Post by earl on Aug 25, 2009 11:37:37 GMT
Lockerbie bomber: Blame Megrahi's release on London, not Edinburgh
The British Government seems content to let Scotland take the flak over Megrahi's release, as part of a greater game to help secure access to Libya's oil and gas fields, says Alan Cochrane.
For perhaps the first time ever, I find myself on the same side of an argument as Scotland’s Nationalist administration. It is not a comfortable place to be. But despite the fact that I shuddered – like the rest of the civilised world – at the hero’s welcome afforded to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi in Tripoli, I still believe the SNP when they say that they took the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, with no strings attached.
Compassion is an act of faith, and like faith is almost impossible to justify intellectually, especially in the face of such ferocious opposition. But while Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, is in the dock of world opinion with the rest of his SNP colleagues, it is questions about the role of Gordon Brown’s government in London that are becoming all the more pertinent this morning.
There is simply nothing to be gained for the SNP, politically or diplomatically, in cocking a snook at the rest of the world. On the contrary, they have become pariahs – certainly in the eyes of many of the families of the American victims of the bombing – for releasing the man convicted of murdering no fewer than 270 people.
But it increasingly appears as if Prime Minister Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband are content to allow the SNP administration to take the flak over this issue as part of a greater game to help secure British and American access to the Libyan oil and gas fields. Miliband has attacked this suggestion as a “slur”, but aren’t his words just so much hot air? Saif Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator’s son, has said that a trade agreement with Britain was part of the deal done to secure Megrahi’s release, and this newspaper reveals today that relations between Saif and Lord Mandelson are much closer than the Business Secretary has admitted.
To the rest of the world, the British Government is shrugging its shoulders and confessing its horror at the scenes at Tripoli airport – which we’re told that Gordon Brown tried to forestall. But as to whether Megrahi should have been released in the first place, there was not a word from Brown, or any other Government minister.
We’re told that they didn’t want to be seen to be influencing the decision of a devolved administration. But Labour ministers in London argue with the Nationalists in Edinburgh on an almost daily basis, over matters as mundane as the council tax and who’s to pay for a new Forth Road Bridge. Why not on such an important issue as the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing?
What is perhaps not widely understood is that the process behind Megrahi’s release began not with Alex Salmond’s devolved SNP administration in Edinburgh, but with the Labour government in London – or, more specifically, with Tony Blair. It was the then prime minister who brokered a secret prisoner transfer agreement with Gaddafi, as part of a general thawing of relations between the West and this former rogue state. It was linked to suggestions that massive new British, American and European investment in Libya’s vast oil and gas fields would be forthcoming if only the Libyans would mend their ways. The small matter of the Lockerbie bomber was a fly in the ointment.
Blair didn’t inform the authorities in Edinburgh of his deal, even though they were responsible for Megrahi’s conviction and incarceration. Salmond and the independent Scottish law officers only found out about it when they were tipped off by senior prison service officials. Downing Street then compounded the original error by trying to pretend that the deal done with Gaddafi did not concern Megrahi, even though he was the only Libyan held in any British jail.
Eventually, after furious protests from the Scots, Jack Straw, the justice secretary, was forced to issue a statement conceding that any decision on the Lockerbie bomber’s future was indeed a matter for Scottish ministers. But the damage, in terms of relations between the two administrations, had been done. Although the formalities over a prisoner transfer for Megrahi continued, the Scottish authorities, still smarting over Blair’s behaviour, were now firmly against such a move – until it became known that Megrahi was suffering from terminal cancer, and a release on compassionate grounds became an option. Those close to MacAskill reported that he was looking favourably on such a move; given that his instincts on the matter were well known in Downing Street and the Foreign Office, they sat tight, said nothing and waited for the release to take place.
By anyone’s standards, then, the whole thing has been a mess. And one of the main culprits is the way the Britain is now governed. It is true that before 1999, and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, all matters affecting prisons and prisoners were the responsibility of ministers in the old Scottish Office, rather than the Home Office. But before devolution, those ministers were always of the same party as the government in London: although there were frequent disagreements, the two bits of government acted in concert on major matters.
The bizarre form of devolution that was introduced by the incoming Labour government in 1997 changed all that. First of all, it augmented massively the powers already vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland. As long as the same party was in power in both Edinburgh and London, not too much damage could be done. But once competing forces were at play, as they have been since the Nationalists finally won through in 2007, by a slender one-seat majority, the way was clear for the type of legislative and constitutional conflict that we now see in these islands an almost permanent basis.
Virtually every day, there are public rows, mostly about money, and mostly engineered by the nationalists. The latest concerns the Treasury’s refusal to allow the Scottish Executive to spend money it doesn’t have on building the new Forth crossing.
But perhaps worse than what we can see is the dispiriting effect of the deep suspicion – and plain old-fashioned dislike – that now afflicts virtually all of the dealings between ministers and officials in London and Edinburgh. A prize example is the vicious (but so far private) cross-border sniping going on over the Megrahi case.
Slowly but surely, the two countries are drifting apart. Devolution was supposed to save our 300-year-old Union. It is actually doing precisely the opposite.
The British Government seems content to let Scotland take the flak over Megrahi's release, as part of a greater game to help secure access to Libya's oil and gas fields, says Alan Cochrane.
For perhaps the first time ever, I find myself on the same side of an argument as Scotland’s Nationalist administration. It is not a comfortable place to be. But despite the fact that I shuddered – like the rest of the civilised world – at the hero’s welcome afforded to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi in Tripoli, I still believe the SNP when they say that they took the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, with no strings attached.
Compassion is an act of faith, and like faith is almost impossible to justify intellectually, especially in the face of such ferocious opposition. But while Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, is in the dock of world opinion with the rest of his SNP colleagues, it is questions about the role of Gordon Brown’s government in London that are becoming all the more pertinent this morning.
There is simply nothing to be gained for the SNP, politically or diplomatically, in cocking a snook at the rest of the world. On the contrary, they have become pariahs – certainly in the eyes of many of the families of the American victims of the bombing – for releasing the man convicted of murdering no fewer than 270 people.
But it increasingly appears as if Prime Minister Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband are content to allow the SNP administration to take the flak over this issue as part of a greater game to help secure British and American access to the Libyan oil and gas fields. Miliband has attacked this suggestion as a “slur”, but aren’t his words just so much hot air? Saif Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator’s son, has said that a trade agreement with Britain was part of the deal done to secure Megrahi’s release, and this newspaper reveals today that relations between Saif and Lord Mandelson are much closer than the Business Secretary has admitted.
To the rest of the world, the British Government is shrugging its shoulders and confessing its horror at the scenes at Tripoli airport – which we’re told that Gordon Brown tried to forestall. But as to whether Megrahi should have been released in the first place, there was not a word from Brown, or any other Government minister.
We’re told that they didn’t want to be seen to be influencing the decision of a devolved administration. But Labour ministers in London argue with the Nationalists in Edinburgh on an almost daily basis, over matters as mundane as the council tax and who’s to pay for a new Forth Road Bridge. Why not on such an important issue as the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing?
What is perhaps not widely understood is that the process behind Megrahi’s release began not with Alex Salmond’s devolved SNP administration in Edinburgh, but with the Labour government in London – or, more specifically, with Tony Blair. It was the then prime minister who brokered a secret prisoner transfer agreement with Gaddafi, as part of a general thawing of relations between the West and this former rogue state. It was linked to suggestions that massive new British, American and European investment in Libya’s vast oil and gas fields would be forthcoming if only the Libyans would mend their ways. The small matter of the Lockerbie bomber was a fly in the ointment.
Blair didn’t inform the authorities in Edinburgh of his deal, even though they were responsible for Megrahi’s conviction and incarceration. Salmond and the independent Scottish law officers only found out about it when they were tipped off by senior prison service officials. Downing Street then compounded the original error by trying to pretend that the deal done with Gaddafi did not concern Megrahi, even though he was the only Libyan held in any British jail.
Eventually, after furious protests from the Scots, Jack Straw, the justice secretary, was forced to issue a statement conceding that any decision on the Lockerbie bomber’s future was indeed a matter for Scottish ministers. But the damage, in terms of relations between the two administrations, had been done. Although the formalities over a prisoner transfer for Megrahi continued, the Scottish authorities, still smarting over Blair’s behaviour, were now firmly against such a move – until it became known that Megrahi was suffering from terminal cancer, and a release on compassionate grounds became an option. Those close to MacAskill reported that he was looking favourably on such a move; given that his instincts on the matter were well known in Downing Street and the Foreign Office, they sat tight, said nothing and waited for the release to take place.
By anyone’s standards, then, the whole thing has been a mess. And one of the main culprits is the way the Britain is now governed. It is true that before 1999, and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, all matters affecting prisons and prisoners were the responsibility of ministers in the old Scottish Office, rather than the Home Office. But before devolution, those ministers were always of the same party as the government in London: although there were frequent disagreements, the two bits of government acted in concert on major matters.
The bizarre form of devolution that was introduced by the incoming Labour government in 1997 changed all that. First of all, it augmented massively the powers already vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland. As long as the same party was in power in both Edinburgh and London, not too much damage could be done. But once competing forces were at play, as they have been since the Nationalists finally won through in 2007, by a slender one-seat majority, the way was clear for the type of legislative and constitutional conflict that we now see in these islands an almost permanent basis.
Virtually every day, there are public rows, mostly about money, and mostly engineered by the nationalists. The latest concerns the Treasury’s refusal to allow the Scottish Executive to spend money it doesn’t have on building the new Forth crossing.
But perhaps worse than what we can see is the dispiriting effect of the deep suspicion – and plain old-fashioned dislike – that now afflicts virtually all of the dealings between ministers and officials in London and Edinburgh. A prize example is the vicious (but so far private) cross-border sniping going on over the Megrahi case.
Slowly but surely, the two countries are drifting apart. Devolution was supposed to save our 300-year-old Union. It is actually doing precisely the opposite.
