhanced credibility.
By the way, curious that the BBC is the only media outlet whose poll ‘shows’ a majority of opinion in Scotland being aganst release. Some have spoken of spin and/or iffy methodology, beacause all other polls show a majority of Scots backing the release…

For release / Against

Dumfries & Galloway Standard 88.4% / 11.6%

Annandale Observer 73% / 27%

Perthshire Advertiser 90.6% / 8.4%

Ross-shire Journal 87% / 13%

Scotsman 58% / 42%

Lennox Herald 80.5% / 19.5%

Oban Times 89% / 11%

Kilmarnock Standard 72.5% / 28.5%

East Kilbride News 71% / 29%

West Lothian Courier 75.2% 24.8%

Hamilton Advertiser 60.3% / 39.7%

Airdrie Advertiser 56.1% / 43.9%

Wishaw Press 83% / 17%

Paisley Daily Express 62.23% / 37.7%

I’m very much inclined to agree with Soho Politico. Of course Tories will mount opportunistic attacks but Brown & co. did not do themselves any favours.

As to whether al-Megrahi’s release to Libya was OK… I do not know. I do not claim to know Scots law. But are international relations a devolved matter? And is it Scotland or the UK that is in control of our borders? The point being that I do not believe it is reasonable for Brown & co. to wash their hands of the whole affair even if they had been honest about it.

it’s because honesty along the lines of “we felt releasing a dying man back to Libya in exchange for some oil contracts was in the national interest” will generate negative headlines in the daily mail.

Of course the other option “we let him die in Jail to prove how large our penises were, even if it costs us some oil deals” would also have generated negative headlines in the daily mail.

So all in all the best strategy would have been to say nothing except “its a devolved matter”, and then diverted the media’s attention by providing the daily mail with some pictures of kittens, and subsidised porcelain figurines of princess diana

LOL @15

By the way, curious that the BBC is the only media outlet whose poll ’shows’ a majority of opinion in Scotland being aganst release. Some have spoken of spin and/or iffy methodology, beacause all other polls show a majority of Scots backing the release…

Alisdair – that is curious. Did the BBC do their own poll or did they use the same polls but come to a different conclusion? And where did you get those numbers from?

‘you’re not comparing like with like. Releasing the prisoners in Northern Ireland achieved its objective; the groups which had prisoners released are now largely decommissioned.’

Yes – it would only be like with like if the prisoner release in NI had been conducted not by a open deal (albeit secretly negotiated) successfully sold to the public., but by persuading some warder to leave the doors open. And then trying to get him sacked for doing so, while simultaneously claiming it was an internal prison service matter.

‘– and thus we have no idea as to whether or not it was achieved. So really you’re talking out of your bum.’

If noone knows what the consequences are, then they can hardly have been said to have been achieved in any way more solid than putting Gadaffi in a good mood for a day or two.

‘hey, Mr Dictator, by selling that oil to the Chinese, you have gone back on our secret agreement that I can’t publicly admit to having made. Especially now it is revealed as being worthless due to the fact you went back on it’.

Meanwhile, by pretending that this stuff was the normal functioning of the legal system, not a special case of realpolitik, they may well have created an dangerous precedent. Remember that whether or not he was guilty of the bombing, Al-Megrahi was a paid henchman of a billionaire. It’s why Gadaffi wanted him released – have to look after your own.

One of the important constraints on the actions of billionaires in this country is that if they have their thugs murder someone, at least the thugs are pretty likely to go to prison. So they find it difficult to have people killed, and most probably don’t even bother.

This is not universally true of all countries, to say the least. In some, you know that if you cross the wrong person, you will end up dead, and no matter how badly the person who kills you screws up, they will have all the witnesses and lawyers and doctors needed to ensure they get off.

A law that says ‘you can get out of jail free if your sponsor has enough money to pay a private doctor to lie, or has some way of faking symptoms’ is a much bigger threat to civil liberties than 95% of the things civil liberties campaigners spend their time on.

“A law that says ‘you can get out of jail free if your sponsor has enough money to pay a private doctor to lie, or has some way of faking symptoms’ is a much bigger threat to civil liberties than 95% of the things civil liberties campaigners spend their time on.”

…as we jump off at the deep end of the conspiracy theorist pool.

Suggesting that, say, Anna Politkovskaya was quite likely bumped off by FSB agents acting on behalf of business interests is hardly lizard-people territory.