None of which applies to this circumstance, that of convicted person having their sentence commuted by the relevant Jurisdiction, the Scottish Courts.

In pre-devolution days the Judicial responsibility stopped with the Scottish Courts and Ministerial responsibility with the Secretary of State for Scotland (a UK Cabinet Minister). The Secretary of State for Scotland was in exactly the same place as McAskill, with a duty to take an entirely personal decision.

I hold no brief for the
Small-mind and
Narrow-minded
People

and find it difficult to free my mind of the common English prejudice that Scots are sensible.

Alec, you have a stupid hat.

Mettaculture, you write too much, and it’s mostly nonsense.

Of course that is what the SNP will claim but Scotland is not a Seperate country it is constitutionally a devolved entity whithin the Sovereign nation the UK.

It does not have sovereign powers over foreign relations or national security or the security services.

Megrahi is not a British national being released to return home in Sotland (or anywhere else in the UK).

He is a man convicted of international crimes of terrorism and is being released to return to what is arguably a hostile power.

Its really not hard to see that this falls squarely within the non devolved reserved powers of the sovereign state.

I don’t think you read the Scotland Act 1988 I excerpted from.

Of course this kind of conflict, and I hate to say ‘I told you so’, was inevitable and perfectly predictable as a result of the way Scottish devolution occurred.

Indeed the powers of the Scottish Executive/now government have steadily been enhanced by secondary legislation by the national UK executive without any referendum or plebiscite to grant a mandate for this.

It has always been obvious that a SNP administration would exploit this fudge and engineer a confrontation, that tecnhically could have been overuled by Westminster but in practice could not without reaping a further nationalist dividend for the SNP by posing the English as overuling Scottish wishes.

The only way to have avoided this would have been for the proposed Supreme Court to also function as a constitutional court to rule on the conflicts of laws that would occur between Westminster and the devolved regions.

Of course such a constitutional court may well have given an open transparent and legal ruling on this Megrahi affaire and that always spoils a machiavellian politicians dinner.

“neither McAskill, Alex Salmond or the Scottish Executive, now self styled by the SNP, Government has any power to release Megrahi contrary to the wishes of either the British Executive or Parliament in Westminster.”

Your’re wrong. Criminal law and Courts in Scotland are ENTIRELY separate from the rest of the UK and always have been.

Once again I refer to Article XIX of the Treaty of Union. It lists some of the same Courts you have quoted in the Scotland Act 1998.

Looks but I think does not prove. Once again (but with greater grace) someone has arrived with what is a de facto conspiracy theory to explain the release of Mr al Megrahi. You can read. Do you think any at Hollyrood can not?

If someone does unbidden a service for which we wish (but cannot bring ourselves to request) is that not serendipity?

Better still, if an ‘inconvenient’ prisoner develops a terminal condition – and there was an utterly callous discussion tonight on “Newsnight” about Mr al Megrahi’s health and life chances – and so can be returned home, all well and good might runa certain line of argument. But setting such a circumstance in train without discovery would require a skill only found in fiction and not always convincing there.

I have yet to read here anyone suggesting that Mr al Megrahi’s condition was the result of an attempt against his life by the ‘authorities’, but I am patient. One such theory will be along soon.

“If they wanted Brown to carry the can they should have handed it to him. If there was a legal technicality they could have exploited to do that, they failed to do so. On the contrary, they embraced the responsibility. Therefore they can take the consequences.” – Der Whigphilosophie der Geschichte 11.49 a.m. 24.08.09

Despite the non de plume, simple, elegant and precise.

McAskill has a discretionary power to release a prisoner in Scotland on compassionate grounds.

He may have released Megrahi, but he could not have as it was a matter of national security and international relations which are not functions or powers to have been devolved in the Scotland Act;

despite its rather extraordinary release of most prerogative powers to the Scottish Executive ( in a farcically and very British undemocratic move)

However the Scotland Act is clear on which matters ministers or the Executive at Hollyrood have no power over;

—————————————————-

Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46)

Section 30.

SCHEDULE 5RESERVED MATTERS
PART IGENERAL RESERVATIONS

The Constitution
1The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

(a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
(c)the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
(d)the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,
(e)the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.

2(1)Paragraph 1 does not reserve—
(a)Her Majesty’s prerogative and other executive functions,
(b)functions exercisable by any person acting on behalf of the Crown, or
(c)any office in the Scottish Administration.

……………………………………………………….
Foreign affairs etc.

7(1)International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom,

the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations,

regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve—

(a)observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under Community law,

(b)assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies.
——————————-

9(1)The following are reserved matters—

(a)the defence of the realm,
(b)the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, including reserve forces,
(c)visiting forces,
(d)international headquarters and defence organisations,
(e)trading with the enemy and enemy property.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve—

(a)the exercise of civil defence functions by any person otherwise than as a member of any force or organisation referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to (d) or any other force or organisation reserved by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a),

(
Treason
10Treason (including constructive treason), treason felony and misprision of treason are reserved matters.

PART IISPECIFIC RESERVATIONS

Preliminary
1The matters to which any of the Sections in this Part apply are reserved matters for the purposes of this Act.
2A Section applies to any matter described or referred to in it when read with any illustrations, exceptions or interpretation provisions in that Section.
3Any illustrations, exceptions or interpretation provisions in a Section relate only to that Section (so that an entry under the heading “exceptions” does not affect any other Section).

Reservations

• B8. National security, interception of communications, official secrets and terrorism[Section B8.]

National security.
The interception of communications; but not the subject-matter of Part III of the Police Act 1997 (authorisation to interfere with property etc.) or surveillance not involving interference with property.

The subject-matter of—
(a)
the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920, and
(b)
the Official Secrets Act 1989, except so far as relating to any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by section 4(2) (crime) and not by any other provision of sections 1 to 4.

Special powers, and other special provisions, for dealing with terrorism.

• B10. Emergency powers[Section B10.]
Emergency powers.

• B11. Extradition[Section B11.]

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

It rather looks like the SNP have deftly been passed a heavy ball which they have promptly kicked through their own goal with all the reckless abandon of teenagers having a house wrecking party when their parents are on vacation.

Now its clean up time

In one sentence you destroy your own credibilty.

“Gaddafi’s son has made statements which he then retracted, which confirm that there were negotations consistent with my analysis of the events.” – Judy.

I have heard this man speak but have not been able to follow him since I do not speak Arabic. Translation can be a issue here and I think some of the interpretations placed by Saif al-Islam, Colonel Gadaffi’s son on his meetings with others in the U.K. government are best regarded as speculative, if not imaginative, a fact which now appears widely accepted except by yourself.

“But I think you’re more impressed by the froth and the spin than inclined to take seriously the force of the very unambiguous Treaty provision. As well as the track record of Gordon Brown.” – Judy.

I am not so impressed by “froth and spin” which is exactly why I take issue with your analysis. Your key point revolves on whether this affair can be laid at the feet of Gordon Brown – you have no other. To achieve this you have invented a plausible but in reality flimsey argument based upon an arch reading of a treaty and by this support as a certainty your claim that the return of Mr al Megrahi to Libya was plotted over time by Brown aided and abetted by his stooges in Scotland – to you a place with “provincial legal status” somewhere up north.

I could go on but I feel the time has come to declare.

One happy note on which to end is I have just seen and heard the replusive Mr John Bolton fuming on “Newsnight” (BBC 2 television) and ending by bawling down the satellite link that Mr al Megrahi should have been tried in the U.S.A. and executed. (Why, one wonders, bother with a trial?). “We should never have given him up to the Scottish authorities” were his angry last words. So, something for which to be grateful.

The Scots-Irish were very important in the American Revolution, particularly in Pennslyvania, the most populus colony and New Jersey, where they made up the bulk of the revolutionaries with some help from the German-Americans. To a large extent, the Revolution in Pennslyvania and New Jersey was the Presbyterian Church in Arms. Both Congregationalists and Presbyterian, the two largest Protestant denominations in the rebellious colonies, Clergy and Lay people alike were very strong for Independence with radical slogans like “No king except King Jesus” and “Resistance to Tyrannery to Obdeience to God”. The last Royalist Governor of Massachusetts in his memoirs was full of complaints of how the Rebellion was stirred up by “the black regiment” (being plain dressed in mostly black clothes) of Congregationalist and Presbyterian ministers. Numerous times these ministers would tell the local militia when they were mustered for battle to go and smite the invading British just as the ancient Israelities had done the Philistines.

Monty: Agreed. There is no getting around that by this disgraceful act, all those who stand against Terrorism have suffered, as Churchill said about the sell-out of Czechslovakia at Munich, “a total and unimitigated defeat”. Indeed we can look forward to more demands by the Islamists for further restrictions on anything they find offensive. This is the bitter cup from which all of western Europe can look forward to drinking if they continue on their present course of Appeasement.