[joeysteele]

Scotland does do things a little differently as to law however the facts that will still remain, I would say are.
1) can the accused person really independently understand the charges made against them.
2),can they independently themselves instruct lawyers on their behalf.

Scotland is part of all human rights rulings too, to put to trial someone deemed incapable of understanding or able to instruct others as to the issues in question, would surely go against those human rights.

If Scotland were to do so and all medical evidence stated convincingly otherwise then Scotland could be in massive trouble nationally and internationally.

The other case, al-Megrahi,was a cancer condition, it can be that medicine puts a limited time on survival of those with cancer but it can be that those with it survive much longer.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of that case, they are far different to a case where because the brain is in effect rendered incapable of its full function as to memory, understanding and coordination and independent living too for the individual.

It would be either a very brave or really bad legal system that actually went ahead with a prosecution of such a sufferer of that.
A UK inquiry into his 'alleged' crimes is vital but it would surprise me, if the weight of evidence as to his dementia status was upheld,that any case in court would or could be brought.