Even if not true, would you consider our opinions any less "relevant" than your own?
You mean the plane that had on board 180 Americans out of the 243 passengers from 21 countries? Does the fact that the plane crashed in Scotland provide the Scottish with greater morality than the families of the 180 American victims?
My point was more in relation to familiarity with the incident, the investigation and the case against Megrahi. This is something which has been in the news in Scotland on a virtually continuous basis since 1988. Many people have followed the case as it developed and have a reasonably detailed understanding of its complexities.
When a bunch of people of whatever nationality suddenly pile in with what appear to be knee-jerk reactions based on about ten minutes reading about one aspect of the situation, it doesn't really impress.
It is also a question of jurisdiction. Like it or not, this matter is subject to the jurisdiction of Scotland.
Maybe the families of the 11 Scottish people who died on the ground do not share the "majority" view in Scotland.
Evidence?
TM
I note your careful wording there, because of course you know that the spokesman for the British families is the father of one of the passengers on the plane.
He's still accepted as speaking for the British families, and nobody from Lockerbie has ever put forward a dissenting view that I know of.
Mr Mueller should realise that a number of open-minded and observant relatives, as well as many others who have studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the verdict should not have been reached.
We welcomed Megrahi's second appeal and were aware that many feared its outcome. Yet in the shadow of death, Megrahi, who wants above all else to clear his name, decided to withdraw his appeal. He hoped this would increase the likelihood of his return to his family to die. What would you, dear reader, have done?
As relatives, we want to find the truth of why our families were not protected, despite timely warnings, and who killed them.
I would also point out
the view of the Lockerbie parish priest, who was in his house in Sherwood Crescent when the crash happened - the only house left standing in the street.
"I'm very, very pleased that Mr Megrahi has gone home,'' he said. "From the very beginning, following the investigation very closely, the whole thrust of it was towards Iran. Then suddenly that shifted and it switched to Libya. We were being told at the time by the American and British authorities that if we get the Libyans, it will lead to all the others.
"I was suspicious about this sudden switch anyway. As we can see, time has shown that it has certainly not led to the conviction of other people. I feel an innocent man was convicted."
If you know of any different opinions from Scottish families affected, please post the evidence.
In Britain there are polls that reveal a wide variety of feelings about MacAsskill's decision.
"Times poll: 61% think al-Megrahi release was about oil, not compassion"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6812859.ece
Note that I referred to "informed" opinion. Many people in Britain, especially in England, are no better informed about the affair than many Americans. Note also that in that poll, there was significantly greater support for the decision among Scottish voters.
The question in the poll reveals a conflation of the two different release mechanisms which seems to be rife among reporters. Of course the proposed prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) was about oil. That agreement was sought by the Libyans for some time, and signed by Tony Blair in 2007. While, diplomatically, Megrahi's name was never mentioned, since he was the only Libyan in prison in Britain, I think it's safe to say we all knew what they were talking about.
The problem about that agreement was that literally as it was being signed, the power of Tony Blair to deliver on it was taken away. Of course he never legally had the power, but while the Labour party was the government in Scotland, he had the
de facto authority to tell McConnell what do do. In May 2007, that changed.
The SNP government consistently refused to agree to the prisoner transfer. MacAskill turned it down, explicitly. If you want to go find someone to blame for negotiating with the Libyans on oil deals, these people are to be found in Westminster. And they would have released Megrahi in exchange for oil if they could. (You might also like to look at the record of your own government in dealing with Libya and Gadaffi for oil. Remember,
IF Megrahi was guilty, he was only the catspaw, and the mastermind was Gadaffi himself.)
The compassionate release arrangment was however not tied to any oil deals at all. Unless you can prove that the Westminster government (the one negotiating the oil deals, these were nothing to do with Holyrood) put pressure on MacAskill to grant the compassionate release for this reason, and MacAskill agreed.
Now I find myself in an interesting position. There is
an article in today's paper which explains the entire sequence of events very clearly, and accords exactly with my understanding of what took place, based on following the reports of events as they happened. The source of the information is someone in an excellent position to know the truth, and I find the entire account entirely credible. The only little problem is, the source is Saif al Islam al Gaddafi.
Speaking exclusively to The Herald at his home near Tripoli, Saif al Islam al Gaddafi disclosed the original prisoner transfer deal with the UK government was directly linked to talks on trade and oil.
However, he denied this had anything to do with the eventual release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and said the mercy shown by the Scottish Government had transformed the traditional Arabic view of Britain as "crusaders" against Islam.
[....]
He said: "For the last seven to eight years we have been trying very hard to transfer Mr Megrahi to Libya to serve his sentence here, and we have tried many times in the past to sign the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) without mentioning Mr Megrahi, but it was obvious we were targeting Mr Megrahi and the PTA was on the table all the time.
"It was part of the bargaining deal with the UK. When Tony Blair came here we signed the agreement. It is not a secret. But I want to be very clear to your readers that we didn't mention Mr Megrahi. People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and politics and deals were all with the PTA."
[....]
Mr al Gaddafi told The Herald there had been no quid pro quo and that his comments had been misunderstood partly because people do not understand the difference between the PTA and compassionate release.
"This the PTA was one animal and the other was the compassionate release," he said. "They are two completely different animals. The Scottish authorities rejected the PTA. It did not work at all, therefore it was meaningless. He was released for completely different reasons."
Ultimately, however, he said the work to secure prisoner transfer of Megrahi failed as it was rejected by Mr MacAskill. Instead, the minister chose to release Megrahi from Greenock prison early on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill and medical reports suggested he had less than three months to live.
You are perfectly at liberty to decide to disbelieve this account. It is however the most straightforward, clear and accurate summary I have seen of what quite clearly happened, going by the totality of the news reports over the years.
I would say of Gordon Brown's behaviour, "white man speak with forked tongue", except that isn't true either, he's simply keeping his mouth shut and hoping that people go right on jumping to wrong conclusions.
I would say that David T Reid from Edinburgh opinion explains the essence of those who share MacAsskill's decision.
"The views of those who live in the US, whether they are of Scottish origin or not, are not really relevant."
And in a way they are not. Kenny MacAskill is
our justice secretary, not yours. You are entitled to express an opinion of course, just as I am entitled to express an opinion on US affairs (and frequently do). However, at the end of the day, I do not get to vote on these opinions. And only the Scottish people get to vote on Kenny MacAskill.
Rolfe.
