Megrahi - more support for MacAskill

Other SNP campaigners across the country have, apparently, had similar experiences to mine over the weekend - people telling us that releasing Megrahi on compassionate grounds was the right decision, others disagreeing with the decision but acknowledging that it was a difficult decision to take and appreciating Kenny MacAskill's good intent and his thoroughness. I only found one who agreed with the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem line and the story was similar across the country.

Today the Catholic Church added its support with Archbishop Conti saying

"I personally, and many others in the Catholic community admired the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on grounds of compassion which is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland’s Government should operate.
"The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength.
"Despite contrary voices I believe it is a decision which will be a source of satisfaction for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community.
"I have been impressed by the expressions of understanding and insight from Dr Jim Swire and other relatives who lost loved ones on the Pan Am flight who have acknowledged both the rightness of the gesture of compassion and their doubts as to the safety of the original conviction
“I would welcome any move which would try to find clearer answers as to what happened and why.”

The Church of Scotland had already supported Kenny on the day he made the announcement:

The Church of Scotland today praised the decision that meant Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released today on compassionate grounds by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.
Rev Ian Galloway, Convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said:
“This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not choose mercy?
This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful. I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims’ families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy.
Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge.
We have gained something significant as a Nation by this decision. It is a defining moment for all of us.”

In Parliament today, Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm said:

“Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of Churches across Scotland.
“Does he share my revulsion, however, by what happened when Al-Megrahi returned to Libya, but does he accept that there is nothing that anyone in this Parliament could have done to stop that? And does he also agree that it [Libya reaction] is entirely irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the original decision?”

Lib Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro said on Radio nan Gael this morning (translation, obviously):

“I’m sure there are plenty of MSPs with the same thoughts as I have.
“I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made. It was obvious from the doctors that Megrahi is suffering with cancer and that Megrahi’s health was going down every day and with that the correct thing happened and that MacAskill let Megrahi go with the information he had.
“I believe that MacAskill did the thing that was right and the ting that people will be looking on for years to come and that every time they raise the question of how well MacAskill did because of the rules and laws of Scotland.
“The right thing happened and MacAskill made the right and correct decision. With that it doesn’t give me any troubles whatsoever that there are some who are complaining.”

Henry McLeish on Radio Scotland this morning:

"If you look at the issue in the context of the criminal justice system and the independent legal system that we have, this is probably the right decision made for the right reasons."
"The intervention of the director of the FBI was totally out of order.
"It would be the equivalent of the Metropolitan police chief writing to Barack Obama to complain about a decision."
He said Mr Mueller's criticism was "ill-informed" and added: "Quite frankly, it`s none of his business. He has a view - fine. But that was a slur on the Scottish criminal justice system that we did not deserve."

A spokesman for the Prime Minister today, when asked whether the release gave succour to terrorists, said: "I don't think it does. This was a decision taken by the Scottish Justice Secretary in accordance with the laws of Scotland. I don't see that anyone can argue that this gives succour."

David Steel:

“I don’t necessarily think he made the wrong decision, I mean it was quite clearly made on compassionate grounds. It wasn’t made as part of a prisoner deal; it wasn’t made as part of a trade agreement, and I think people should focus on that and I think most opinion in Scotland therefore is in favour of the decision to release him on compassionate grounds.”

Jim Swire:

“Good luck to MacAskill. I think he’s done a grand job in standing up at least this much to obvious American pressure in which it’s clear that Mrs Clinton used the Libyan Government to persuade Megrahi to give up his second appeal which so many people believe that had it been completed, would lead to the overturning of this somewhat ridiculous verdict.”

Tam Dalyell:

"Mr MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister, has arrived at the right decision on compassionate grounds."

Ming Campbell:

"Labour is clearly facing two ways on this issue: wanting to enhance relations with Libya but at the same time determined to criticise the SNP for an American audience.”

David Owen:

"I am a humanitarian, wherever you can you come down in the final analysis to looking at the individual. Are they entitled to die at home or die in prison? If it is humanely possible you should allow them to die at home.
"It is very hard to get at the truth and yet Lord Mandelson is seen with the Libyan president's son. It is very clear that the British government are in this up to their neck. I view all this noise as party politics in a rather crude way.”

Martin Cadman:

"I'm very pleased he has been released on compassionate grounds because I don't think he was the right person to be there anyway. It is just righting a wrong.”

Sir Richard Dalton:

"Appalling though the atrocity was that led to the deaths of 270 people, there are not good reasons why anybody convicted of that crime should be excepted from normal rules which apply for considering release on compassionate grounds.
"There is no doubt that Megrahi has been sent home to die. The reasons why he met the criterion for compassionate release was set out clearly by the Justice Secretary in Scotland and I believe it was the right thing to do, albeit I understand the pain that would be felt my many of those personally affected by the atrocity."

When asked what he thought of Conservative leader David Cameron's attack on the decision, he said:

"I believe he is wrong. He conspicuously did not address the question which I raised at the beginning, which is why in the case of Lockerbie should normal criteria be set aside? Maybe he was thinking politically about his relationship with the United States politicians rather than thinking in terms of the judicial process."

In addition, there was a demonstration outside Parliament today - people asking that the MSPs support Kenny MacAskill's decision and showing their support for his decision. A lady from Aberdeen drove down to Edinburgh on Friday after listening to the announcement with a bunch of roses and thistles because she had been so moved by Kenny's statement.

On top of that, Frank McAveety's researcher agrees with the decision.

Of the few who oppose the decision, though, why did Iain Gray think he should try to copy Richard Nixon with the "silent majority" nonsense - if they're silent, how does he know what they think? He must think that he can go back to the bad old days when Labour thought they could tell people how to think. Those days are gone.

There are a few questions, though - why was Cathy Jamieson not shoved front and centre on this issue? She must have authorised some compassionate releases in her time as Justice Minister. Could it be that she disagrees with her party's position? Likewise Lord Foulkes, sitting demurely and silently in the chamber today - most unlike his usual demeanour. Does he disagree with Iain Gray? Or are Cathy and George part of the silent majority?

Kenny MacAskill was right in his decision, I think Scotland backs him, and I think the other parties are wrong to behave in the manner they are behaving. That's their choice, though, their decision and their decision alone and they can stand by it and live with the consequences.

Well done Malcolm Chisholm

I never thought I'd be praising Malcolm Chisholm MSP, but today I do. While senior members of the Labour party mounted an attack on the Justice Secretary in concert with the strident chorus of Conservative and Lib Dem members over the Megrahi decision, Malcolm Chisholm got to his feet and spoke with principled dignity, indicating his agreement with the decision reached by Kenny MacAskill. I hope that his party colleagues were listening carefully; his contribution should remind them of the principles which used to run through the Labour party but which seem sadly lacking now. A courageous contribution from the MSP for North and Leith, he and I disagree on many points in politics and we'll continue to disagree but I admire his determination in this instance to do what he believes to be right rather than buckle under political opportunism.

Compassion, mercy and justice

Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill MSP has announced that he has rejected Libya's application for a prisoner transfer for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi and that he has approved the request from Mr Megrahi for release on compassionate grounds. As usual, there are people of small stature who made wild claims without examining the evidence.

Iain Gray said that Labour in government would show no compassion, no mercy, that if he were First Minister "Megrahi would not be going back to Libya". I hope he takes the time to think again and withdraws this statement, it's as unseemly as David Cameron's comments that "This man was convicted of murdering 270 people, he showed no compassion to them". David Cameron not allowing his Scottish party to respond was noted.

Richard Baker was one of those who foolishly questioned Kenny's decision to visit Megrahi in prison. He would have been better to have consulted his own party colleague, Jack Straw, whose actions meant that Kenny's duty was clear - he had to visit Megrahi. This is from Kenny's statement:

Prior to ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it was scrutinised by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Jack Straw, UK Secretary of State for Justice, gave a commitment that in cases where applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr Al-Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations, and he chose to do so in person. Therefore I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.

As Brian Taylor pointed out, it was a strong performance from Kenny MacAskill, and one which was directed at multiple audiences. He outlined the compassion he was showing to Megrahi:

Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.
But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his
final days.
Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

He also noted the burden of grief carried by the bereaved:

Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.

This was no easy decision to make but the decency and humanity of Kenny MacAskill shone through today when lesser politicians were taking cheap shots in the hope of getting their names in the papers and were talking the Scottish justice system down in the process. Our Justice Secretary raised Scotland today. Judge our society by the way we treat the weakest members of it, by the way we welcome those in need, and by the way we treat those who have wronged us. Judge us by the way we act as a society and, now, know that compassion has a place at the heart of justice in Scotland, that justice here is tempered with mercy. Release on compassionate grounds is not unknown in Scottish justice - it's part of the standard practice - but when the man who has been found guilty of committing such a terrible crime in our land can find mercy at the hands of our justice system we can think the system worthy of the name.

Others agree, as well:

"We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not chose mercy?
"This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful.

Now there is the news that the Presiding Officer will recall Parliament on Monday,a s he had earlier indicated - a chance, perhaps, for MSPs to debate this issue with some degree of gravitas?

These economic woes

There's a Scottish Parliament motion from Linda Fabiani MSP:

S3M-04689 Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (Scottish National Party): The Arc of Recovery—

That the Parliament considers that Scotland is being held back by the mismanagement of the UK economy as evidenced by the forthcoming publication of the OECD Economic Outlook, which, on 17 August 2009, will report that the UK has the worst underlying financial balance as a percentage of GDP of any member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and that the UK’s current account balance will show a $56.3 billion deficit this year and a $56.2 billion deficit next year (-2.6% and -2.4% of GDP); believes that Scotland’s recovery would be faster and stronger as an independent nation and contrasts Scotland’s position as part of the UK with OECD figures for other nations, which show that Ireland will move from a deficit of $1.4 billion to a surplus of $2.1 billion (-0.6% to +0.9% of GDP), Iceland’s deficit equivalent will be $0.4 billion and $0.1 billion (-3% and -1.1% of GDP), Finland will have a surplus of $0.9 billion this year and a $1 billion surplus next year (+0.4% and +0.4% of GDP), while Norway will show a $70.3 billion surplus followed by a $84.9 billion surplus (+18.2% and +20.6% of GDP), and further considers that Scotland has got what it takes to get through this recession and would be better off with the same freedom and flexibility as these independent nations in this arc of recovery.

Excellent motion, I thought, couldn't have written it better myself. The OECD's Economic Outlook is published twice a year and it's full of lovely information, you can use the tools on the stats site to compare countries. That current account balance is interesting - the UK suffering a $56 billion deficit while other countries have cut their deficits - Iceland, so maligned by UK Government Ministers, trimming its deficit to just $0.1bn or 1.1% of its GDP while Ireland (another nation unfairly maligned by the UK Government) will move into surplus and Finland and Norway are already in surplus. In fact, the difference between the UK and Norway next year will be $141 bn - Norway will be stretching even further ahead.

There are other bits to the Economic Outlook report which should give people plenty to think about, things like this from the UK section of the report:

Public finances are set to deteriorate much more, mainly due to automatic stabilisers and the contraction of the revenue-rich finance and housing sectors.

Or the stark warning that

Quantitative easing is on track but its effectiveness is uncertain

Or this bit:

Continued financial sector weakness, further declines in house prices, a weak global economy and sluggish income growth are projected to depress output through 2009, as in most OECD countries. Improving exports combined with an easing in financial conditions should, with support from already implemented policy measures, underpin a recovery during 2010. However, the pickup will be sluggish, as the adjustment of households and firms balance sheets and expected reductions in the size of the financial and housing sectors will take considerable time. Unemployment will therefore rise substantially. The lower exchange rate is likely to hold up prices in the short term, but the huge slack in the economy means that headline CPI inflation will decline through 2009 and remain low in 2010.

There's this bit from the general section:

Measures to support the financial sector, including risk-sharing with the private sector against further price declines of troubled assets as well as central bank purchases of private sector securities and longer-term lending, have increased both the contingent liabilities and credit risk that governments face. In addition, further bank losses may well require substantial further capital injections by governments. As a rough guide, estimated bank losses this year and next may imply further capital injections by governments of around 1 to 3%, 2 to 5% and 3 to 9% of GDP in the United States, the euro area and the United Kingdom respectively

That a bit frightening, is it not? Then you can add the net export figures:

Finland $5.2 bn this year and the same next
Iceland $972 million this year and $1.1 bn next year
Ireland $37.6 bn this year, $43 bn next year
Norway $62.3 bn this year, $73 bn next year
UK -$55.9 bn this year and -$54.3 bn next year.

While these other countries show net exports, the UK is showing net imports. Who's got the healthier economy?

Labour doesn't see it that way, there's an amendment to Linda Fabiani's motion from James Kelly - the sage of Rutherglen:

S3M-04689.1 James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): : As an amendment to motion S3M-04689 in the name of Linda Fabiani (The Arc of Recovery), leave out from "is being" to end and insert "has benefited from action taken by the UK Government to avoid the worst effects of the global economic downturn through a fiscal stimulus package including an increase in tax allowances equivalent to £145 less tax over this year, a 2.5% cut in VAT equivalent to a 1% cut in interest rates, accelerated increases in child benefit to £20 per week and child tax credits by 25% above inflation, a one-off payment to support pensioners during the downturn in addition to the annual Winter Fuel Allowance and an increase in Pensions Credits to £130 per week for single pensioners, UK-wide action to avoid home and business repossessions as well as action to avoid the potentially catastrophic consequences of a banking collapse including avoiding potential liquidation of the Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS and the Dunfermline Building Society; notes that, while the global economic downturn has been painful in Scotland and the UK as a whole, the effects have been considerably less severe than the experiences in Iceland and the Republic of Ireland, two of the three "arc of prosperity" counties cited as appropriate economic comparators for an independent Scotland in the SNP’s Manifesto 2007, in which the global economic downturn has resulted in not just economic recession but official depression, defined as economic contraction of at least 10%; further notes in this regard that that OECD 2009 Economic Outlook cites the collapse of Iceland’s three main banks, the required bail-out by the International Monetary Fund followed by official interest rates of 18%, as well as, what it terms "substantial spending cuts and increases in taxation" in the Republic of Ireland, which has been forced to commission a public cuts study by "An Bord Snip Nua" proposing €5.3 billion of cuts including 17,300 public service job cuts, a 5% drop in social welfare and closure of police stations among other examples, and believes that, although the so-called "arc of prosperity" was always a deeply-flawed, simplistic and contradictory economic prescription for Scotland, having cited the Republic of Ireland and Iceland as appropriate models prior to the downturn, the SNP cannot now credibly claim that a separate Scotland would have escaped a similar economic fate as those countries that have been hit far worse than Scotland within the United Kingdom and that the SNP’s
selective memory of the global downturn serves to underline not just its economic ineptitude but also its insincerity with the people of Scotland."

Looks like he just doesn't get it. The countries of the Arc of Prosperity have taken the right steps to get on the road to recovery, the UK hasn't. The behaviour of the UK Government has meant that future generations are now saddled with debt. Instead of putting us on a road to recovery, we've just got a bigger burden.

Let loose the fog of thought

You can hope for politicians to have clarity of thought but it sometimes seems that it's awfy hard for some of them. Labour's Richard Baker has joined the Conservatives' Paul McBride in calling for Parliament to be recalled to allow his rapier-sharp mind to be used to interrogate the Justice Secretary on the Megrahi case (I wonder how much that would cost). I had thought that someone sensible in Labour had realised how daft Baker's comments on it were becoming and had told him to stay quiet, it seems we are not so lucky as a nation.

Let's see what Ricky's saying: He says the affair has been mishandled but doesn't say how; he says we need answers but he doesn't say what we need answers to; he says there are serious questions to be answered but he doesn't say what the questions are. In short, he's dipped his chubby mitt into the sweetie jar of standard 'shocked and stunned' quotes and sprinkled them liberally across a news release without thinking about the issue. Here's the top notch quote, though:

"Parliament needs to have the opportunity to ask questions about this because it doesn't serve the reputation of the Scottish justice system well, or the families of those who died, to have all this confusion over whether the decision has or has not been taken."

There you have it - Ricky can't understand any of the simple variations of the comments that the Scottish Government has been using since this story was first spun, namely that no decision has been taken and that the Justice Secretary is considering the issue. Because Ricky is struggling with this simple concept he thinks that the rest of the world is looking askance at Scotland and that, therefore, Parliament should be recalled to discuss the case. I just praise be that our Justice Secretary is Kenny MacAskill rather than Richard Baker.

There's a decent wee article about the case on the BBC website written by Alister Bonnington wherein he makes clear his feelings on the conspiracy theories in fairly stark terms like:

I have been observing the Lockerbie trial conspiracy groupies for many years.
Unlike most who provide "expert" comment on the case I attended a good part of the trial at Zeist in Holland - on the old fashioned basis that being possessed of the facts is a prerequisite for an opinion.

You can read some of the self-serving stuff on Robert Black's blog - he has the interesting habit of referring to himself in the third person.

Mind how you go!

Another policy from Labour

Labour announced a policy recently of going back to the old-fashioned rates system to finance local government. Another pop at a regressive tax rather than a system based on the ability to pay - Labour continues to walk away from what it once stood for.

Now there's another Labour policy announced as Frank McAveety calls for newly unemployed footballers to be engaged by the Government to coach children. Here's a point or two:

There are more than 300 players in that category - that would be 300 additional coaches in Scotland (on the Government payroll, of course, which Labour appears to think can continue to grow even as Labour policies bite into Scottish budgets) - that would be on top of the coaching opportunities funded by CashBack (1,700 volunteers and other lovely stuff).

How many of these players have their coaching qualifications? Just having been a player doesn't mean they can coach.

What about disclosure checks? They'd all need a disclosure before working with children.

Won't these players be hoping to get back into playing football?

Another policy without thought from Labour.

Mind how you go.

Looking at Megrahi

I have the good fortune to know Kenny MacAskill and to count him as a friend; I am one of many in that position. I have not asked Kenny about the Megrahi case and he has not told me anything, I am no more informed than anyone else about it and perhaps less informed than some. What I can be sure of is that Kenny MacAskill will take the decision on how to dispose of the case before him based on the evidence he has about it and will do so by the book with neither fear nor favour.

I don't intend to try to judge the guilt or innocence of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, that's not within my grasp, nor do I intend to balance whether his case was proven or not proven - that's a matter for the court to decide based upon the evidence presented to it and the performance of the players who perform before the court. Courts don't, after all, get to the truth of the matter nor is justice dispassionate - human beings are involved. I'll wait, too, to hear what Kenny MacAskill has decided rather than seek to second-guess him.

A couple of things have grabbed my attention over the past few days of intense and fruitless speculation about this case, though, and I'd quite like to get them off my chest:

The speculation that the Scottish Government put pressure on Megrahi to abandon his appeal so he could go home: Firstly, if he's being sent home on compassionate grounds it doesn't matter whether there are outstanding legal proceedings. Secondly, Ministers would also have to persuade the Crown to drop its appeal against the leniency of his sentence in order to clear the decks. Thirdly, that course of action would require that his solicitors would be involved - they, after all, have a duty to protect their client's best interests and would have a personal financial interest in seeing the proceedings continue. In order for this tale to be correct there would have to be an awful lot of people not seeing what was in front of them - civil servants, Mr Megrahi's legal team and their staff, Libyan diplomats, Mr Megrahi himself, and, doubtless, his family. That, quite frankly, is taking the suspension of disbelief to ridiculous lengths.

There appears to be some whispers around the edges of this tale that this course of action is being taken to prevent embarrassment to the UK Government. I may be speaking out of left-field here, but I'm fairly sure that protecting the UK Government doesn't feature in the considerations of Kenny MacAskill in the usual course of events - and I'm not even persuaded when the obverse is argued by someone whose judgement I usually trust.

So the claim is that the Scottish Government in 2009 would put pressure on Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to do something it doesn't need him to do, encouraging bizarre speculation and talk of "murky back-channels" by conspiracy theorists hoping for some limelight in order to protect the UK Government of 2001. Simply not credible, is it? Those who think they might have seen some evidence passing in the night should really bring that evidence out rather than just claiming to have seen it. They might otherwise be suspected of being more interested in getting their name mentioned in the media than in pursuing justice.

I have a strong suspicion that Mr Megrahi wants to abandon his appeal because his health is worsening, he wants to see his family before he dies, his government has made an application for prisoner transfer which can't go through while legal proceedings are in train, and his legal team think that this is in his best interests. I think that because his legal team put his worsening health in the public domain, it's fairly common public knowledge about the prisoner transfer request, there's a possibility that a dying man will want to see his family, and I trust most Scottish solicitors will work in their client's best interests - and they'll do so whichever side they're on.

Something disturbing also happened during these past few days, though, and it came from the USA. There's been a horror shouted across the Atlantic at the possibility that Mr Megrahi's case was being considered. There were those asking how it could be compassionate to release him, some were saying even considering it was "vile". It is, perhaps, possible to understand the relatives of victims feeling that he should not be released, but they were joined by the Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton getting on the phone to Kenny MacAskill to press for Megrahi to stay in jail. Prison has three purposes - punishment through deprivation of liberty; rehabilitation to serve society better in the future; and prophylaxis to protect society. Holding a dying prisoner inside during his final weeks cannot satisfy the prophylactic element unless the contention is that the dying man (or woman) intends to go out in a blaze of glory, there seems little point to rehabilitation of a dying person, and so we're left with punishment. The liberty of a dying person is about to be curtailed permanently - just what is the punishment element of keeping them in prison? Our American friends appear to have confused justice with vengeance, compassion is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength, a sign that the system knows how to forgive as well as how to punish. Its use where appropriate shows a maturity and confidence in a justice system which indicates that it serves well in general; judging when its use is appropriate is the difficult task and should be a considered judgement, not a snap judgement. Our justice system should have no place for vengeance, no tit-for-tat, no frenzy of judgement by mob rule (or by what politicians might think the mob wants), it's there to protect and improve society.

Then there's the reaction of some politicians and political advisers. There's Paul McBride, former Labour member, now Conservative adviser, these days being touted as a "top QC", who suggested that Parliament should have been recalled to debate Mr Megrahi's position. If that suggestion had come from Richard Baker I would have understood that it came from a wee lad wanting to be a politician who spoke without knowledge on a subject without finding out anything about it, but this guy is a QC who should know the difference between a parliamentary debate and an issue which falls to be decided by a Minister in a quasi-judicial role. This isn't an issue for political knock-about, it's an issue which Kenny MacAskill has to consider in a fair and impartial manner - or it will, quite rightly, end up in a judicial review.

Likewise, the pomposity of opposition MSPs seeking some media coverage is appalling. The Lib Dems' Robert Brown, for example, also a solicitor, objected to the Justice Secretary meeting Megrahi on the grounds that Kenny MacAskill has to make the decision. Surely anyone having to make that decision should be encouraged to meet all of the interested parties, as he has done, from the families of the victims through representatives of the US and Libyan Governments to the legal teams. He'll be considering medical evidence and the status of Mr Megrahi and he'll be making a decision based on the evidence in front of him.

Some people appear to be hanging onto this case with calls to keep everything going until we know everything about the case, that we can't leave this as the biggest mystery in Scottish legal history. It's no bigger a mystery than the disappearance of, for example, Renee MacRae and her son or the Bible John case or, indeed, the World's End case. The consequences may be larger but the mystery isn't.

This isn't about finding truth - justice isn't - it's about one man having to take a serious decision about the final weeks of another man's life. I think Kenny MacAskill has carried himself throughout this with some dignity and reserve and has refused to allow himself to be dragged into the storm around it. I think that's the right way for the Justice Secretary to be and I applaud him for it. I may have some degree of bias in my judgement here, but he appears to be remaining focused on doing the job properly when other politicians seem intent on cheap headlines.

I'm confident he'll do his job properly and well, and I'd rather have him in post than any of those flinging in their ha'penny worth.