Megrahi decision will not topple the SNP

It was inevitable that the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in August 2009 would rumble on, aided by his survival beyond the then medical opinion that he would not survive beyond three months, and notwithstanding the intervention of US Senators.

It appears that the relevant legislation dates back to 1993 - prior to devolution.

Pre-devolution, the two major Unionist parties, Labour and Conservative, were successively in power, and their respective Secretaries of State for Scotland would have been responsible for acting in a similar capacity to that of the occupant of the new post of Justice Secretary (of whatever party), within the terms of the relevant Westminster legislation.

In legislative terms, if the rules do not fit any possible extreme situation (such as this one?) then they need to be revised.

Those opposed to the role that fell to the Justice Secretary have had decades to dispute the procedure.

None has done so; neither has there been any suggestion from the non-political parliamentary draughtsmen of the need for change. And I do not recall Professor Neil Mitchell of the Campaign for Human Rights, who declared on Newsnight Scotland recently that he agreed with the decision, asserting previously that the procedure should be changed, although he does so now.

The issue has been paraded by the opposition parties at Holyrood, and in the press and media north and south of the Border as being one for the Scottish Government - ie for the SNP and for First Minister Alex Salmond, because it was an opportunity to attack the SNP.

However, unusually, no attempt has been made to ascertain, by polling or otherwise, the views of SNP MSPs.

And none has been forthcoming with a contrary opinion.

It is understandable that the Scottish Labour Party and its leader Iain Gray should be in the vanguard of criticism with the Holyrood elections coming up in eight months' time, but some judicial prudence would be advised, because, as the invective heats up, it will be realised, after all, that the decision was one for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill alone, and, therefore, outwith the political domain.

DR Mayer

Thomson Crescent

Currie, Midlothian

I occasionally disagree with your editorials but rarely am I appalled by them in the way I was on reading about your change of mind over Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Mr Megrahi (Opinion, 20 August).

I know of no humane oncologist who, having prognosed a life expectancy of three months, would be disappointed if the patient was still alive after one year. On the contrary, it would be cause for congratulations.

However, there is another factor in this equation. The prognosis of three months may well have been accurate had the prisoner remained an inmate of Greenock Prison.

The fact that he survives longer while receiving better medical care in Libya does not invalidate the original estimate. We abolished the death penalty in Britain some years ago. Surely this moral achievement applies irrespective of whether the executioner is a hangman or terminal cancer. Baying for the death of a convict is alien to the Scottish character.

I hope the SNP government will fall at next year's election, but I doubt if it will be because the majority of the Scottish electorate follow your change of heart about Mr MacAskill's compassion.

James D Brown

Burnside Road Elgin

The day of 20 August will forever be remembered for stirring public oratory.

Not Churchill's "Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed to so few by so many" when praising the British pilots of the Battle of Britain, but First Minister Alex Salmond as he repeats the Scottish Government defence for releasing Megrahi one year on: "The Scottish Government followed the correct process."

NEIL SINCLAIR

Clarence Street Edinburgh