David Rose has a six thousand word article on Vanity Fair about a bunch of glorified local councillors’ failure to appreciate both who is in a position to offer compassion for what and when they have been stitched-up like a kipper by highly effective gobshites.
Fifteen months after the balance of probabilities dictated that he would be dead, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi remains alive. During his recent appearance on Desert Island Discs, Alex Salmond had overt criticism of the decision to release him as ‘only’ coming from Americans. A side-comment, however, struck me as odd when he stated that “most [albeit] no means all” in Scotland had been supportive.
It now is being reported that a Freedom of Information request by Scottish Labour has confirmed that over 10,000 letters have been received by the Scottish Government into this decision.
Maybe unable to resist name-dropping, a spokesman said that one of these letters was from the Nelson Mandela Foundation and in support of the decision. It also was said that in addition to there being a mix of those in support and opposition, other domestic issues, such as the smoking ban, had garnered several times more pieces of correspondence.
My first thought on this was that there was little elaboration as to how many were and were not supportive. My next thought was that those other domestic issues referred to ones being proposed and voted for by the Scottish Parliament, and that the volume would likely have lessened after they appeared in legislation: not so for the decision to release Megrahi, which the letter writing fraternity would have known that no amount of post hoc correspondence could have reversed.
(The response was measured and polite, so I doubt it came from Salmond’s spad and press secretary, Kevin Pringle.)
Similarly surreptitious changing of the terms occurred when Salmond was asked on Desert Island Discs why he had not agreed to attend US Senate hearings – where he would have been before opponents tougher than Wendy Alexander – concerning the decision by insisting he would consider it once a US President had agree to attend hearings in London regarding the Iraq War (which he had previously had sought – using Parliamentary expenses – to have Tony Blair impeached).
My first thought was that both the US and British Governments already had their investigations into this, whilst none into the decision to release Megrahi have been considered necessary. My next thought was, what a parochial bore.
In his article, David Rose gives further suggestions of just how far down the road of political stupidity sub-state nationalism has taken the SNP. As part of the preamble for securing major oil and defence contracts with Libya, a prisoner transfer scheme (PTA) was created which focused on only one of 22 Libyan nationals in British gaols. The SNP, and Salmond specifically, continue to maintain that having accepted this option would have validated any suspicion of their assisting the pecuniary interests of the nexus connecting the former political figures (such as Tony Blair) to the security services (such as Mark Allen who oversaw negotiations in Libya’s dismantling of her CBN program whilst head of counterintelligence at MI6) to oil companies (such as, well, pretty much only BP to which Allen went after MI6) to defence (such as Elizabeth Symons, a senior civil servant and former Minister for Defence Procurement who also was paid as an advisor to the Arab lobby Libya’s National Economic Development Board.
In public, the Scottish Government resisted cajoling by the Westminster Government to include Scottish gaols on the PTA; and as confirmed through US diplomatic cables publicized by Wikileaks, Scottish Government officials had declined various ‘treats’ offered by Libya. Yet, this high-minded principle may have been more fluid as Rose’s article quotes a Westminster official as saying the SNP could have relented had a statute of limitations been imposed on compensation claims being brought by Scottish prisoners for treatments such as slopping-out.
Here, the Kevin Pringle we all know makes an appearance by describing this claim as “complete and utter garbage without a shred of scintilla of truth”.
It was after this that Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Central to the granting of compassionate release by Kenny Mackaskill, the Scottish Justice Minister – who, to date, had not declined one such application (or a haggis) – was the insistence that medical opinions gave Megrahi under than three months to live.
Yet, another point raised by Rose was the only one of three external oncology experts to examine Megrahi who offered this assessment was Karol Sikora, of CancerPartnersUK. Sikora has recalled being informed by the Libyan Ambassador that a three month judgment was the only option, but also states in his report – obtained by Vanity Fair that a move to chemotherapy from the hormone-only treatment which Megrahi was then receiving would be expected to lengthen his life-expectancy.
Rose’s article further reveals that, in his personal petition, Megrahi informed Macaskill that he was intended to commence chemotherapy. Although only primary treatment was then available within the gaol, Macaskill also was aware of plans to install further facilities.
Cast your minds back to 13 March 1996. Thomas Hamilton is captured alive after the Dunblane Massacre, and convicted for 17 life sentences and then some. In 2009, the now 56 year old Hamilton is said to have three months to live.
Would Macaskill have applied Scottish compassion to allow his release? Based on principle, he would have.
I doubt this very much, though.