Kenny Farquharson: Scotland itself is in the dock

Published on Friday 25 June 2010 13:29

ONE euphemism often used about us Scots is that we are "disputatious".

This is a polite way of saying we can start a fight in an empty room. One of the pleasures I felt coming back to live in Scotland after some years down south was realising no-one thought it strange that my idea of a good time was a political or moral disagreement of such amplitude that onlookers would be tempted to call in United Nations peacekeepers. The definition of "disputatious" in Chambers Dictionary is "inclined to dispute, cavil and controvert". Yep, that's us. Although, of course, the cavils always come from the other guy.

That said, it is time we put aside one particularly contentious argument and agreed to differ. What's more, we need to do this in the Scottish national interest. I'm talking about the argument we've been having for the past 12 months about whether Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, was right to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi from his cell in Greenock jail.

The reason should be obvious to anyone who watched a TV news bulletin last week, around the first anniversary of the mass murderer's release. This has gone way beyond a debate about legal process and ministerial locus. Scotland itself is in the dock. The integrity of our politicians, our politics and our justice system is being routinely called into question by some of the most powerful people on the planet. This looks likely to continue as long as Megrahi is alive or as long as US politicians need a headline. Houston, we have a PR problem.

Faced with the opprobrium of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry et al, SNP ministers' decision to batten down the hatches and stick their fingers in their ears is understandable. But we expect our politicians to be bigger than that. Regardless of whether you were for or against Megrahi's release, we have a damage limitation job to do here for the sake of Scotland's international reputation.

And as any crisis PR professional will tell you, the first rule in these circumstances is full disclosure - and also, crucially, the appearance of full disclosure. By far the best way to do that is for MacAskill to agree to give evidence to the US Senate committee inquiry examining the circumstances of the release. Not because the US legislature has any constitutional right to demand our presence, but because we have nothing to hide. Yes, of course some of the senators leading the charge are motivated by the political imperatives of the mid-term elections in November, but that does not make the problems they are causing us on the international stage any less real. And the fact they continue to suffer from some wild misconceptions about how democracy works this side of the pond is, if anything, a good reason to put them right in person.

It would help if we cleared up some misconceptions of our own.First, we have to accept that America does have a legitimate interest in this case. If you were to believe some of MacAskill's apologists, the US Senate has no business sticking its nose into our treatment of Megrahi and should just bog off. Not so. Let's rewind for a moment and remind ourselves what we are dealing with here. This was a terrorist outrage on a US flag airline, an outrage where the US was the target and the main victim. But it happened over Scotland and we brought the perpetrator - a Libyan intelligence agent - to justice. This wasn't just a Scottish matter. We prosecuted this case on behalf of the many nations who lost people in the bombing, and who put their trust in us. And no-one put more trust in us than the Americans. Now they feel betrayed. By us. So, their interest is not unreasonable, to say the least. To treat the Megrahi saga as some kind of macho turf war is perversely small-minded.

Second, can we please stop seeing this as a childish opportunity to stick up a middle finger in the face of Uncle Sam? Or worse, to see this as a chance for our very own Love, Actually moment, as has been suggested by one otherwise sensible commentator? Really. Come on. There are more important things at stake here than satisfying an emotional need to stick it to the man.

Third, can we please stop using the excuse that a MacAskill trip to the US to give evidence would be "unprecedented". Devolution's only 11 years old. Our entire politics is unprecedented. Lockerbie was unprecedented. The trial - a Scottish criminal court with no jury, sitting in neutral territory in the Netherlands, created by a bespoke international treaty - was unprecedented. Unprecedented is what this is all about.

For the record, I've thought all along that MacAskill made the wrong decision. An Ipsos/Mori opinion poll last week suggested a growing number of Scots are of the same view (54 per cent opposing Megrahi's release compared to 35 per cent agreeing with it; last year the figures were 46 and 42 per cent. It's easy to see how this could become a key issue of confidence in the SNP's competency in government. But let's put all that to one side for now and concentrate on the matter in hand.

If you were to look at Scotland now through the eyes of an American, what would you see? You would see evasiveness. You would see a refusal to answer questions. And, as is understandably the case in such circumstances, you might construe that as shiftiness. This isn't going to go away. The Megrahi release will always be the defining moment of this first SNP administration. To avoid lasting damage to Scotland's reputation, MacAskill needs to nail the lies and the misunderstandings, to patiently answer questions from senators, secretaries of state and bereaved widows until there are no more to ask. And that means a visit to Capitol Hill.