US Edition Whether deliberate or not — and I suspect it might have been planned to some degree — there was more than a whiff of old time religion in Kenny MacAskill’s entirely expected announcement yesterday that the Lockerbie bomber was to be allowed to go home to Libya to die.
In style and substance the Scottish justice minister adopted the sonorous tones and ecclesiastical references more in keeping with the pulpit than the despatch box. As such it was a surprise from this politician, who has never before worn his belief in a supreme being on his sleeve.
Mind you, his family is from Lewis - the closest Scotland has to a Bible-belt - and perhaps he thought that saying that Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power" might ease the acute pain his decision will cause amongst many relatives of the 270 victims of the Lockerbies outrage.
It was this ‘sentence’ that Mr MacAskill used to justify his highly controversial decision, which sent shock waves and earned him serious criticism around the world, especially in the United States. The verdictfrom on high for Megrahi was one that no court, in any jurisdiction in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal final and irrevocable .."He is going to die."
The crucial question, ghoulish though it might appear, is when will he die. The Scottish justice minister took his decision to sent Megrahi back to Libya based on medical evidence that his life expectancy was three months or less. Whether he lives longer or shorter than that period will, of course, be monitored closely by everyone concerned and any sign that his prostate cancer is not as serious as doctors have said it is, or triumphalism back in Tripoli, will obviously be hugely embarrassing - perhaps career ending - for Mr MacAskill and for Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister.
Scotland’s international reputation has been damaged by this affair which the SNP have allowed to drag on for far too long.
However, this observer believes that Kenny MacAskill made the correct decision for the correct reasons, appallingly difficult though it must have been.
It is true that those responsible for the Lockerbie outrage showed no compassion for their victims, none of whom were allowed to spend their last days with their families. And it is true that no fewer than eight Scottish judges - three at the original trial and five at the subsequent appeal - had believed that there was evidence enough to convict Megrahi.
But I think a compassionate release is in order in this case and if this man really does have only weeks to live - and that’s what the doctors told the minister - then he should be permitted to die at home.
Having said that I think that the minister overdid the "here’s tae us, wha’s like us" stuff about the nature of the Scottish people. He said that his decision to release the man was based, in part at least, by his belief that the Megrahi’s crime should not be used as a basis for losing sight of basic Scottish values.
"We are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people." He will be hoping that these expressions of an ardent, almost fervent, belief in what are often referred to as Christian values will help make this intensely bitter pill all the easier to swallow for the victims’ familes - especially those in the USA.
The signs in that direction last night were far from good with the US government expressing its "deep regret" at the turn of events.
That view was almost universal amongst British political opinion last night with David Cameron, the Tory leader, describing the release as "nonsensical" and Bill Aitken, for the Scottish Tories. saying that it should have been possible to keep Megrahi somewhere in Scotland.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders also deplored the release.
Strangest of all, however, and adding fuel to the many conspiracy theories that abound in this incredible case has been the dog that didn’t bark in the night. I refer, of course, to the British government.
It is of course proper of them to state, as they have, that the decision on either the transfer or the compassionate release of Megrahi was purely a matter for the Scottish authorities. But given that the Scottish minister saw or spoke to or received representations from victims’ families on both sides of the Atlantic, with both the Libyan and US governments and with Megrahi himself, is it not beyond comprehension that the British government offered no opinion on the issue.
Does Prime Minister Gordon Brown not have a view on whether this man should go home? Does David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary? They may say that if they said anything it might have been construed as putting pressure of the devolved administration in Edinburgh.
But saying nothing was as Mr MacAskill said, with massive understatement," highly regrettable."
All in all, this sometimes brittle minister made a good fist of a decision that is probably the most difficult I’ve ever seen a politician ever have to make.