So the experts are saying that he's "terminally ill" with his survival likely to be a matter of months and more importantly that he doesn't represent a risk, at which point surely it's totally reasonable to let him have compassionate release?
I've said before I don't believe in "life means life" as the justice system shouldn't be about revenge, but reforming these individuals. If, therefore, one of these individuals is deemed not to represent a risk to the population, why keep them locked up? I therefore think the Scottish Government has made the right decision.
However, I don't think this decision should have been in the hands of the government. Although the laws the justice system makes decisions on are decided by acts of parliament (and rightfully so) how these are interpreted and fit individual cases is up to the courts which are a separate entity. Justice should be separate for government and therefore so should a decision like this.
Things like international relations shouldn't be a factor in deciding an individuals freedom and the opinions of people like Barak Obama are irrelevant for this. As soon as you put a political influence in individual cases you start punishing people out of revenge, which just makes us as bad as them.
The one thing I feel disappointed by with this case is the fact that Megrahi has had to drop his second appeal in order to be released. If there is enough strength of evidence to suggest that an appeal is in order and that may put in the conviction in doubt surely this needs to be listened to in the interests of truth?