In yesterday’s statement MacAskill was even clearer, saying that “it was not only the law and guidance in Scotland that were important but the values of Scotland.” He further acknowledged that the compassionate release was based on “my interpretation of the values of Scotland.”
James Bowman, writing yesterday on the New Criterion blog, hit the nail squarely on the head:
“Compassion is a virtue, but it is a private, a face-to-face virtue which almost invariably ceases to be one when it takes on a public dimension. An act of compassion by a government, in the full glare of publicity, is not a virtue but a bid to be given credit for moral superiority.”Kenny MacAskill is a nationalist. He thinks that humanity is “a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people”, the implication being that other nations embody less humanity. That’s moral nationalism, the notion that the people of one’s own nation are morally superior to others.
MacAskill’s claim to have acted “according to the laws and values of the Government and people of Scotland” conflates the views of the SNP Executive and the country — another nationalist trait.
“Our beliefs,” he says of all Scots, “dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown.” And so on: “the values of the people of Scotland”, “the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live”, “our values as a people”, indeed even “our people”. Nationalism again. We’re different. We’re better.
MacAskill’s statement ticked several other overtly nationalist boxes: notably his reference to the “restoration” of a Scottish Parliament (redolent of the use of “reconvened” in 1999) and the negative connotation of the word “restricted” in a reference to the Scottish Government’s remit.
I have no reason to doubt that MacAskill thinks he did the right thing. He genuinely seems to believe that our values [sic] place a higher priority on showing compassion to Megrahi and his family than to the many bereaved families whose legal closure has now evaporated. But whether or not MacAskill is sufficiently self-aware to realise it, his nationalism underpinned his decision.
I appreciate that your post is related to the nationalist roots of the decision.
However...how can that decision have been made by anyone? 270 people died as a result of the bomb. The guy was found guilty. None of the 270 people got any time in their final moments with their family...Megrahi gets at least a few months with whoever he likes.
Utterly ridiculous!
Cracking. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Grumpy SD
I'll be interested to note whether the sock puppets who've been infecting my blog decide to allege 'anti Scottish racism' of your (very similar) reasoning. Cos apparently that's the only reason one might object to sweeping generalisations about the innate qualities of 'the Scottish people'.
It should also be noted that his decision to make the announcement at 1300 hrs could *only* have been intended to place himself on American breakfast television.
When asked why he had not released al-Megrahi to a hospice in Glasgow, he replied that the security would be prohibitive (looks as if the Police are saying different) and that it would be unfair on the other residents. How fucking dare he now develop a concern for the feeling of innocent parties.
"I will have to live with this decision". Resign then. Oh, you didn't think that responsibility comes with influence?
Dr Jim Swire is not a nationalist but he hit the nail on the head (in my view)in his article in the Herald yesterday when he highlighted the fact that the USA system of justice does not have the concept of compassion built into it the way that ours does.
The part of the statement Kenny made which addressed the moral justification for compassion was aimed primarily at a USA audience. He was attempting to explain why the Scottish judicial system allows for the release of a dying man no matter what he has done. Kenny has not in any way attempted to conflate the views of the SNP Government (the SNP Government did not take the decision - he did) with the views of Scotland but he did explain that the laws and values of Scotland allow for compassionate release of prisoners who are dying, irrespective of sentence and irrespective of whether the prisoner has expressed remorse for the crime. It is clear from the statements of people like Robert Mueller for example that this is an alien concept to many Americans. Kenny had to try and explain it, even though he was clearly unsuccessful.
There was no reason for Kenny to set out the concept of compassionate release in tnat way to his political opponents in Scotland, for the simple reason that they already understand it. No serious politician in Scotland has challenged the concept or justification for compassionate release - rather, they have challenged Kenny on why he did not decide on a compassionate alternative under which Megrahi would have stayed in Scotland.
That's a fair point. Although I agree with the decision to send Megrahi back to Libya it is perfectly valid to ask Kenny to explain why alternatives were ruled out and I would expect him to provide all of the advice he was given.
But the key point as far as I am concerned is that the principle of showing mercy to a dying man has not been challenged here, it has been challenged by politicians and other commentators in America but not here.
That is what we would expect because what Kenny said was true - the values underlying compassionate treatment of prisoners are part of the judicial process and are common to all MSPs. Whether or not that is a 'nationalist' point is irrelevant. This was not a political decision but a judicial one.
Yes, I think you're right. My sense of identity and self also helps me to believe that MacAskill has made the correct decision and one which reflects the values of the Scotland which I aspire to. Such a shame that none of the unionist parties share that view of a Scotland based on humanitarian values, but would prefer to see an American justice system based on one-eyed retribution.
Jim this was not a political decision so there is no nationalist/unionist issue as far as I am concerned.
Jim
Quite a few unionist politicians do agree with Kenny's decision. And more of them are speaking out.
I don't think this argument is necessarily a unionist - v - nationalist argument - although it has been presented in those terms.
I think it is more about how we view the concept of compassion for the sinner - which was adopted into Scots law long before 2007.
I would be surprised if any other Justice Minister from any other party (except perhaps the Tories) would have made a different decision to be honest.
This has actually been a bit of a storm in a teacup. The Justice Minister applied Scots law to a case where the criteria for applying it was met. That should not come as a huge surprise (let's face it the UK govt were banking on it, weren't they).
The thing that I think it controversial about the whole issue is why was Megrahi's appeal dropped.
Piffle, Indy. You have no idea of the world of hurts your wretched party is in. Your very reference to Macaskill by his forename pegs you as a knob who wishes to present himself as a homely, unpretentious distiller of apple pie wisdom... just like Macaskill, just like George W Bush... but you come across simply as a knob.
>> The part of the statement Kenny made which addressed the moral justification for compassion was aimed primarily at a USA audience.
Precisely what I and SU said, and it was obscene. Obscene the way he thundered, before an inkling of the obscenity of what he'd done sunk in, that "we have different values". That is, compassion doesn't exist in the American system.
He was able to consider the feelings of other hospice patients, but not the hundreds of (American) relatives of the dead. Why is that? My personal view, which is more likely that your piffle, is that he didn't see it humans who had been blown-out of the sky at 31,000 feet - some remaining conscious until impact.
It was only Americans. Who gave him the right to speak for Scotland?
That is why what he did, and what you're defending borders on criminal malfeasance. The only people I have more contempt for just now are the gutless Scott, Goldie and Gray who didn't force through a motion of no confidence against the morally crapulent Macakill and Salmond.
>> Such a shame that none of the unionist parties share that view of a Scotland based on humanitarian values, but would prefer to see an American justice system based on one-eyed retribution.
You are equally clueless as Indy. He received compassion when he wasn't executed. He received compassion when he wasn't thrown into a rat-infested, disease-riven cell. He received compassion when he was granted an appeal in 2007. He received compassion when he received medical care. He received compassion when his family were permitted to visit.
Moral Philosophy 101: not releasing him would have disappointed his family alone; releasing him has insulted hundreds of families, none of whom were responsible for their grief.
They should have won, but they didn't, and Scotland lost.
Cheers alec, such wise words from a true man of the world. Was it a long and lonely road that you travelled en route to such wisdom?
Will you be calling for the Americans to surrender Captain William C. Rogers III to a middle Eastern court any time soon? Perhaps the Israeli commanders who murdered all those Palestinians will be on your horizon, or are you still trying to round up the IRA murderers released under the terms of the good Friday agreement?
If the likes of you are railing so hard against it, then I am comforted that the correct decision must have been taken.
Alec evidently you have strong views about this but you are trying to make this a political issue when really it isn't - and you are trying to claim that there will be political consequences to a decision which you disagree with simply because you disagree with it - not because you have any evidence that what you claim is true.
Until we get some Scottish polling done we will all be in the dark about public opinion but for what it is worth on the basis of canvassing in the NE by-election this weekend, and what I have been hearing from other parts, most voters don't have any strong feelings about this decision one way or another. Of those that do, they appear to be split about 50/50.
It is wishful thinking on your part to imagine that the SNP is in a world of hurt. You have nothing to base that on except your own feelings.
Equally it would be wishful thinking for nationalists to claim that the decision has cemented the SNP's popularity or moved us any further forward to independence.
In my opinion it will make very little difference to peoples' voting intentions, one way or another, because most voters have the common sense to realise what is political and what isn't.
Please either stop referring to Macaskill by his forename or start referring to every actor by their forename. It's unseamly and reveals a complete lack of any sense of the seriousness of the situation.
>> Quite a few unionist politicians do agree with Kenny's decision. And more of them are speaking out.
I am not one to turn this into a Unionist/Snuppie thing (although Macaskill certainly did), but can you name a few?
>> This has actually been a bit of a storm in a teacup.
The nadir has been reached. You contemptable ~*bleep*~.
>> The Justice Minister applied Scots law to a case where the criteria for applying it was met.
Oh, don't make me laugh. From Section Three of Chapter Nine of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993:
>> Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds (1) The Secretary of State may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
>> (2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.
>> (3) The release of a person under subsection (1) above shall not constitute release for the purpose of a supervised release order.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1993/ukpga_19930009_en_1
Nowhere, according to your posturing and morally vacuous cant, does it say that Macaskill was *required* to do so. Sub-section Two, in particular, if Macaskill turns out not to have consulted Strathclyde Police has arguably been disregarded.
>> That should not come as a huge surprise (let's face it the UK govt were banking on it, weren't they).
So what? We're back to your low-personal morality, as with your toe-curling embarassing defence of Salmond's vow to fight for the haggis. Except, this is more important than some bloviating reactionary's temper tantrum over a boiled sheep stomach.
But you, subscribing to grubby grievance based nationalism, cannot see this. To you, it is simply a wha' like us triumph.
Your politics are disgusting, Observer.
You are quite sinister, Jim. This is the most serious foreign policy issue to have hit Scotland since 1745 when a poncy, flatulent Italian landed with the intention of subjugating the British Isles; and which McMoonface has turned into the biggest single foreign policy disaster for the Jacobite movement since 1745 [...]... and all you can do is engage in puerile, passive aggressive namecalling.
Same for you, Indy. Non-issue??? Not one of ewes have a modicum of awareness as to the earth-shaking seriousness of this, and with every brain-fart heap on evidence as to the gesture, sixth-year politics of your wretched party and why not one of ewes, right up to McMoonface, is fit to run a university SU.
Oh rubbish. It is not a foreign policy decision at all - nor is it of earth-shaking seriousness.
Interesting, Alec, that you would like to make the connection between the Jacobites (surely modern Tories would be the obvious descendants?) and the SNP?
Puerile, passive aggressive namecalling? ouch! you've got me there.
It's a serious foreign policy issue is it? Gosh! you sound so worldly. Will you enlighten us all as to how the big brains like yourself, Iain, Annabel and Tavish managed to think through all the repercussions in such a short time, leaving us poor ewes staring at the headlights?
Alec, you do make yourself to be an easy target by rather over-dramatising the situation.
I disagree with the Megrahi decision, but that's based on my personal opinion I suppose [as briefly seen at the start of the comments, and in my blog].
I find it difficult to consider this a political decision (and it's certainly not the most serious foreign policy issue to hit Scotland since 1745, Alec).
The only suspicion I would have is if Megrahi has, and MacAskill and co. knew he had, more than the expected 3 months left to live. If that was the case, he should still be in prison and any release was too early (in my eyes) for compassionate grounds. But I've not really read into it enough to know if this 3 months is a 'cert' or not.
Not that I think he should've been released anyway.
Part of the nationalist problem here - as demonstrated in some contributions above - is that a crude dichotomy has been posited between the compassion of Kenny MacAskill's decision on the one hand and the likes of the USA's retributive system on the other.
That's nonsense - for example, I wouldn't want to see al-Megrahi locked in his cell with bread and water to die, with no access to his family, but he didn't have to be returned to Libya to show compassion.
Psst, Daily, I was being a pantomine character. At points. I'll leave you to work out which.
Indy and Jim, only a weary resignation at your inability to understand prevents my plumbing the infinite depths of my pedantry and explaining the difference between sarcasm and sardony to you.
Of course this was a foreign policy decision, and your difficulty in seeing this must rank up there Macaskill's surprise that Gaddafi might be a venal liar who doesn't fail to waste an opportunity to cause embarassment. But maybe 1745 was overly dramatic. How about Rudolph Hess?
Face it, if the opposition parties had an ounce of integrity or smeddum, motions of no confidence would have been called. A little bit of awareness of the brink the SNP was tottering on 48 hours ago (and could return to with more info) wouldn't go amiss - heck, even the Fish-heid has stopped referring overtly to Scotland, and Macaskill is bleating like a bairn who's had too much cake and is crying that his stomach hurts - but you have returned to the same mean-spirited, petty gloating that has defined the past two years.
Plus ca change.
But Stuart that dichotomy exists. The SNP has not created it in order to justify the decision if that is what you are suggesting.
If, for example, you click the link to the James Bowman piece that SU references, the paragraph SU quotes from continues thus:
"I leave to one side for the moment the increasingly insistent questions in the British press as to whether, in fact, this act of "compassion" was part of a trade deal with the Libyans. As a public act and therefore in the domain of honor, even if we no longer believe in that honor, it was in any case an admission of weakness, which is naturally how the Libyans and the rest of the Arab world interpreted it. Weakness and fear. We, the compassionate, the proudly moral West have been grievously injured by this terrorist, and yet we decline to make him pay the full price for his crime. In the eyes of those who value honor, and they are many outside the West, that counts as a victory for our enemies in whose name he committed it, and an ignominious defeat for us. To them, we are a beaten animal who shows its throat to an attacker to signify that the fight has gone out of it."
This was a moral choice, which was not of Kenny MacAskill's choosing. But avoiding it was not possible. Given that we cannot accept a view of the world like Bowman's the opposite case had to be made.
Sardony... Crikey you are clever! (oh bugger! Is that sarcasm I'm using? Do let me know what you think won't you?)
And what a great defence. "Ach I was only kidding, at some points... but you're too stupid to see where"
Well, that's the signs of a pure level headed genius isn't it, I'm playing with fire even trying to keep up with your rapier wit.
Indy, you're surely not suggesting that the only way to show compassion to al-Megrahi was to return him to Libya last week and that, for example, the US system is totally without compassion?
For example, al-Megrahi was shown compassion by being allowed access to Sky TV, and of course this is just one small everyday example, although I concede that in fact such indulgence could in fact be construed as mental cruelty!
You force me to point out Alec that if it was a foreign policy decision it was a British decision not a Scottish one.
As for why Labour pulled back from the no-confidence motion over the weekend I suggest it was because they, like the SNP, have been testing opinion on the doorsteps. They do possess at least one ounce of smeddum.
I short, I don't see this as a Unionist/Snuppie thing. However, the attitude which Indy emobodies feels the need to defend any policy decision by the Snuppies.
Morality Chez Indy - release a convicted mass-murderer despite numerous viable options to offer him compassionate treatment in Scotland.
No thanks.
Stuart - no that is not what I am saying at all.
As I have pointed out there is actually not much division between politicians in Scotland (or indeed south of the border) on the issue of releasing someone from prison because they are dying.
The main bone of contention appears to be whether it was right to send him home to die or to keep him in Scotland, whether in a hospice (totally stupid idea but never mind), private residence or whatever. I don't recall anyone saying that they would actually make him die in jail.
If you are of the Bowman/Mueller/Boycott Scotland point of view however anything other than making him die in jail would be a sign of weakness. As it would be for the minority of people in this country who are of the same mind. Let's face it, if Megrahi had been released to a private home and/or hospital room people would have complained about that too - foreign terrorist being treated on our NHS, police protecting Lockerbie bomber rather than us etc. We could all write the headlines now.
You are changing your tune here Alec.
Are you now saying that it was right to release Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, but wrong not to stipulate that he must remain in Scotland?
Incidentally - how many times must it be explained to you that this was not a political/policy decision made by the SNP but a judicial decision made by the Justice Secretary before you get it?
Alec - you really need to calm down. Just because someone holds a different point of view from yours doesn't make them a contemptible blip. Try reading a few of the papers, I think you will find that support for Macaskill's decision is in no way confined to nationalists. And get some therapy while you're at it for those anger management problems you seem to have.
Dear Onionist
Common decency isn't a nationalist trait, it is commonly found in lots of individuals.
I am sure that the SNP would be the first to say that.
But in petty minded Labour politics the milk of human kindness only flows when political advantage can be had.
Just think of how this country would be under Iain Gray, even Tories would reel from that.
Luckily for the Tories, an SNP Government is here.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
I don't want to enrage Alec further (well, not much) but I think it is unlikely that he reads the Guardian, so he may have missed this article from wur ain Iain Macwhirter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/24/megrahi-kenny-macaskill-scotland
As Iain says, the decision to release Megrahi may have been controversial. But it is entirely understandable. The only real area for dispute is whether Megrahi should have been kept in Scotland (wholly impractical in my view) or allowed to go home to die.
Indy
"He further acknowledged that the compassionate release was based on “my interpretation of the values of Scotland.”"
Not sure of the judicial aspect of Kenny's interpretation?
Does this 'Compassion' of yours apply equally to a child rapist who then murders their victim..........and then later suffers cancer and asks for compassionate release with proper police safeguards.
Mr Mxy etc
Yes.
I think the issue here is whether Kenny's, sorry MacAskill's, decision is "rooted in nationalism" or not.
Nice try SU, but there seems to be plenty of support for the decision from voters of 'unionist' parties across the UK.
You say he made "a bid to be given credit for moral superiority." This is pure rhetoric. Try applying it had he had refused compassionate release. It works both ways. You are playing games.
KM never said "humanity" is only reserved for Scotland. You made that assumption.
He has indeed acted "according to the laws and values" (of Scotland.) Compassionate release is part of our judicial system and has been used by previous Justice Ministers.
It is "our beliefs" because it is our law, not the SNP's.
"Restoration" does not mean "Reconvened", rather much closer to "Renewed" as used by unionist Donald Dewar at the opening of the Parliament. More piffle.
"Restricted" means foreign policy is reserved for Westminster. And don't you know it.
SU, I can see you have tried hard to get a nationalist-only angle on this one, and have failed.
You see, I disagree with his decision, based on the fact that an appeal will not now happen, and the victims' families will never get real "legal closure". Indeed, some of them would prefer compassionate release than the locking-up of a political scapegoat.
PS
Some of the obscenities and name-calling on this thread make Wardog look like a puppy by comparison. I'm sure you don't wish to be accused of double standards.
S.U
the one fact that concerns me over the Megrahi decision is prior to kenny's statement.
None (that is zero) of the usual suspects had made any comment in favor of compassionate release.
Yet after the snp had made their views known they flood the Blogosphere in praise of Scottish compassion.
I wonder (with good reason) if Kenny's decision went the other way whether the snp chorus would be singing a different tune in praise of good old Scottish retribution.
Wardog ( not your average Scot i know) says how proud he is of the Al Megrahi case.
All those innocent people on that plane and those from the village.
The man found Guilty dying an awful death from prostate cancer.
May lead to many emotions but pride is not one that comes to my mind.
I put the list of The Victims of the Lockerbie Bombing on my Blog.
Just reading the names of the 270 innocent people takes a long, long time.
Most of the pro Kenny Nationalists just dismiss the innocent victims and heap praise on treating the perpetrator(Kenny expressly acknowledges and accepts Al Megrahi Guilt and rightful conviction) with a compassion which those passengers never received.
Indy
if you have a child look them in the eyes and tell me if you would still feel the same way?
Unless anyone here had an espresso with the Justice Secretary today at Beanscene, he is Macaskill. That the same posters calling him Kenny are also calling a mass-murderer al-Megrahi suggests they don't see this individual as an individual, but simply an adjunct to their argument.
Indy, your ability to blather is incredible. You are in a loose-loose situation.
You're incorrect. Macaskill was not obliged, in law, to release al-Megrahi; and he was most certainly not obliged to allow him to walk free in Libya... IS THAT CLEAR? So, stop claiming that he was.
Even if you were correct, it was not a moral act. To do something which one is obliged to do is not a praiseworthy deed, and more than my taking a leak is. Rhetoric clearly is not your strong point.
Your dismal preformance over attempting to mitigate Salmond's haggis-cry, and Macaskill's Great Satan remark marks you as an extremist: psychologically incapabable of admitting to a single mistake, the slightest error of judgement.
As such, your defence here - to the extent that you must be right both in law and morality - of this sorry affair is both predictable and meaningless.
PS Is Jim, in fact, Wardog? He's certainly as unremittingly unpleasant.
You know the rules, Observer, disagreement with you is not a sign of mental instability or uncontrolled rage: it makes you look like a five year old showing her botty to those boring adults.
>> Alec - you really need to calm down. Just because someone holds a different point of view from yours doesn't make them a contemptible blip.
Didn't say it did. You, however, said this was a "storm in a teacup". Remember?
>> Try reading a few of the papers, I think you will find that support for Macaskill's decision is in no way confined to nationalists.
That's not what you said. You said "politicians" (and I never did say it wasn't limited to Snuppies).
>> As Iain
Pathetic and childish.
>> says, the decision to release Megrahi may have been controversial. But it is entirely understandable.
You take pride in releasing mass-murderers? I think you mean "can be understood". Rosie Bell has a good piece on this sort of extremist mentality which ends up tripping over its own shoelaces:
http://rosiebell.typepad.com/rosiebell/2009/03/i-understand.html
"Is Jim, in fact, Wardog? He's certainly as unremittingly unpleasant"
;-)
Aw diddums! Alec, don't you like it when someone takes to disparaging your efforts?
Where are we now with the biggest foreign policy disaster since the Jacobite rebellion?
In the Herald, It's fast trains and John Prescott supporting the decision.
In the Scotsman, it's fast trains and some nit-picking over the medical reports.
In my work at the coffee machine it's the brilliance of Arsenal and that cheating, diving git Eduardo.
Meanwhile someone like you who sprays petty invective around like it's fairy dust that we should all be grateful to receive (I'm not going to bother recanting your insults to the first minister or other members of our Parliament) thinks I'm unremittingly unpleasant. It's a funny old world indeed!
Alec I have never said that Kenny was obliged to release Megrahi or send him back to Libya. Nobody has said that so you are just creating arguments that don't exist. Neither did I say it was a moral act - I said it was a moral choice. Whether one agrees with kenny's choice or not will depend on your moral perspective as well as considerations of the law. However it is valid to point out that the choice Kenny made was consistent with the choices made by all previous justice ministers under devolution, none of whom have refused an application for compassionate release which met the same criteria as Megrahi's, and that that it is supported across a broad range of political opinion
On that note I have it on good authority that one of the Labour 'rebels' who supports Kenny's decision is George Foulkes. Surely to God if anything demonstrates that this is not a party political matter it is that! Can anyone seriously imagine Lord Foulkes supporting an SNP minister on a political matter?
Mr M if someone murdered my child I would want to rip them limb from limb with my own hands.
But justice is not meted out by the families of victims in this country but by courts and there is a reason for that.
Indy / Observer
I can see why you would want to distance this decision from politics, but I don't know where you get your news from.
The decision was taken by the SNP Justice Secretary. It was roundly attacked in Parliament and the newspapers by the leaders of the main opposition parties (Labour, Conservative... and sigh!! Lib Dems, I suppose!).
It has been defended online mainly by Nationalists.
Whilst I aknowledge that John Prescott and Malcolm Chisholm have openly gone against their party line and the Calum Cashley has done a fine job in unearthing other support for the decsion, I think that SU's post has a lot of merit.
I'm not naturally a Nationalist, but in Scotland today, only the SNP project the vision for a successful and prosperous Scotland which abides by values that I think are worthy. Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are simply too confused about what they think to be able to actively promote Scotland and a vision for Scotland, therefore I find myself an SNP supporter by default.
Perhaps you think the same way as I do but don't believe the decision to release Megrahi was political because it would be your natural position in any case but as you are both overtly Nationalists, I think that once again that proves the point SU is trying to make ie that the decision was indeed underpinned by Kenny's (Sorry, can't help myself!) Nationalism.
Jim
I'm really shocked by some of the venomous outpourings of cyber-unionists! Must start a blog to prove they're all deluded hate-filled bigots ;)
No matter which colour a nation's government may be, it often speaks positively of the values the nation holds dear. This is a positive, aspirational thing, and certainly doesn't mean you are judging anyone else. Only in Scotland (and specifically when it's the SNP) do people like you stick such rhetoric under a microscope and decide it's ugly. I mean how awful of 'MacAskill' to promote compassion and humanity as values of our society. If all nations want to compete to be the most humane and compassionate then that's fine by me!
Jim
I thought from the get-go that once the hysteria died down about this, the apparent unanimity in the unionist parties would crumble, and quite honestly I think that privately that a minority of nationalists may disagree with this, although they haven't come out and said that. But such was the blitzkreig of criticism that was aimed at Macaskill from both the UK and the US, I can see how no-one broke ranks.
Although the SNP are nationalists, they are also a left of centre socially democratic party, who are not attached to US foreign policy, and who are generally socially liberal in their views towards immigration, asylum seekers, mutliculturalism, and penal policy (amongst other things). They want a fairer society, and that includes being fair to the individual. I think it is that attitude as much as nationalism which is speaking here. That these values are now attached to the SNP shows how far to the right the other parties have drifted. Apart from the Tories who have always been there.
Alec have you tried reading any papers yet?
>> Alec I have never said that Kenny was obliged to release Megrahi or send him back to Libya.
Stop lying. Of course you did: "This was a moral choice, which was not of Kenny MacAskill's choosing. But avoiding it was not possible".
Furthermore, why are you not calling the bomber, Abdul? What kind of sick, compassionless monster are you? You can't even get his surname right.
>> But justice is not meted out by the families of victims in this country but by courts and there is a reason for that.
>> Perhaps you think the same way as I do but don't believe the decision to release Megrahi was political
Tom Harris has pulled you up on this:
http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2009/08/26/disagree-with-macaskill-then-youre-not-right/#comment-25813
>> Judicial decisions are taken by judges, political (or at least executive) decisions are taken by ministers. If this were MacAskill’s decision alone, none of the other members of the Executive would be bound to support it through collective responsibility. But they are, because it is policy.
Fly away Indy, fly away Zeynep.
>> Alec have you tried reading any papers yet?
Yes. You do realize your original claim was nothing of the sort and you're plumbing even lower depths of personal morality by pretending it wasn't?
I guess this means sub Leninism knows no gender barriers.
1. Kenny did not choose to be asked to decide on either Megrahi's application for compassionate release or the Libyan Government's application under the PTA. He could not avoid making either decision.
2. Tom Harris is wrong. It is not a policy decision. The SNP Cabinet did not decide the position nor did they vote on it. The decision was taken by Kenny MacAskill alone in line with the process and guidance used by his predecessors. As I have pointed out to TH, Kenny has said that the paperwork and advice from officials will be released. That will include advice from UK officials. It is therefore unwise of Labour MPs to try and play politics with this matter. It is unwise for any of them frankly.
I see from the Telegraph that Ben Wallace (Tory shadow secretary of state for Scotland) has written to the chairman of the HoC Scottish Affairs Select Committee asking for an investigation into matters including establishing "if the UK Government made commitments on behalf of the Scottish Government without prior consent (or without any constitutional legitimacy) and whether ministers did so in exchange for trade or other concessions from Libya."
If it emerges that the the UK Government did behave in that way what effect will that have politically?
The irony of it is almost painful. But if such proves to be the case it will surely end all suggestions that Kenny's decision was politically motivated.
*was
Alec I think it's fair to ask you what planet you are posting from.
My original ''claim'' as you put it, was that quite a few unionist politicians agreed with Macaskill's decision and that more of them were speaking out.
So what are you on about?
Observer, you really ain't helping your claim to be non-partisan when you are hard-wired to see this as a bunfight between Onionism [1] and Snuppiedom.
There must be prisoners in China who know that, from the beginning, my argument has been extant from my thoughts on the Union (which are separate from my thoughts on Snuppiedom). Being an extremist who cannot conceive of differing views, you cannot see this.
Now, Indy, my little fudgemuffin, please do tell why you know more 'bout parliamentary procedure than a former PUS.
[1] I've just gone a' hunting down at the allotment, and bagged myself a brace of onions. Mmmm, Mmmm, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Alec
What's with all the playground politics?
"How fucking dare", Indy is a "knob", "morally crapulent Macakill and Salmond", "you contemptable ~*bleep*~", "your politics are disgusting, Observer", "You are quite sinister Jim", "McMoonface", "Indy, my little fudgemuffin", blah, blah...
And all with a strong dose of venom and vitriol.
Then you have the audacity to say to another blogger..."all you can do is engage in puerile, passive aggressive namecalling."
Need I say any more?
Incapable of debating without personalising suggests an inferiority complex. Do you need help?
Sorry SU, but have you stopped moderation?
Andrew, I forgot where I was in the initial posts, then I moderated my language. Cussing can be quite cathartic, and name-calling fun... but it's *all* Jim was doing.
Alec without wishing to be nationalistic about this Tom Harris has never been a memnber of either the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government/Executive.
When he says that this was a policy decision by the SG he is simply wrong.
Neither does it have anything to do with 'parliamentary procedure' as you suggest.
Aw puir wee Alec! Was that bad Jim calling you names? :'-(
Maybe if you read the thread from the top down, you'll see where you went wrong... It's fairly near the start, so shouldn't overly stretch your limited levels of concentration, but if you do forget where you are again, just ask, maybe your colon will be able to answer...
>> Alec without wishing to be nationalistic about this Tom Harris has never been a memnber of either the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government/Executive.
You're not being nationalistic; you're just being a twit. The Scottish Parliament was created under the aegis of the Westminster Parliament, which Harris has worked in for eight years. Furthermore, he will know and work alongside a considerable number of MSPs.
What is your claim to authority? This is going to be a repeat of time you said the Scottish Community never had owed its allegience to the Crown, isn't it?
Jim, why don't you just fap off, you darn-tooting son of a gun.
[/mustrum ridcully]
Alec – please! Let’s not personalise this.
I have never said anything about allegiance to the Crown. We live in the 21st century, such concepts are bizarre.
What I said was that Tom Harris is wrong when he claimed that this was a policy decision of the entire Scottish Executive. It was not. That is factually incorrect.
The twit remark, or like the time swear words were taking tangible form in Ankh Morpork?
Indy, I was not referring to life in the 21st Century (and, if I were, the Crown still remains an accepted term for allegience to the state); and what is your reasoning?
Furthermore, he was responding to your assertion that this was a judicial decision by Macaskill, who is a politician and not a high court judge.