This is the full text of a letter sent to the Herald newspaper, which appears in abridged form in that paper today.

In this article John Lamont, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman, appears to take it upon himself to try to define our reactions to the release of Mr Megrahi on the basis of party politics. ['Fresh Megrahi fury' Robbie Dinwoodie, The Herald, 21 December 2010]

On the very day of the 22nd anniversary of the Lockerbie slaughter too.

He is reported as saying:

“The decision by the SNP to release the Lockerbie bomber was a bad decision, made badly.

“But, as a consequence he has spent the last 18 months with his family and friends in Libya. He has been allowed to live his final weeks and months with those he loves.

“That is something he denied his victims.”

I happen to rejoice that this man Megrahi has enjoyed at least some relief from the fate that nature has brought upon him. He has been with his family for his last year and more. How would it have enhanced the lives of anyone if he had had to languish in prison away from those he loves until he died?

The invitation from Mr Lamont on this anniversary day of all days is for all of us to decry the decision made by Kenny MacAskill in granting Compassionate Release, and for us to wallow in the unfairness that Mr Megrahi should receive compassion and a death at home with his family, unlike those poor souls who died at Lockerbie. Sadly his attitude mimics that of many in the USA and demeans that of his own country.

Hatred and the lust for revenge are corrosive to those individuals and communities which harbour them. We should be proud that Scottish law allows the tempering of justice with mercy.

Apart from attempting to commandeer this poignant date for party political purposes Mr Lamont should not feel secure in accepting that Mr Megrahi really was guilty, this is unfinished business, and of hugely greater significance than his release.

Our SCCRC was not sure about the verdict; it feared a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the second appeal was allowed. If Mr Lamont knows something that the SCCRC doesn't and is thereby assured that the verdict was correct, by all means let him campaign for the abolition of the SCCRC. After all, Holyrood, with but one or two noble exceptions seems able to ignore the elephant which the SCCRC has introduced into our public arena: was Mr Megrahi guilty or wasn't he? But first we would need to know what it is that gives Mr Lamont such assurance.

I cannot claim that I can heroically forgive the murderers of my daughter and 269 others, because I don't know who they were, since I personally am satisfied that Mr Megrahi should never have been found guilty on the evidence led at Zeist.

What I can tell your readers is that the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into Lockerbie did tell us relatives that the disaster had been preventable and the aircraft had been under the Host State protection of the UK while it stood all that day on the Heathrow tarmac, while being loaded from empty.

Yet the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, refused even to meet us to discuss these terrible findings, let alone launch an inquiry, all her successors in office since have also refused an inquiry. Later she published 'the Downing Street Years' in which she claims that following her support for the USAF bombing of Libya in 1986, "Gaddafi was not destroyed but he was humbled ...the much vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. There was a marked decrease in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years."

Mr Lamont will find these comments on Page 449 of her book.

So it seems on the face of it that the best known of recent Conservative Prime Ministers agrees that Libya was not responsible for Lockerbie. At least Mrs Thatcher's words have to do with who the perpetrator(s) of the atrocity might have been, whereas in the intervening years we seem to have decayed to the point when all we can do is quarrel over his compassionate release like hyenas round the last remnants of a long dead corpse.

Some relatives of the dead who have studied the Zeist evidence very carefully, (as have a substantial number of lawyers), have come to the firm conclusion that this man should never have been convicted on that evidence, a view strongly reinforced after the trial by further evidence and the comments of our SCCRC. The priority now has to be that a way be found fully to review that verdict

Perhaps through seeking to contribute to wresting power from the SNP in May Mr Lamont ignores the SCCRC's doubts as to whether Mr Megrahi was really responsible. If he were concerned to get to the truth, rather than bid for power in May, one might expect him to raise questions as to why the SNP imposed limitations on the availability of the SCCRC's material through secondary legislation passed in February 2010, which looks specifically designed to hamstring the efforts of those seeking the truth about the verdict.

Are we afraid of what the truth might be? Which heads might role, which careers wither?

I believe that the passing by Westminster to Scotland of the investigation and trial following Lockerbie was a poison chalice, presumably designed to conceal their own guilt and failures. Remember what our Scottish FAI told us relatives. The plane had been under the protection of the UK Government and the disaster had been preventable. 270 died; some guilt, some failure.

Can we really now do no better in Scotland than to squabble over the minutiae of the release of Mr Megrahi? Do we not want to know why our SCCRC came to the conclusion that it did? Do we not have the mettle to ask ourselves whether we got it all horribly wrong at Zeist? No one but the Scots can ameliorate the ridicule which has already fallen upon us over that verdict.

Unfortunately Mr Lamont's words seem an incitement to hate or at least despise a man about whose guilt there is very real doubt. Even if Mr Megrahi's guilt were assured, are such incitements appropriate in a supposedly Christian country at this or any other time of year? Should we associate ourselves with compassion or with vengeance? For which does He who lies at the heart of Christmas tell us we should stand?

It only remains to thank Mr Lamont for this opportunity to draw attention once again to the doubts surrounding Mr Megrahi's guilt, and to the atrocious treatment handed out to those Lockerbie relatives who still only seek to know the truth.

After 22 years, it should be clear to all those at Holyrood and Westminster that these unresolved issues are not going to go away without resolution.


Dr Jim Swire,