Scottish Government was wrong to free convicted terrorist

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to free al-Megrahi, the man convicted of killing 270 people in a terrorist attack on an American airliner as it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, was wrong.

It has caused outrage in the United States which lost 189 citizens in the attack in 1989. And, although opinion has been less unequivocal in the UK (many British citizens died including 11 in Lockerbie) I think most people here believe that al-Megrahi, dying of cancer, should not have been sent home to Libya but should have ended his life in prison.

Al-Megrahi has always claimed he was innocent, and some people believe that his conviction was based on rather weak circumstantial evidence. But that was not MacAskill's stated view. He released him on the grounds that even though al-Megrahi had shown no mercy to his victims, it was right to be compassionate to him, and to let him return home to his family to die.

Many outside the UK might have been surprised that this decision was taken by the Scottish Government. For 10 years now Scotland has had its own Parliament with devolved powers from the UK Government. So Scotland is responsible for running many services including prisons and the judicial system. The UK Government is still in charge of Scotland's foreign policy but, although this decision had international repercussions, it was technically just a domestic matter.

Scotland is currently ruled by a minority Scottish National Party (SNP) government. Their aim is eventually to achieve full-blown independence for Scotland, a situation which has not existed since the Union of Parliaments in 1707 when the Scottish Parliament was abolished. I have been impressed by many of the achievements of the SNP Government, and have always liked Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister.

However, as I watched Mr MacAskill's theatrical performance at his press conference, and then saw him interviewed by the BBC, Channel 4 News and then CNN (I have never seen the wonderful Wolf Blitzer so angry) it seemed to me that he was revelling in the limelight a little too much. This was his chance to put himself and Scotland in a world spotlight. As someone who is both Scottish and British, I am embarrassed by his decision, and I do not want Scotland to be infamous as the country which released a terrorist.

I regard myself as a compassionate person. I am wholly opposed to the use of torture and the death penalty in any circumstances, and I believe prisoners should be treated humanely, whatever their offences. Al-Megrahi should have remained in prison, being given whatever medical help he needed to ease his dying weeks.

But to release him was to show contempt for his victims, and to show no compassion to the relatives who have been grieving for 21 years, and will grieve for the rest of their lives. How do you think they felt, Mr MacAskill, when the man convicted of their loved ones returned to a hero's welcome in Libya ?

A huge mistake.

SOLICITORS ARE USELESS

Solicitors are useless. We accepted an offer for our house in June, and the conveyancing is still dragging on. Our solicitor has known for ages that we want to complete this deal on 1st September. Today he sent us a list of about 20 supplementary questions from the purchaser's solicitor. The latter had dated the document "6th August" so it had taken my solicitor 12 days to get this document to me !

I spent an hour or so this afternoon answering the questions and e-mailed the answers to my solicitor. He said he would pass them on "in due course".When I asked what this meant, he said "in the next few days" ! My final e-mail today said I hoped that "after reconsideration" he would send them tomorrow. I await his response.

And this man has actually threatened to charge me an extra £100 (+ VAT of course) if there are fewer than 10 working days between exchange and completion ! If he does, perhaps I'll finally get round to reporting one of these overpaid useless so-called professionals to the Law Society. Which will probably get me nowhere.

And we're continuing to have a problem with the son of a neighbour. I'll tell the full story once we've completed this move, but this man is a Pain (with a capital 'P').

The English system of buying and selling houses is a disaster area. Unlike Scotland and most other sensible countries, no-one is legally committed to anything until exchange of contracts which takes place very late in the process - typically 8 or 9 weeks after you've accepted the offer. What this does is encourage dishonesty, deceit and double-dealing.

I used to scoff when people said moving house was stressful. But it certainly has been this time. Even now, about 8-9 weeks after we accepted the offer for our house, we could be told tomorrow that our purchasers had changed their minds and weren't going to buy it after all. And they would be perfectly within their rights - legal rights, I mean; moral rights - no. But morality doesn't come into it when people are buying and selling houses.

STOP TELLING LIES ABOUT BRITAIN'S NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

"One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you're injured or fall ill – no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you've got – you know that the NHS will look after you." - David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party.

This is the first time I have ever quoted David Cameron approvingly. But I am sick and tired of the lies and distortions being peddled by American conservatives about Britain's National Health Service. Of course, it's not a perfect system - is there such a thing ? But the overwhelming majority of British people - whether their political views are liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing - are glad that we have the NHS. We know that if we do fall ill, we will receive free medical treatment. So we will not have financial worries added to our health problems.

Incidentally The Guardian reported on Tuesday: "The UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place."

In America something like 47 million people have no health insurance; millions more have inadequate policies and often face arguments with insurance companies when they are taken ill about exactly what is or is not covered.

Many American Presidents - starting with Theodore Roosevelt nearly 100 years ago - have tried to get a universal healthcare system in the US . All have failed - most recently Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The vested interests of the insurance companies and others have prevailed. So America remains the only major industrialised country in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all its people.

America voted for change only eight months ago. And in electing Barack Obama, the USA voted for a President whose commitment to healthcare reform was spelt out day after day at campaign rallies throughout the country. No-one can have been in any doubt about his policy on this vital issue.

I have been shocked by the tactics of some of Obama's opponents. Calling him and other Democrats 'Nazis' is beyond the pale; one Congressman even had a swastika daubed outside his office.And I was frankly sickened by the fact that the police were apparently powerless to stop a man turning up to an Obama meeting with a gun strapped to his leg.

I love America, though I have often disliked the policies of its Presidents. Perhaps some people think I should not comment on American domestic politics. But increasingly we live in a global village with CNN, NBC and Fox News available to satellite subscribers in the UK and throughout the world. But in addition on this occasion the American right has involved Britain by maligning our NHS. So I feel no qualms about my intervention.

Obama is right about health care, and I hope he prevails. America is fortunate to have him as President.