Give up political point-scoring over Megrahi and deal with the real issue

Published on Thursday 27 August 2009 21:13

On the morning of the emergency Holyrood session on Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Lesley Riddoch (Opinion, 24 August) hoped our MSPs would have a grown-up debate. She will have been disappointed, but not surprised, since it was entirely predictable.

An interesting contribution, however, was by Annabel Goldie, for the Conservatives, who said Mr MacAskill made his decision, not in the name of Scotland, nor of the Scottish Parliament, nor, less surprisingly, of herself, but only the SNP government. In doing so, she appeared to repudiate the concept of representative democracy.

Presumably, Ms Goldie does not feel the need to represent all of her constituents, only those who share her views. Does she believe that, should David Cameron become prime minister, he will not represent the UK, but only the Conservative Party?

There is widespread support for Mr MacAskill's decision, much of it perhaps coloured by the belief that Mr Megrahi suffered a miscarriage of justice. It would be more useful if our MSPs addressed this issue, rather than scoring party-political points.

Patrick Harvie of the Greens recognised the elephant in the room when he asked the Scottish Government and the UK government to publish "all the information that is relevant ... to (Mr Megrahi's] original conviction, so that everyone – Scots, Americans, Libyans and the world – will be able finally to answer the serious and troubling outstanding questions in this case".

Unfortunately, the indecent haste with which the UK government issued a public interest immunity certificate to ensure such papers will not see the light of day suggests there is, indeed, much to be hidden from our ken.

ALAN R IRONS

Woodrow Road

Glasgow

I've noticed that all the MSPs who have been "speaking for the Scottish people" have been against Kenny MacAskill's decision and I'm wondering which people have given them permission to speak on their behalf? I certainly have not been asked for my opinion on the matter, and they are definitely not speaking for me as I think the correct decision was made.

Perhaps before any vote is taken in the Scottish Parliament on Mr MacAskill's courageous decision, which he carefully explained, giving the reasons for it, these MSPs should seek the opinions of the constituents they are representing, not speaking for, because it seems their main objective is to score political points and has little to do with why they were elected.

Unfortunately, there seem to be very few politicians who are willing to stand up for what they believe in, and if a considerable number vote against the decision because they must follow the party line, it will be a sad day for Scotland and the Scottish people that we are being represented by people so lacking in compassion. This will be a reason for us to feel ashamed.

MARY MORRISON

Ladyhill

Udny, Aberdeenshire

By allowing the Megrahi matter to be placed in Kenny MacAskill's hands for his decision, and his decision alone, Downing Street and Washington could be certain of what would happen. Mr MacAskill will almost certainly have been viewed by the Machiavellians as a "seagull feeder" – a misguided do-gooder with no real understanding of the long-term consequences of his actions – or the extent that he was being manipulated for oil and profit. How handy is that?

D H TELFORD

Highfield Terrace

Fairlie, Ayrshire

I refer to David Maddox's interest in whether or not Mr al-Megrahi will die within three months (your report, 26 August) and whether or not the advice Kenny MacAskill received on this matter justified the release on licence.

To speculate on the minor detail of the precise date of al-Megrahi's demise in an attempt to attack Mr MacAskill's decision is squalid and distasteful, and both Mr Maddox and the Labour MSP Richard Simpson – particularly the latter, as a physician – should be ashamed of themselves.

It is also irrelevant: despite Mr Maddox's repeated declaration, the "three month" assessment is a rule of thumb, not a legal requirement.

JOHN GALLOWAY

Drumbuie

Ross-shire

It is disappointing to read letters from US correspondents who have decided to cancel trips to Scotland or boycott Scottish products because of the decision to release Mr al-Megrahi.

Although I often disagree with the policies of the US, and the French, government, I visit these countries regularly, because I go to enjoy the countries and the company of friends I have made there over the years, who, incidentally, often complain about their leaders, also.

I believe the decision was right. In showing mercy to a dying man, Kenny MacAskill may have made a small step in healing the rift between the West and the Islamic world. Most of your letters warn of the economic consequences to Scotland of offending the US; I ask that people consider the bigger picture and don't compare dollars with humanitarian values.

WALTER J ALLAN

Colinton Mains Drive

Edinburgh