Commentary on MacAskill's decision
Commentary from Alex Stevenson at politics.co.uk
One politician stands out from the crowd in the final days of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi: the man who freed him.
Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill did not distinguish himself because of the shining oratory he displayed during his turgid 40-minute statement yesterday.
Nor did he leave his name in the history books for his painful commitment to "due process" and mind-numbing legalese.
What marked him out was the overriding personal decision to back compassion over justice in his agonising over the fate of the dying Libyan terrorist.
Today the consequences of that action are swirling around not just Scottish politics, but across Britain and the world.
It falls to journalists to assess and analyse the political fallout of these seminal events.
There's a sensitivity required when writing about the consequences of a horrifying terrorist attack in which 270 innocent people lost their lives.
These pressures are magnified hugely for our politicians, who must respond in a way which demonstrates to their electorate their human understanding of these issues.
Most have chosen to respond with a studied, simmering outrage. Critics might call this something of a default position. They would be right.
For nobody's comments have been surprising. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have piled the pressure on Scotland, to little avail. Given the comforting lead from across the Atlantic it's that little bit easier to default to reflex criticism.
David Cameron criticised MacAskill's "nonsensical thinking", calling his decision "very bad". That seems safe enough for Middle England.
The Liberal Democrats' Scottish leader Tavish Scott retreated into process, saying the justice minister had "dithered" and that "major decisions like this must be transparent". He said the verdict was "disappointing".
In London, Labour - given the opportunity to hide behind their government role - have remained tight-lipped over the Megrahi decision. But foreign secretary David Miliband used his reaction to the Libyan's "hero's welcome" in Tripoli to communicate the same tone.
Megrahi's return, he said, was "deeply distressing... for anyone who's got an ounce of humanity in them".
These responses are all predictable. They are functional. They get the job done.
They also leave MacAskill's words shining out. In making what must be the biggest decision of his political career his tone was one of humanity, not anger.
"Our beliefs dictate that justice be served but mercy be shown," he said yesterday.
"Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people no matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated."
These are fine words that mark MacAskill out from the crowd. Today is about recriminations and disappointment. That was not the picture being painted by the unassuming MacAskill yesterday.
Yet underpinning all this is a fundamental truth which perhaps gives added currency to the frustration on show today.
There is something compelling about the Scottish government defying Washington and London all at once.
This was not a decision supposed to be motivated by the SNP's independence agenda, but it has given Scots an enormous feeling of what it must be like to make a real difference on the world stage.
In a narrative based on an agonising moral decision, the SNP has succeeded in demonstrating the benefits of its own freedom.
Nationalists north of the border could view this as MacAskill's biggest victory. By freeing Megrahi, he may have helped Scotland move closer to freeing itself.

Help



