What it comes down to is that Scotland was planning to release Megrahi long before he was diagnosed with cancer.
I am not sure where you get this from?
The first link is correspondence from the FCO to the Scottish Justice officials in July of this year and this was referred to in McCaskill's reasons for his decision.
From what he said he had gained the impression from both american officials/politicians and from some of the american families that they had an expectation that Megrahi would be held in a Scottish prison for his full sentence. This correspondence seeks to establish whether any such unusual commitment had been given by the UK government. The first letter cited states clearly that the answer is no. The second letter is in response to a request for sight of the documents relating to the discussions and agreements made; the request is denied though the assurance that no such commitment was made is reiterated. McCaskill specifically regretted the fact the those documents were not made available to him when he announced his decision.
The request for sight of the documents is very reasonable given the view expressed by the americans and its variance from the UK government's line
It is the more understandable when we come to the second link which is to earlier correspondence:
The first letter (12/6/07) from Falconer to Salmond includes these words
The UK Government is well aware of the undertakings given in respect of Mr Megrahi. I am also aware that the Megrahi case is currently under review.This MOU does not conflict with those undertakings, nor does it impact on due process.
It is not at all clear from this letter what the undertakings referred to were; nor who they were given to. So Salmond seems to have written again
I notice this
A prisoner who is subject to an appeal cannot apply for transfer because Prisoner Transfer Agreements require a sentence to be final before transfer can take place. As such, until all his appeals have been concluded, M ral-Megrahi would be excluded from any such agreement.
That seems to clear up any continuing mystery as to why he withdrew his appeal: he was applying for release under PTA as well as under the compassionate grounds provision. While it may be true that no pressure was applied it is likely that any competent legal advisor would tell him that withdrawing the appeal was necessary if any consideration were to be given to his application under PTA. And this also explains the media reports to that effect in advance of the decision.
The letter from Jack Straw (26/7/09) acknowledges that the Scottish executive wanted Megrahi speficically excluded from the PTA: which hardly suggests they were planning to release him at that stage. It outlines ways this might be done but includes a provision for review of the agreement at a later date.
The letter from Hunt which follows makes it plain that the uk government does not want a specific exclusion for Megrahi: they prefer to leave it "permissive" thus ensuring that any diplomatic problem will a problem for Scotland and not for themselves. It includes this paragraph:
As you know, the Government has on a number of occasions made it L clear to the Libyan authorities that any PTA between the UK and Libya would not cover alMegrah. because the Government recognised the sensitivities surrounding this case. It also reflected the position set out in the letter from the UK and US Governments to the United Nations Secretary General (dated24August1998), which made it, clear that in the event of a conviction al-Megrahi would serve his sentence in the United Kingdom.
So the "made it clear" but did not want to write it down. And again there is reference to some letter from the UK and US governments to the UN the contents of which are not specified here. This explains the request for sight of this correspondence since it is obvious the wording is important
Straw's letter of September 2007 undertakes to include the exclusion clause requested by the Scottish Executive for any and all people convicted of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. Straw reneges on that in his letter of Dec 2007. Not surprisingly what is negotiated is what the FCO wanted in the first place. Salmond registers his disagreement with that decision in January and Straw gives him the bum's rush in February 2008. The letter of November 2008 gives notice that the PTA (in the form that the FCO wanted from the start) has been agreed and provides procedural information about how it will be passed: it reiterates that any decisions about Megrahi are for the Scottish Justice Minister, though that was never in doubt: the issue was whether the PTA would apply to lockerbie bombers and had no implications for release on compassionate grounds at all.
It seems to me that this whole correspondence was to ensure that the UK government was free of any responsibility for matters which might arise through the PTA which was framed in opposition to the wishes of the Scottish Exec.
The third link makes it plain that McCaskill had received representations which argued that agreements made between the uk and us and libyan governments through the united nations were still in force and would prevent the transfer of Megrahi under PTA. He refers to the fact that the background papers are not made available and asks about the rationale behind them. Which takes us back to the first link
I cannot see how you get to your view from all of this. Please explain
