Scotland

Sunday

Alex Massie

Lockerbie Fallout: A (Fake) American Backlash

So, via Iain Dale, the News of the World has a story claiming that: Britain was facing the likelihood of an increased terror threat last night — after America’s CIA chiefs threatened to stop sharing vital intelligence with us following the Lockerbie bomber’s release.   The Americans have already warned British intelligence services that sending cancer-stricken Abdelbaset al-Megrahi home to Libya has destroyed our “special relationship”.   But the fallout following the bomber’s release has now worsened with the CIA threat to stop sharing information on terrorists gathered by their agents.   They have also warned they may not pass on vital information picked up by their sophisticated eavesdropping satellites.

Saturday

Alex Massie

Disappointment Deferred

Scott Brown #6 of Scotland celebrates after scoring the opening goal, with team mates Kenny Miller and Darren Fletcher during the  2010 World Cup Qualifier match beteween Scotland and Macedonia at Hampden Park. Photo: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images. Oh dear. Scotland won a football match today. Ordinarily this is occasion for huzzahs and trebles all round. But, really, we all know that it’s simply a matter of Delaying the Disappointment. To recap: for 50 minutes or so Scotland were dire. Against Macedonia. At home. Now all that’s needed is victory over Holland on Wednesday, results elsewhere to fall into place and the trifling matter of a play-off against a better

Friday

Tim Luckhurst

Who really freed Megrahi?

Who really freed the Lockerbie bomber? The question cannot be answered by deliberately looking in the wrong place. And for the fortnight since Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, announced Mr Megrahi’s release that is what journalists have been doing, obsessively. Reporting with the pack mentality that often misdirects them, British newspapers have tried to prove that Gordon Brown authorised the release. Instead they have demonstrated only that the Prime Minister wanted Megrahi to be transferred to Libya under the prisoner transfer scheme, and that he had no power to make it happen. Granted, Mr Brown and the British Cabinet desired a result that would have appalled Americans nearly as much

Thursday

Alex Massie

Lockerbie: Why Did the SNP Do It?

Party discipline can be a troublesome thing. Especially when insisting upon it actually works against you. Yesterday’s votes in the Scottish parliament criticising Kenny MacAskill and the decision to release the Lockerbie Bomber on compassionate grounds would have had a much greater impact if members had voted their consciences, not the party line. That’s why Con Coughlin is wrong to argue that the 73-50 vote against the SNP “heaps yet further humiliation” upon the Nationalists. That a minority administration loses a vote can hardly be thought shocking. But a proper free vote – as, actually, a matter such as this should be – would actually have been of some use

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Why did the SNP do it?

Looking through correspondence published yesterday, it is clear that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill understood immediately that they would be “left to deal with the consequences” of releasing a convicted mass-murderer. But, after Mr Megrahi had dropped his appeal, and therefore became eligible under the PTA, I can’t comprehend why the Scottish government took it upon itself to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, especially given the identity of the beneficiary of this decision. The 1998 Scotland Act binds Scotland to all UK treaties. Honouring the UK Libya PTA commitment would not have impinged upon the due processes and jurisdiction of Scots law, and would have shifted the public’s ire onto

James Forsyth James Forsyth

The government’s handling of the al-Megrahi affair has been colossally incompetent

Once one gets beyond one’s revulsion at the British government using the prospect of the release of a convicted mass murderer to grease the diplomatic skids, one is struck by the government’s incompetence during the Megrahi affair. Megrahi is the only man convicted of a bombing that killed 180 Americans—how did Whitehall think that Washington was going to react to his release? The United States is this county’s most important strategic ally and it seems bizarre to strain relations with it in the hope of improving relations with Libya. The correspondence between the Scottish Executive and the British government strongly suggests that if London had been prepared to offer this

Alex Massie Alex Massie

What If Megrahi Didn’t Have Cancer?

There’s still plenty, I’m afraid, that needs to be said about the decision to send the Lockerie bomber back to Libya. But, since many people think that there was a determination, come what may and regardless of circumstances, to free him let’s begin by asking how matters might have unfolded if Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi had not contracted terminal prostate cancer. Would he now be in Scotland or in Libya? Granted, this is a hypothetical but it may not be unreasonable to hazard that it might have gone like this: 1. The UK government and Libya would still have negotiated a Prisoner Transfer Agreement. 2. The Scottish government would still have

David Blackburn

The Lockerbie papers

Bill Rammell’s admission that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary told the Libyans that they ‘did not want al-Megrahi to pass away in prison’ is the bombshell the government hoped to avoid. And, together with Jack Straw’s sudden decision not to exclude al-Magrahi from the PTA to protect ‘wider negotiations with the Libyans”, this disclosure requires answers from the government. David Miliband heightened the chaos the government now finds itself in on the Today programme when he very foolishly remarked: “We did not want him to die in prison”. It was a slip of the tongue that undoes the government’s wilfully neutral stance over the al-Megrahi affair, stoking the rumour

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Does Donald Trump Need Your House?

Well, if he thinks he does you should be afraid. This has nothing to do with the absurd “Donald” being American and everything to do with the looming reality that folk will be compelled to sell their homes to accomodate his desire to own an even bigger part of Aberdeenshire. To recap: Donald Trump wants to build a couple of golf courses on the Aberdeenshire coast. He also wants to build nearly 1,000 “luxury houses” on the site. Apparently the main course is supposed to be the “Geatest Course in the World”. Well, maybe. It is hard to see how the ghastly holiday village can even pretend to make such

Tuesday

Alex Massie

Lockerbie Letters: No Smoking Gun

I know this won’t satisfy anyone who desperately wants there to have been a shady, grubby conspiracy but a quick perusal of the correspondence on the Lockerbie Affair published by the Justice Department, the Scottish Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office today gives no support to the notion that there was any such deal*.  The pattern is quite clear: the Scottish authorities weren’t happy with a PTA being signed at all but if there was one they wanted the PTA to contain a provision specifically excluding Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from its terms. London agreed and tried to make a deal with Libya excluding Megrahi. Libya demurred and London relented,

David Blackburn

Cameron is the winner of the al-Megrahi scandal 

It is clear that the al-Megrahi release has damaged Labour, not least because their collective refusal to condemn, or at least have an opinion on, the release of the Lockerbie bomber has confirmed that the government is totally out of touch with public opinion. On the other hand, David Cameron has played a blinder. In stark contrast to the Prime Minister’s Trappist monk act, Cameron has led this issue, voicing considered condemnations of Kenny MacAskill’s decision, the government’s reticence and the its supposedly ethical foreign policy. Cameron writes a piece in today’s Times branding the entire affair a ‘fiasco’ and a ‘failure of judgement by the Scottish government…the British government…and

Monday

Alex Massie

Megrahi Release Explained: He’s a Rangers Fan

Roddy Forsyth deserves our congratulations for revealing this: One of the unforeseen consequences of Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi’s incarceration in Greenock Prison was that, by his own account, in whiling away the hours by watching live football on the now-defunct Setanta network he became a Rangers supporter. No surprise that a man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in British history would forsake his local team – Morton – to support one of the Gruesome Twosome*. He and Rangers deserve one another. This, mind you, could run and run. Just as Celtic and Rangers supporters have co-opted other conflicts for their own ends (Huns** Rangers waving Israeli flags; Tims** Celtic sporting

Sunday

David Blackburn

Labour’s tactical blunder

Mike Smithson has an interesting post with how the fallout from the al-Megrahi affair is damaging Labour. He writes: ‘Where I think that Labour is going wrong here is in trying to cover up what has happened and by hiding behind the Scottish dimension. Why not come out and say that the paramount objective was energy and the need to open up new areas? A reference to Russia’s aggressive energy strategy would underline the point. What’s becoming clear is that the truth will out – why not get in with their explanation first?’ He’s right that Labour have made an enormous tactical blunder by not coming clean over this piece

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Lockerbie-for-Oil?

Pete suggests there’s little more to say about the Sunday Times story on the UK government’s attitude towards the release of the Abdelbaset ali al-Megrahi. The suggestion given by the paper – and increasingly assumed to be true by everyone else – is that Megrahi was freed for fear that keeping him in prison in Scotland would jeopardise potentially £15bn worth of business for BP in Libya. The implication is that, like the war in Iraq, it’s all about the oil. Well, we had to reach this point eventually, I guess. Nonetheless, though it’s written by my old friend Jason Allardyce, there’s a little less to the Sunday Times’s story

Peter Hoskin

The Libya plot thickens

So the Sunday Times has got its hands on letters which suggest the al-Megrahi release was tied up with a BP-Libya oil deal, and overseen by the Government with an eye on “the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom”.  The ST article deserves quoting at some length: “Two letters dated five months apart show that [Jack] Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country. In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before

Saturday

David Blackburn

Libyagate: first denial, then silence now contradictions

The Times has obtained confidential correspondence suggesting that, in 1999, Robin Cook assured Madeleine Albright that those found guilty of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing would serve their sentences in Scotland. A senior US official told the Times: “There was a clear understanding at the time of the trial that al-Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland. In the 1990s the UK had the same view. It is up to them to explain what changed.” So how do they explain it? Kenny MacAskill claims that US officials urged him against releasing the Lockerbie bomber because Britain had pledged he would serve his serve sentence in Scotland. Seeking clarification, MacAskill wrote

Friday

Peter Hoskin

Brown’s hypocrisy over Lockerbie?

So far, Gordon Brown has refused to specifically comment on the Scottish Government’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya.  Yes, we’ve heard that he was “angry and repulsed” by al-Megrahi’s reception in Libya, and that our government had “no role” in the decision.  But there’s been nothing on whether he actually agrees or disagrees with the Scottish government’s actions. The official excuse has been that Brown has to respect the devolution settlement and can’t comment on devolved matters.  But – what’s this? – it seems he hasn’t had a problem with commenting on another devolved matter before now: the level of health spending set by the Scottish Government. 

Thursday

Alex Massie

Kentucky Fried Chicken Disappoints Glaswegians

  According to the Los Angeles Times, KFC are bringing new finger-lickin’ goodness to market. This is the “Double Down” a sandwich made from: two Original Recipe fillets, bacon, Swiss and pepper jack cheese and something called the Colonel’s sauce Sounds delicious! But why are they testing this exciting new product in Rhode Island and Nebraska and not in Glasgow? It can only be because they know it will be a hit amongst Glaswegians and need to discover if non-West-of-Scotlanders will show comparable enthusiasm for a breadless meat sandwich… [Thanks to JPM for the heads-up]

David Blackburn

Delicately poised in Scotland

Despite a week of international codemnation, a YouGov poll shows that 42 per cent of Scottish voters still agree with Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release al-Megrahi, whereas 51 per cent oppose it. Channel Four’s Gary Gibbon notes that this undermines Labour’s arguments that the SNP’s decision is not backed by the Scottish working class, and that Labour will find the Glasgow North East by-election hard going. I’m not so sure. Clearly it’s going to be tight, but Labour will take heart from this poll, which also reveals voting intentions. The SNP is down 6 points to 33 per cent and Labour is up 5 to 33 per cent. It was

Wednesday

Daniel Korski

Libyagate has its roots in Labour’s devolution

One of the oddest parts of Libyagate is what it says about Gordon Brown’s notions of devolution. The Prime Minister does not want to comment on the affair because, we are told, he sees it as a matter for the Scottish government, not the British government. So, if the actions of a devolved but subordinate level of government go against the state’s interests, the leaders of that state should stay mum? That’s certainly not the view taken by successive US administrations; they have often condemned state-level actions, even when the federal government has been legally powerless to do anything in practice. The UK has no written constitution as in the