[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Herald.]
The Holyrood Ministerial roadshow received a boost in Stirling when unexpected visitor and former Labour foe Dennis Canavan received applause for backing the SNP-administration’s approach on the Megrahi case.
The former Labour MP turned independent MSP received the first applause of a public meeting in the city’s Albert Halls to coincide with a cabinet meeting convened by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the absence of Alex Salmond who is on holiday.
Mr Canavan, still a popular figure in Stirlingshire, rose to support the issue of raising Scotland’s profile on the international stage.
He then said he supported the decision of Mr MacAskill almost a year ago to release on compassionate grounds the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the applause for his comments doubling as he “wholeheartedly supported” the refusal of Scottish ministers to heed a summons to appear before US senators.
But the former MSP said “unanswered questions” about the Megrahi conviction led him to believe an international commission or tribunal would be best placed to reveal what had really happened during the case.
“What action is the Scottish Government taking to bring about such an inquiry?” he asked, prompting Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to respond that, while he supported such a course of events, the Scottish Government simply did not have the powers needed to order such an inquiry, which could only be created by the UK, the US or the United Nations.
[The local newspaper for the area in which the meeting was held, the Stirling Observer, reports the exchange as follows:]
Former Falkirk West MSP Dennis Canavan raised the controversial subject of the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
He said he supported justice secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release the bomber on compassionate grounds – and the Scottish Government’s decision not to go “crawling across to the other side of the Atlantic” to give evidence at a US inquiry – but added that some kind of international inquiry was necessary and asked what steps the administration was taking on this issue.
Mr MacAskill answered that when he made the decision to release the bomber he “also made clear that there are outstanding issues”.
He added: “I made it quite clear that I would fully support an inquiry that had the appropriate jurisdiction.
“Scotland doesn’t have that jurisdiction however. It is beyond the limitations we have either as a government or in the laws of Scotland.”
[The excuse about the Scottish Government not having sufficient powers to institute a meaningful inquiry is becoming boring. To quote from a recent letter sent by the Justice for Megrahi campaign:]
The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet.
*The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Minister for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue.
"The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
ReplyDelete*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Minister for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue."
How very simply summarised. I would add to point 5 above that the Scottish Government has the power to begin investigations into those grounds which the SCCRC claimed publicly could mean a miscarriage of justice had occurred, even if the appeal is gone. For that statement is still on record and so far Scotland and Westminster are ignoring it. Given it is a statement about the biggest trial ever in Scotland on the biggest atrocity ever to happen here the reluctance to examine the facts says a great deal.
This is awesome news I feel compelled to comment on. Interesting development, and poignant note, Professor Black. No power for an inquiry? Or not enough power behind their inquiry? Etc.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that'sall I can say now. I'll have to come back to this tomorrow and read it deeper.
Nite.
I don't see how the content of this story supports the headline "Justice Secretary repeats support for full Lockerbie inquiry." manifestly he doesn't.
ReplyDeleteManifestly, he does.
ReplyDeleteCanavan is reported as saying that “unanswered questions” about the Megrahi conviction led him to believe an international commission or tribunal would be best placed to reveal "what had really happened during the case".
MacAskill is reported as responding that "he supported such a course of events" but that the Scottish Government did not have the necessary powers.
Well he supports such an enquiry as long as somebody else carries it out. PM Cameron explicitly ruled out such an enquiry into anything in his comments on the Saville Report.
ReplyDelete"Well he supports such an enquiry as long as somebody else carries it out."
ReplyDeleteThat, baz, is precisely the point that the post was making, and which I was criticising in my quote from the JfM letter.
It's a repeat because he's said this before, and it's a better statement of support than any relevant politician so high up has said yet.
ReplyDeleteIt could be a dodge to avoid doing it themselves, but the better way to dodge that would be to insist any wider probe would be a waste of time, considering Megrahi's guilty as sin. But he didn't do that.
July 18:
"We would always look to assist any properly constituted inquiry - and indeed we very much support a wider UK public inquiry or United Nations investigation capable of examining all of the issues related to the Lockerbie atrocity, which go well beyond Scotland's jurisdiction - and that remains the case."
And further back, in his release announcement 20/8/09: " I accept the conviction and sentence imposed. However, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.
This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry."
So that's three repetitions now of same basic thing, and no change in his view that someone else will have to do it. I have mixed feelings here.
Mr. Canavan's involvement is more promising (seeming).
MacAskill has publicly called for a full investigation and he is right that the UK Government needs to support that too and that there is much that would be in such an investigation that the Scottish Government has no jurisdiction over. The UK Government for example is refusing to release certain evidence.
ReplyDeleteBut the points JFM make are absolute. MacAskill can go further by making those same points and if he did it properly then public opinion would do the rest. But then if he'd dealt with the release properly we'd still have an appeal, indeed, it would have been heard by now. (Or would it?)