[The following are excerpts from the report on the BBC News website on today's session of First Minister's Questions in the Scottish Parliament.]
When later asked by Tory leader Ms [Annabel] Goldie, in keeping with convention, when he will next meet the prime minister, Mr [Alex] Salmond quipped: "As far as I can judge, the prime minister doesn't seem to be in a mood to meet anyone at the present moment."
Mr Salmond was asked by Ms Goldie to "explain the difference between the mass murderer Thomas Hamilton and the mass murderer al-Megrahi".
Hamilton was responsible for murdering 16 schoolchildren and their teacher at Dunblane Primary School in 1996, while Lockerbie bomber Megrahi was freed last year on compassionate grounds after developing terminal cancer.
Mr Salmond told a televised Scottish leaders debate on Sunday that Hamilton would not have been freed on compassionate grounds if he had survived the massacre and later been diagnosed with a terminal illness. [See this blog post.]
Ms Goldie put it to the first minister: "The point is that the first minister has publicly stated two irreconcilable and totally contradictory positions in relation to two mass murderers.
"How does he justify that contradiction - how can he support the release of one mass murderer and totally oppose the release of another?"
Mr Salmond said Hamilton would not have passed the "first principle" of guidance for release on compassionate grounds, that the offender's release should not create the risk of re-offending or endanger public safety.
He added: "Whatever may be said about the release of Mr al-Megrahi, nobody seriously believes that his release would put the safety of the Scottish public at risk."
[The Times's report on the exchange between Ms Goldie and Mr Salmond can be read here.
In the course of a blog post headed "Playing politics with the Dunblane Massacre: have we really stooped this low?" well-known Scottish journalist Joan McAlpine says the following:]
I wrote a lot about the Dunblane massacre in its immediate aftermath, mainly columns that supported the campaign for a ban on handguns (...)
I tried, in my own work, to ensure that [the murderer] slipped into the obscurity from whence he came. So it was quite shocking to hear the killer's name spoken, quite unexpectedly, in a question from a viewer on the Sky Scottish Leaders debate on Sunday. The purpose of the question was to ask Alex Salmond whether, if the Dunblane murderer had lived and contracted terminal cancer, would he be released on compassionate grounds - ie like the man charged with the Lorckerbie bombing. Salmond said he would not.
No sooner was the Sky programme finished than the Labour party had adopted Dunblane v Lockerbie as their attack strategy for the day. David Cairns on the Politics Show, in an interview conducted immediately after the debate had ended, started talking about Salmond's insult re Lockerbie/Dunblane. The Scottish leader Iain Gray echoed this line, which lead the BBC Scotland radio bulletin on Sunday and was given extensive coverage in the scottish press, including The Scotsman and The Times the next day. All lead with Labour's condemnation of Salmond's answer.
Using the hypothetical scenario of the Dunblane killer surviving the massacre for public entertainment and political advantage is unacceptable. Dunblane was an event that united the whole of Scotland in grief. Labour's George Robertson, the shadow Scottish Secretary who happened to live in Dunblane, worked closely with Michael Forsyth, the Conservative Scottish Secretary who was the local MP. There was no point scoring from either man, nor indeed from SNP nor Liberal Democrats. Dunblane was just too terrible for that...it was completely off limits.
The decision of Labour to take this tasteless line of attack is also inexplicable given the party's duplicity on the release of Al-Megrahi. Brown notably failed to comment on the Scottish government's decision to release Megrahi ... because he wanted the prisoner released without having to take any political flak himself. Foreign Office papers later revealed that his government was keen that Megrahi did not die in prison, so as not to damage the UK's relationship with oil rich Libya and its leader Colonel Gadaffi. Remember, that if Megrahi's conviction is sound and he is the bomber, he was sent on his deadly mission by Gadaffi, who is now on hand-shaking terms with British PMs. For more on Lockerbie, see Lockerbie and hypocrisy.
"Whatever may be said about the release of Mr al-Megrahi, nobody seriously believes that his release would put the safety of the Scottish public at risk."
ReplyDeleteOf course not. The next plane he blows up probably won't be over Scotland.
In all seriousness, it's a pretty reasonable distinction. Not to mention - definitely not to mention - the difference in their likely actual guilt.
I don't think Alex should have been quite so categorical. Given the law, and his earlier position, it would have been better to have said he'd have granted compassionate release to Hamilton if he was terminally ill and if his release wouldn't put the safety of the Scottish public at risk.
ReplyDeleteYou can't say in one breath that the severity of the crime has no bearing on eligibility for compassionate release, and then say you'd never release a particular criminal, apparently solely on the basis of the severity of his crime.
Didn't hear the debate, but from what I gather (Scotsman comments) Salmond was sort of cut off and didn't get a chance to fully explain, IF he had the explanation handy at the time. But in retrospect, it's just the obvious that a criminally insane gunman would probably be a danger. That's a lot of predicting tho, to be so sure, Shoulda called it too hypothetical and moved on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those calling this a tempest in a teapot and a cheap attempt to gain anti-SNP points. They're telling us we're in "fury" now, etc...
It's an election. Hyperbole, much?
ReplyDeleteThe unionist parties are terified of Alex Salmond, because they know the SNP only has to win once. And that no developed western democracy, having once gained or regained its independence, has ever regretted it or petitioned to re-form a union.
So they clutch at any smear or half-truth to try to muddy the issues at election time. We're used to it. It doesn't have a lot of impact anyway.
The unionist parties are terified of Alex Salmond, because they know the SNP only has to win once. And that no developed western democracy, having once gained or regained its independence, has ever regretted it or petitioned to re-form a union.
ReplyDeleteSo they clutch at any smear or half-truth to try to muddy the issues at election time. We're used to it. It doesn't have a lot of impact anyway.
I was really taken by surprise, unaware of any devolution/nationalism stuff at all until I started studying Lockerbie and the Megrahi case. It's tending to point towards national independence, eventually? Canadian-style at best I'm sure, but... is this an amazing time or what?
Canadian-style? Last time I looked, Canada is an independent country.
ReplyDeleteWe want to be an independent state within the EU on the same terms as Ireland and Denmark and other countries of similar size.
It's a bit annoying the way so many commentators on Megrahi's release don't understand that there were two administrations involved, which hate each others' guts. The timing of the SNP takeover at Holyrood was particularly relevant as it happened towards the end of Tony Blair's "deal in the desert", which was obviously predicated on the assumption that he could tell the Scottish government what to do, and then of course he couldn't.
I'm very intrigued though as to why the SNP government also seems concerned to avoid close enquiry into what went on with Pan Am 103. They had no involvement and no responsibility for anything prior to May 2007. And yet they've fallen into line with the prior "see no evil" policies.
The SNP attitude is, I think, attributable to the decision to keep in post the previous Labour administration's Lord Advocate, Eilish Angiolini. The whole of Mrs Angiolini's legal career has been in the Scottish Crown Office. There was never any likelihood whatsoever that she would deviate in the slightest from the cast-iron position adopted by that office in relation to Lockerbie. The real mystery is what induced Alex Salmond and the incoming SNP Government to break with tradition by keeping in post their predecessors' Lord Advocate.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's a mystery at all. It was widely discussed at the time. The SNP disapproved of the office of Lord Advocate being a political appointment, and Eilish Angiolini had been widely credited for doing a good job in the post. It was something of an olive branch from a new government with a wafer-thin majority. Alex Salmond was trying to seem magnanimous and non-partisan and inclusive.
ReplyDeleteI honestly think it's as simple as that. Any effect on the Lockerbie train of events is purely coincidental in my opinion.
Ooh! New comments!
ReplyDeleteRobert Black said:
The real mystery is what induced Alex Salmond and the incoming SNP Government to break with tradition by keeping in post their predecessors' Lord Advocate.
Rolfe said:
Alex Salmond was trying to seem magnanimous and non-partisan and inclusive.
I honestly think it's as simple as that. Any effect on the Lockerbie train of events is purely coincidental in my opinion.
Could well be. But note that you had to say "I honestly think." So we don't know and ultimately it is a mystery.
I'm way behind on the specifics here, but new governments often change promises on coming to power, and have to strike compromises with existing establishments and interests. Might be something of that in there...
Bill Hicks had a great skit about the meeting all US presidents must have with the CIA on eneering office. They're shown a film they've never seen - the Kennedy assassination from the gunman's perspective. Whole new president then.
The concept might be faintly similar, anyway.
Well, I say "I honestly think" because I'm an SNP supporter and might be seen as biassed on the subject. The issue was much discussed in the press at the time and if the Herald's web site had a friendlier search function you'd be able to find the articles. Political commentators were pretty unanimous in praising Salmond for being inclusive and non-partisan. Angiolini was seen at the time as doing a good job, and the perception was that it was statesmanlike and conciliatory to allow her to continue rather than sack her and replace her with another political appointee. The SNP only had a single-seat majority, and retaining Angiolini was seen as a way of acknowledging that the previous administration still had a fair chunk of support.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that Lockerbie was in the news at the time, in relation to the deal in the desert which was happening simultaneously, but it never occurred to me for a second that Angiolini's confirmed appointment had anything to do with that. And thinking about it, I can't imagine that the SNP appointed Angiolini because it wanted to tie its own hands as regards being open with the Lockerbie facts.
I think Angiolini's appointment was confirmed for what seemed good and statesmanlike reasons at the time, and any knock-on effect on Lockerbie disclosure was an unintended consequence.