Kenny Farquharson: Benefits of Megrahi release trickle out

Published on Saturday 20 February 2010 18:22

THERE was a grim little joke doing the rounds a while back about the Lockerbie bomber. OK, I admit, it was my joke and it wasn't a very good one. I apologise in advance.

It went like this: Some advice to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi – don't drink the bottle of Lucozade with the gift tag that says: "A present from Kenny MacAskill." I did warn you.

This weekend marks six months since MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, released the man convicted of the worst mass murder on British soil. The justification given was "compassion", on the grounds that the former Libyan intelligence agent was dying of prostate cancer and had less than three months to live. The fact that Megrahi is still alive in Libya, under the care of top Italian cancer specialists, is obviously an embarrassment to the Scottish Government. The longer he lives, the harder it will be for MacAskill to avoid the accusation that he failed to make sufficient medical checks before waving the bomber off to Glasgow Airport.

But the six-month milestone is also an opportunity to look back on MacAskill's decision and reassess it with the benefit of some hindsight, testing the assertions and assumptions of an extraordinary moment when the world's eyes were on Scotland, judging us and our political masters.

I was opposed to Megrahi's release. There is still much about the decision that leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth. MacAskill's pious drivel about the bomber facing "a sentence imposed by a higher power" – despite the fact that MacAskill doesn't actually believe in God. (When he was sworn in as an MSP on 6 May, 2007, he did do by "solemn affirmation" rather than by oath.) And the way MacAskill tried to use a generalised assumption about "our beliefs" as a Scottish nation to justify his decision – thereby suggesting those who disagreed with him were somehow un-Scottish. That was low.

And yet, six months on, I have to accept that the consequences of Megrahi's release in geopolitical terms has been broadly positive. From Tripoli's perspective – regardless of what the UK government says – Megrahi's return was a crucial piece of the deal that brought Libya back into the international community. This was essential if the West was to have Libya's assistance in the war against jihadist terrorism.

The month after Megrahi left Greenock jail wearing a white shellsuit and baseball cap (here was me thinking he was trying to dress like the rest of the citizens of Greenock – in reality the shell suit was hiding the body armour he was wearing in case of an assassination attempt) there was Gaddafi in New York making a speech at the United Nations. Given the history of bloody antagonism between the Colonel and Uncle Sam, this was a mindboggling event.

Looking back at MacAskill's statement last August, it's obvious there was a contradiction at the heart of what he was saying. On the one hand he insisted this was simply a procedural Scottish prison service matter where was he was obliged to follow due process. And yet, just moments later, he said: "This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government." This was stating the bleedin' obvious. MacAskill had received a letter from Jack Straw in December 2007 emphasising the "overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom" in Megrahi being allowed to go home.

MacAskill, it seems to me, was all too aware of the international ramifications of his actions. What if he insisted Megrahi die in jail? Could that decision cause the notoriously mercurial Gaddafi to scupper talks with the West, raising the prospect of Libya returning to its rogue ways? MacAskill is the Scottish equivalent of the Home Secretary and, as such, has routine contact with the UK security services. Is it conceivable that he took his decision without seeking guidance on the international security ramifications? Was he blind to the risk that Scotland could be seen as a country that made the world a more dangerous place?

There were also economic considerations. A deal with Libya was expected to pave the way for oil exploration contracts with BP worth more than 500million. What if a refusal to release Megrahi deprived British oil companies – all with large Scottish interests and expertise – of hundreds of millions of pounds of work?

I simply don't believe that MacAskill ignored all these issues. I suspect history will judge that he did what he realised was necessary for the greater global good, and presented it to the world as a simple matter of prison service bureaucracy and Brigadoon moral philosophy. Hey presto, on 29 October last year, a few weeks after Gaddafi returned from New York, BP announced it was to start exploratory offshore and onshore drilling for oil in Libya.

One consequence of the bomber's release was, of course, less fortuitous: the damage done to US-Scottish relations, with Barack Obama personally upbraiding the Scottish Government, and the American public reacting with baffled anger. While this may have made the US State Department cooler towards Scottish Nationalism, I doubt very much if this will have any lasting effect on the strong and robust ties that bind Scotland and America. A skirl of pipes and a swing of the kilt and they'll forgive us anything, won't they?

So, six months later, have I changed my mind? No, but I find myself in a curious position.

I still don't believe MacAskill should have released Megrahi – and yet I accept it's good that he did.

Such is the moral maze.