27 August 2009
Posted by
Scottish Unionist
at 7:43 PM.
There are .
Kenny MacAskill:
“Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people.”
Angus Robertson:
“It is plain to most right thinking people that Kenny MacAskill made the right decision...”
YouGov Scottish poll:
“From what you know do you think releasing Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was the right or wrong decision to make?” The right decision 43%, The wrong decision 51%, Don’t know 6%.
ICM Scottish poll:
“From what you yourself have seen and heard do you think the Scottish government was right or wrong to release Mr Al-Megrahi?” Right 32%, Wrong 60%, Refused/Don’t know 7%.
Just found this: a UK-wide poll finding that 35% agree with the release and 53% disagree, little different to the Scottish poll. What now for MacAskill’s disgraceful claim that what he calls humanity is “a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people”?
Kenny MacAskill pleads "due process" in defending his decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But then, according to the same "due process", Mr Megrahi is guilty of 270 murders. Which begs the question: how far can compassion ever apply in such an extreme case? And if it does, could Mr MacAskill not have found another way of expressing that compassion?
Could not, for instance, Mr Megrahi have been kept in secure custody with appropriate medical support, while allowing those of his family who wished it to have access to the dying man? It seems to me that such an arrangement is not beyond the wit of man to organise. It would apply compassion to the case, it would reduce the chances of Scotland becoming an international pariah and it would, crucially, avoid the shocking sight of Scottish flags being waved in celebration at the homecoming of a man who has been convicted, under Scottish law and by due process, of mass murder.
*blip blap* *blip blap* *blippy *blappy* *blappity* *blop* *rabbit* *rabbit* *rabbit* *rabbit* *judicial not political* *rabbit* *rabbit* *I am the Angel of Death, the Day of Purification has come* *shotgun click* *rabbit* *rabbit* *rabbit* *the deconstruction of falling stars* *rabbit* *rabbit* *rabbit*
[...]
[...]
*blip*
OK, Alec. You win the surreal post of the day award. Care to explain what you're trying to say? (if anything)
SU
This poll was highlighted by Jeff from SNP TV a few days ago, and the detail is quite interesting if you look at Labour and Lib Dem voters, no? Certainly at odds with the positions of Gray and Scott, and clear proof that your previous thread was flawed.
I also don't recall the question having anything to do with Scotland's humanity. "Disgraceful" indeed.
BTW, presumably you weren't taking part in your previous thread. Can I ask why?
Indeed, Braveheart. Well said.
There is divergence along party lines but my point was that if MacAskill's decision exemplifies the “humanity” that he claims is “a defining characteristic” of Scots, setting us apart, morally, from other people, then shouldn't we expect to see significantly different reactions to that in Scotland and across the rest of the UK?
I didn't take part in the previous thread as an experiment. Sometimes I feel that I steer these threads rather too much. I just wondered if a long thread could develop organically without my intervention. Clearly it could.
I don't really give much credence to polls, so tend not to pay attention to them. But clearly the 43% of the electorate who approve of Macaskill's decision are not all dyed in the wool SNP voters, as they don't have 43% of the electorate in any poll I have read. I tend (still) to think that this is probably a fairly individual issue for many people, so might not make that much difference at the ballot box.
SU good for you letting the thread run on itself, you do prepare a stage well. However that Alec does seem a bit bonkers. Still, there is always room for character actors/ the comic turn.
I am late getting to it, but have a look at the Universality of Cheese. He has done a breakdown of regional paper's polls - tells a completely different story.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics and polls. But it's interesting reading, and gives more comfort to me than it will do to you.
Are only 43% of Scots “right thinking” and “true to our values as a people”?
And if a minority are “true to our values as a people”, how can they actually be “our values as a people”?
Does nobody else see a logic deficit here?
Observer: Do you mean this? Online polls are invariably skewed by disproportionate numbers of cybernats.
Front of the SNP website:
"Top Story: Scots opinion rallies behind justice secretary"
technically correct - I.E some people who are scottish agree with the justice secretary, but I read it as Scots to mean "The people of Scotland" as a whole.
mmmm spin.
The online polls only ask if Megrahi should have been released from prison, whereas the YouGov poll also seems to mention his return to Libya; I suspect a lot more people would answer yes to to the former question rather than the latter, since clearly many people think that a better option would have been to release him but to keep him in Scotland, although whether anyone voting online would actually consider that nuance is another matter.
But it's interesting that at the bottom of one of Montague's screen grabs it states: "You have already voted in this poll" :0)
A UK-wide poll in the Times has 61% disagreeing, with only 27% agreeing. It says the Scottish sample was too small to draw proper conclusions, but was more in favour than the UK as a whole. The poll also says that the SNP/Kenny MacAskill handled things badly (2:1), but that the Scottish sample was a lot more favourable to them.
Thanks for the Times link. It seems reasonable to expect UK polls to show somewhat lower support for the decision than Scottish polls due to the lack of SNP supporters who — if they also favour independence — tend not to want to undermine the ‘cause’. But there isn’t massively less support. It isn’t so wildly divergent that the different ‘Scottish values’ which MacAskill imagines become a plausible explanation. Another factor influencing opinion is that Scottish media has focused more on the Salmond/MacAskill dimension than the suspicions involving Blair, Mandelson et al.
Isn't it ironic that, while there is a significant anti-American strain to nationalist rhetoric (Trident, George W Bush, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. all bring out the "USA = Devil element, and UK = US poodle, therefore UK=bad, therefore we need independence), that MacAskill's speech sucked up to US sensibilities so much, in particular with his "cancer is god's punishment" line, designed to appeal to American religiosity.
But the "Scots are more special" bit is also a lift from the common, and usually sickening, US politicians' "American exceptionalism" approach. It's US politicians who are always quoting the "compassion" or "humanity" or "family values" or some other quality is an "American value" as if somehow, other people and countries are inferior in moral judgement or status.
As SU says, it's a product of unthinking nationalism that "we" are somehow better than "them".
Ususally SNP supporters would be scorning it as just the USA assuming a predictatble superiority that it does not have. But when Kenny does it: that's all right.
gawdblessamericaw
Spot on, Braveheart. Whether big-N Nationalism (as per SNP, Plaid, Esquerra, Parti Québécois etc) or small-n nationalism (which, in the American context, you have described to a T) the us/them moral delineation is at best implicit.
Bottom line: the world needs to move beyond nationalism in all its guises. Even in reconstructed, highly spun, civil forms, it’s a corrosive social force.
So what's your take on the Megrahi decision then SU? What would you have liked to have seen happen to him? Bearing in mind the medical opinion that 3 months was deemed a reasonable prognosis for his life expectancy.
I see you're having fun twisting others words, but I'd be interested in what you actually think about it.
Where do you imagine you are going with this and how do you think it will strengthen the Union?
The Times has already commented on the discrepancy between Scottish opinion and opinion south of the border, where most people think the decision was about oil.
As more details emerge about the various meetings between UK ministers and Libyan ministers that perception can only increase and the divergence of opinion between Scots and English will also increase because very few people here think the decision had anything to do with oil contracts etc.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Scotland's unionist politicians for helping to polarise opinion in opposite directions.
Jim:
“So what's your take on the Megrahi decision then SU?”
That isn’t really the point of this thread, but it’s a fair enough question. Firstly, I don’t envy Kenny MacAskill; there are compelling arguments on both sides. Secondly, the issue of the possible miscarriage of justice has no relevance to the decision. Al-Megrahi was, and remains, guilty in law. My initial reaction was to support MacAskill. Compassion is one of the marks of a truly civilised society, and despite my frustration at his attempt to politicise the issue in his statement, that aspect was (and remains) appealing. But on reflection, the lack of compassion shown to the victims’ families, whose sense of legal closure was in many cases destroyed by this decision, should in no way have taken precedent over the display of compassion to Megrahi and his family.
“I see you're having fun twisting others words”
Whose words? Please don’t imagine that I agree with Alec’s criticism of you on the other thread. You and I have in the past disagreed without impugning each other’s motives.
I meant that you're probably enjoying using Tom Harris's angle that people who disagreed with the decision to free Megrahi were 'wrong minded', because Angus Robertson said most right-thinking people would agree with it.
That's the type of stance you would expect from someone trying to pick a fight.
I'd say that most right thinking people would at least have sympathy for the situation MacAskill found himself in.
I noted previously this point that releasing Megrahi was somehow denying compassion to the victims of the families. I simply disagree with that notion. No-one has ever denied the families of the victim's any compassion ever. From an American perspective, having someone rot away in a prison cell may offer a sense of legal closure, however, Scottish Justice was asked for. That's what's been given. Had Scottish justice not been available, no court case would ever have taken place. Where would the legal closure be then?
Also, I do wish people would pay a bit more attention to the reason why he's been released. He's dying of a horrible disease in what is likely to be an extremely uncomfortable set of circumstances. He hasn't been released in order that he can go backpacking or out to the dancing, he's gone home to die and anyone who suggests this is better than spending another 19 years in Greenock prison before being released as a free (albeit older) man is kidding themselves. The useful part of his life is over.
I’m neither unaware of Megrahi’s health situation nor enjoying any of this. Scotland’s (and Britain’s) international reputation has taken a significant hit. The deeply distasteful but often suppressed Wha’s Like Us? tendency of Scots nationalism has never been more obvious. Meanwhile, opinion has polarised between those whom senior SNP politicians imagine to be ‘right thinking’ and in tune with ‘Scottish values’ and others who, while no less genuine or compassionate by nature, simply disagree. Far be it from me to suggest that such emotional blackmail is a form of intellectual fascism. I wouldn’t want you to invoke Godwin’s Law; this unfortunate debate will have legs for some time to come.
Indy: “...the divergence of opinion between Scots and English will also increase ... I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Scotland's unionist politicians for helping to polarise opinion in opposite directions...”
Revolting; big-N Nationalism at its most divisive. Strongly redolent of SNP MP John Mason’s 2006 statement that “any suggestion of a strengthening of a link between Scotland and England is what I’m opposed to.”
That’s not an answer SU. You have not said what you think should happen.
It sounds a lot like the Labour/Lib Dem position – condemning the release but unwilling to say what they would have done.
I would have more respect if people were prepared to say that if they had their way he would only have been released from prison in a coffin. But nobody, other than the Sun and, bizzarely, Jeremy Purvis has said that.
That is what I think needs to be teased out when the debate happens.
Labour and the Lib Dems haven’t quite sorted out their position and the tendency of elected members of their respective parties to support Kenny’s decision is a bit awkward (Charles Kennedy the latest Lib Dem to support the release). They will need to get that sorted out by next week or the whole debate will be a farce.
We know the Tory position – release him from his sentence but impose conditions which require Megrahi to die in Scotland. An interesting role reversal in some ways, it’s not often you hear Tories saying let’s keep foreign terrorists in the UK, provide 48 police officers to make sure he is safe and treat his disease on the NHS but there you go, politics is a strange business.
The flaw with their argument however, apart from practical considerations, is that it is a compromise which would fool no-one. It would not provide the legal closure that (you think) the families who are unhappy have lost because he would still be a free man, his sentence would be served.
If the priority is to give those American families what they want you (and the opposition politicians) should be prepared to stand up and say that Megrahi should never have been released and should have died in prison.
Whilst I agree with you regarding the 'Wha's like us' mentality, I don't think that Scotland's reputation has taken anything like a significant hit at all. Or did we already have a reputation for keeping dying men locked up that I was unaware of?
If the Americans can tolerate Guantanemo Bay and the Abu Grahib torture fiasco, then I'm sure we'll survive sending a sick man home to die.
Jim
you can see my take on Megrahi as posted at 8.22pm yesterday.
Any comment?
If you think it is revolting SU why do you encourage it?
You are encouraging it.
Scottish Unionist = own worst enemy
Well Scottish Unionist, if you think that releasing someone on compassionate grounds means that the vicitms relatives lose sense of 'legal closure', and that justifies keeping them in jail, then that's essentially arguing to do away with release on compassionate grounds, unless it is a victim-less crime the perpetrator committed. If the victims relatives think they have lost legal closure then they are quite simply wrong: Megrahi has been released to die, he has not been pardoned. Perhaps someone should explain that to them, rather than exploiting their understandable distress.
If you are arguing that the feelings of the victim's relatives overrides the principle of cpmpassion for the dying, that puts you four square against Scottish law as it stands jus now, as well as foursquare against Kenny Macaskill and a growing number of other politicians, commentators, and the Churches.
And as for Scotland's reputation taking a hit - aye in the USA. It has not taken a hit in other parts of the world where this humanitarian decision has been welcomed.
And as more and more facts emerge, I think we are going to see a very clear distinction between the behaviour of Kenny Macaskill and that of other politicians ionvolved in this mess.
Let's take a poll a few weeks from now - when the dust has settled - and see what that says. I venture that a good few minds will have been changed by then.
Braveheart, thanks for asking my humble opinion, seeing as SU seems to be running some sort of social experiment in the organic development of threads, I'll oblige.
I think releasing him with the condition that he stay in Scotland equates to not releasing him at all. ie that would have been the easy way out and would mean that our traditions were being altered to suit American ideas of justice.
Scottish Justice was asked for and Scottish Justice delivered.
I wasn't sickened by the waving of the Saltire in Tripoli at all, I wish it hadn't happened, but I assume that it was a Libyan tribute to the way in which Scotland has acted throughout the process. Perhaps the yanks who are used to seeing Arabs burning their stars & stripes number in the streets were somewhat put out by it, I can't believe that anyone else actually cares.
I don't think Scotland has or will become any sort of International Pariah over our handling of this case, and those who think it will should look at the world around them, there's a whole lot worse going on than sending a dying man home in order that he is dealt with according to his traditions exactly on his imminent death.
Actually Jim, I just have too much else on my plate today – and I’m going out shortly so won’t even be approving comments for a while. Sorry to leave questions to me hanging.
Just one quick point: Muslims die in Scotland too, and are dressed, mourned and buried entirely appropriately. You're really grasping with that one.
Grasping? Ach come on! I probably shouldn't have confused matters with the 'in accordance with his traditions' patter. I'm not seeking to justify him being allowed home. I think it was the right thing to do full stop. I certainly don't think allowing him home will turn us into 'International Pariahs' though and that's really what that sentence is all about.
Jim, thanks for answering.
I have to say I find it difficult to see the thread of logic holding your post together.
e.g. "I think releasing him with the condition that he stay in Scotland equates to not releasing him at all".
Clearly getting him out of jail and into more congenial surroundings and allowing his family free access is "release" of sorts and is better than being in Barlinnie.
"... would mean that our traditions were being altered to suit American ideas of justice"
Can't make head or tail of this comment. It's nothing to do with "American ideas".
"Scottish Justice was asked for and Scottish Justice delivered."
Clearly due process was used, but as I pointed out, due process also says Megrahi murdered 270 people. If due process is infallible in MacAskill's decision it must be assumed to be infallible in Megrahi's sentencing. Just saying that the Justice Secretary has the power to order compassionate release doesn't mean that he got it right in this case (BTW, no Scottish murderers have been released this year for compassionate reasons...why not?).
"I wasn't sickened by the waving of the Saltire in Tripoli at all...I can't believe that anyone else actually cares.2
"
I was and so was the majority of Scots. I suppose it depends on who and how you like to see your flag used or abused for and by.
BTW I'm not a great lover of flag waving like most nationalists seem to be, but I was genuinely shocked to see those pictures.
"I don't think Scotland has or will become any sort of International Pariah over our handling of this case.."
Maybe not. I wonder who'll be holding Eck's hand at the next Tartan Day Parade?
ICM poll for the BBC: 60% of Scots thought the SNP government was wrong to release Megrahi. Only 32% thought it was the right decision. 57% believed Megrahi should have remained in prison until he died, while 37% thought he should have been released at some point prior to his death. 68% thought the decision was influenced by factors other than Megrahi's health, while only 20% believed it was made purely on compassionate grounds. (Full results)
SU
Perhaps we should make judicial decisions by referendum and let the media present the arguments for and against, before the poll is taken. My guess is that we would return quickly to capital punishment, with X-Factor-style telephone polling.
I disagree with the decision.
I disagree with MacAskill's over-use of 'Scotland' in his press conference.
I believe that MacAskill's decision was part-based on the fact that Megrahi was the fall guy and possibly the subject of a miscarriage of justice, even though KM would never say this. (If he really believed Megrahi was THE killer no question, the weight of the crime would have prevented compassionate release.)
I was wholly embarrassed with the sight of waving Saltires in Tripoli.
I am frustrated for the families who were holding out for an Appeal which may have identified and convicted the real culprits.
But the worst aspect of this chapter in Scotland's history, is the way this release has been politicized and sensationalized by Scottish politicians and the media, setting people miles apart where differences are relatively small. The media, and the way that politicians have used the media, has made this whole thing look like a gameshow. We seem unable to debate an issue without reverting to outright spin.
And I've not even mentioned US hypocrisy.
I don't think any part of Macaskill's decision was based on the premise that Megrahi was possibly a fall guy. That would have been wholly wrong for a Justice Minister, who is duty bound to uphold the findings of the Scottish Judiciary, unless a Court has decreed otherwise.
He acknowledged the disquiet that surrounds the conviction, which I think will be the next chapter in this story, particularly as there are rumours that Christine Graeme is to name the ''real'' Lockerbie bomber in the Parliament - whether she will or not remains to be seen.
If we are on the subject of polls, then 68% of Scottish lawyers surveyed believe that Macaskill administered Scottish law to the letter. I agree with them.
However I believe that this episode has been but a prelude. It is quite clear from the Herald today that Megrahi is indeed dying, and that he is determined that he is going to release whatever information he has in an attempt to clear his name.
As someone who has been convinced from the get go that Megrahi was a patsy I shall view the proceedings with great interest. But that will have nothing to do with my support for the SNP; as I said at the outset I do not believe this is a nationalist -v- unionist issue. It is far more complex than that.
Braveheart, interesting that you should mention logic when it is precisely the emotive nature of the subject that is causing such consternation.
Why would you have him released to remain in Scotland? What purpose would that serve?
I'm sure that as his condition deteriorated had he been not released, then he would have been moved into more congenial surrounings than his Greenock prison cell anyway - equates to exactly the same as you are suggesting.
In Scotland we don't just lock people up and throw away the key though (I'm sure you could find some example from the criminally insane being detained indefinitely, but please don't go to the effort on my behalf). We don't sentence people to die in prison. There must always be the chance of one day being free, but justice demands a minimum sentence. Dying of cancer is no shortcut round the sentence imposed by the courts - you still spend the useful part of your life incarcerated until such point as the doctors think a 3 month prognosis is appropriate.
For my part, there are many more aspects to this case than those addressed by Kenny MacAskill did following due process, but in the manner that he did, his logic was impeccable - with perhaps the exception of the prison visit, but my SNP sympathies allow me to forgive him that one error of judgement - I see the rest of the country tends to disagree with me, but then again I read somewhere that 80% of people think they are above average drivers, so I'm pretty happy to swim against the tide on this one too.
HI SU - as a supporter of the UK, if a somewhat sceptical one, I like your blog, a contribution to rational debate - much needed.
I do believe the ICM poll reflects the reality of what Scots believe (see Wardog's blog for some canny caveats however), and that belief is reinforced by the flood of anecdotal rebuttals based on gab in offices and pubs, and by the referrals to easily manipulated online polls run by newspapers.
I read your Braveheart post yesterday and think you missed a trick in responding to the 'only a movie' argument. Birth of a Nation was also 'only a movie' celebrating Scottish 'values' but there is no doubt that it led to a revival of the Ku Klax Klan in the US south - the Klan openly recruited outside cinemas.
I don't think Braveheart had quite the same effect for two reasons: (a) most SNP supporters are, like everyone else, mostly decent people, (b) most working-class Scots recognise at bottom they have perhaps more in common with working-class English people than the bankers circles in Edinburgh.
"Why would you have him released to remain in Scotland? What purpose would that serve?"
two things: Kenny MacAskill obviously thought there could be reasons ... he investigated it and rejected it because of costs and security.. 40 polis or something, although Stratclyde Police said "Wot? Nobody asked us".
Two. We're not talking about me, we're talking about Kenny MacAskill. I wouldn't have had him relased at all, necessarily. But if a convicted murdere of 270 people has to be released, I don't think anyone is under any obligation to give him his best preferred option. Do you?
"....there are many more aspects to this case than those addressed by Kenny MacAskill did following due process..."
As I pointed out earlier, due process says Magrahi is guilty of 270 murders... it cuts both ways.Compassion for someone who lashed out in a moment of passion or panic is not the same as compassion for someone who cold-bloodedly murders 270 people he has never met or even seen.
" the manner that he did, his logic was impeccable - with perhaps the exception of the prison visit.."
So it wasn't really impeccable...
"but my SNP sympathies allow me to forgive him that one error of judgement.."
The nub of the matter, I think....
"...I see the rest of the country tends to disagree with me, but then again I read somewhere that 80% of people think they are above average drivers, so I'm pretty happy to swim against the tide ..."
What was that about logic...???
Braveheart, do you really not get the point that the results of a poll do not necessarily make logical sense?
The only reason put forward to keep him in Scotland once released is to appease American opinion.
But it would not have appeased American opinion.
Think it through.
He would have been released from prison and then moved to some undisclosed location - certainly not Ailsa Drive in Newton Mearns because the press know that address and have already published it.
There would naturally have been a hunt to find where he was and chances are it would end up to be somewhere quite luxurious with medical care provided partly by the NHS and partly privately, paid for by the Libyan Government. He would have round the clock protection provided by publicly funded police officers. Do you actually believe this would have satisfied American opinion or indeed the opinion of any of those who wanted him to rot in jail?
I suggest this would actually have been the worst of all outcomes. I understand the desire of politicians to find a compromise which will please as many people as possible and had that been possible I am pretty sure Kenny MacAskill would have chosen that option. But the 'compassionate alternative' is a compromise which would have fooled no-one and I suggest would have angered more people than were angered by the decision to remove him fron the country.
Jim says "The only reason put forward to keep him in Scotland once released is to appease American opinion. But it would not have appeased American opinion.
Think it through".
Jim, nobody said that "The only reason to keep him in Scotland once released is to appease American opinion."
The decision for release on compassionate grounds is made on compppassionate grounds. How you then handle him/it is a practical problem. MacAskill got that bit wrong.
And, I repeat what I said on 30th Aug at 8.35, "I wouldn't have had him relased at all, necessarily. But if a convicted murderer of 270 people has to be released, I don't think anyone is under any obligation to give him his best preferred option. Do you?"
You haven't answered.
I am not Jim.
I don't think it matters what the best preferred option of Megrahi is.
Once you take the decision to release him, his sentence is served and his punishment is over. He is not on bail, he has been released to die. To me the best preferred option is then to get rid of him. Why should we take responsibility for treating and protecting him once he is released from prison?
I can understand the argument that he should never be released and should be punished until the day he dies. I don't agree with it but I understand it.
However there is no sense in saying let's release him but make him stay in this country so that we can somehow argue that he is still a prisoner, albeit in a big house somewhere with first class medical treatment on tap and his own persomal bodyguard provided by Strathclyde's finest.
I seriously don't understand how you could expect anyone to be taken in by that.
SU, I am with you on this one.