I bought a Times today. Wild, I know.
I'm glad I did though as page 3 holds a good article on Straw "stalling" and Salmond "rebuffing" the US Senate over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The 'Senate Foreign Affairs Committee' has invited the duo, as well as SPS Director Dr Andrew Fraser, BP's Tony Hayward and former MI6 Sir Mark Allen to the enquiry. This rather scattershot RSVP approach doesn't instil confidence that the Committee really knows what the key line of questioning is.
For me, the big question is simply, should MacAskill and Straw go to Washington to answer whatever questions the Committee may have?
Easy answer really. No, they shouldn't.
Of course the families of the victims deserve the full truth but that doesn't mean that foreign politicians should come running over with only a week's notice. If the Committee had asked them to jump off a cliff..., well, you know the rest.
The Scottish Government has already got its defence in early anyway with a well-timed and well-crafted letter sent to John Kerry. In it the denials of having "received any representations from BP in relation to al-Megrahi" are made clear and the assertion that any lingering suspicions should be directed towards BP and/or the previous UK government is made. Fair enough too, it seems a waste of a trip to travel all the way out to DC just to reconfirm denials that have already been made on paper.
One factor of this development I do find particularly interesting is this. There were many, and still are, who believed that the SNP only came to this decision on the release of this prisoner as it served up an opportunity for them to steal the media's gaze, to cast itself in the global limelight while looking and feeling like a fully fledged independent Government.
I don't buy into such wild theories but following this fanciful logic through to the present day, the SNP's rebuffing of the Senate Committee is contradictory to that charge. An SNP Minister appearing at the US Capitol would raise the Scottish Government's profile even further and yet the offer was declined.
No doubt a new cack-handed rationale for this decision will be proferred by those who seem unable to accept that this was a simple decision based on Scots Law and medical evidence but what can you do.
In terms of Holyrood opposition, Annabel Goldie's rather leaky and obedient response was: "A no-show would only fuel suspicion that they have something to hide."
I don't know. I said it when al-Megrahi was released and I'll say it again now. If a lucky corollary from all of this is getting to show the Americans that they don't always get to call all the shots and they can't simply summon people at will, then that isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.
I am sure this al-Megrahi debate will run out of steam once all stakeholders realise that there is nothing left to talk about irrespective of whether the cancer-stricken man lives or dies in the near future.
Note - Alex Salmond's letter to John Kerry can be read in full on Caledonian Mercury. It is a brilliant example of respectful diplomacy and beserves a wide audience.
TONY BLAIR'S SCHOOLS; CHILD ABUSE RINGS
21 minutes ago
21 comments:
Wake up. The SNP wants to have a foreign policy, and Salmond was happy to go uninvited to Copenhagen and this month was galavanting in China.
This is one of, and perhaps the most significant foreign policy decision they have made; and now are seen to be hiding behind propriety and rules.
Salmond was happy to waste tax-payers money in seeking to indict Tony Blair, but baulks at a situation where he is subservient to others and has to explain his actions.
That's how it looks.
What's even worse is MacAskill insisting he has "no regrets". He bleeding well should. Even if he thought this was the right decision, he should still have regrets at having to do it.
So, either he is a psychopath without a glimmer of humanity, or he's way way out of his depth.
"hiding behind propriety and rules."
Yeah Alec, propriety and rules - not really the American way is it?
'Might is right and f*ck the rules' seems to have replaced In God We Trust.
Oh, and any money spent attempting to indict war criminals like Blair is money well spent in my opinion.
Re your last para---but none of the media will publish it will they? That would mean giving people the facts rather than snippets of anti-SNP garbage, eg today's Daily Wail.
Heard an interesting take on the issue today from George Galloway who believes that AS SHOULD go to Washington as he's head and shoulders above any politician in this country and would wipe the floor with the Senators (I paraphrase).
Despite the natural desire to tell the Yanks to Foxtrot Oscar, I wonder if AS was ever so slightly tempted?
Poppycock Alec.
Even people who disagree profoundly with the decision on Megrahi are completely against the idea that ministers can be summoned to explain decisions that have already been fully explained.
The only matters pertaining to this which have not been made public by the Scottish Government is correspondence with the US Government (and some correspondence with the UK Government)and that has not been made public because permission to publish it has been refused. We might wonder why.
US Senators are investigating whether BP had any involvement in the release of Megrahi. They are doing so because they believe that BP lobbied the UK Government to secure a deal with Libya. BP probably did.
But why should Scottish ministers make themselves available for questioning about that? Anybody who has even the slightest interest in this matter knows that Megrahi was not released under the terms of the Prison Transfer Agreement, that the Scottish Government opposed the Prison Transfer Agreement and that the Scottish Government has stated unequivocally that they have had no contact with BP in connection with the application for compassionate release.
As regards the demand to send a senior public official to answer speculative questions about whether he might have submitted a fraudulent medical report in order to help BP secure an oil deal with Libya that should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
I only hope that the public service union and indeed other public sector unions note the willingness of opposition politicians to offer up public servants as whipping boys to appease US Senators who are not even clear about what they are enquiring into in the first place.
>> Yeah Alec, propriety and rules - not really the American way is it?
Who's talking about America? Oh, it's some twaddle about Iraq... zzzzzzzzzzzz. What did the victims in the air and on the ground at Lockerbie have to do with that?
If you believe this is right or wrong, it should be based on this case and not trying to crowbar in some other topic which is hashed out ALL THE BLEEDING TIME. The people who died were more than the sum of any political grievances you may have developed decades later.
Indy, as someone who believes that BP had no involvement in this and that the Prisoner Transfer Scheme was a stich-up (so, what does MacAskill do? Go even further), I still say the above.
No-one is being "summoned". What's happening is what happens when a country wants to have a high-flying foreign policy (remember Salmond wishing for Scotland to establish a reputation for peace-making?): her political leaders have to, at times, enter situations they cannot control like on the floors on their legislatures.
If Salmond wants to faff around trying to impeach Blair but not answering questions outside his comfort zone with no threat of imprisonment, that's fair enough. Just not much of a statesman, eh?
Alec, if the US has any relevant questions to ask Salmond has stated that he will respond to them with an official
letter.
What is wrong with that process that is insufficient for you or, indeed, John Kerry?
For as long as there seem to be no outstanding questions that require answers, why should Kenny give up his hard-earned recess break just to make Senators look tough in advance of the mid-term elections?
Jeff, given the farce that the floor of Holyrood has descended into (including Salmond being reprimanded for calling Murphy "a sap"), I would have thought that Salmond was okay with denounciations and browbeating.
So, either he accepts the above is inappropriate, or he's okay with it as long as he's in control.
There is also the matter of the Copenhagen gatecrashing. Either that was self-aggrandizing nonsense, or Salmond's okay with going abroad when not required to when he's in control.
He can, of course, decline to attend Congress, but this is a man who so dearly wanted to have a foreign policy but is baulking when he won't be in control.
Alec's right of course. What right do we lightweights in Scotland ( with no experience of kidnapping and torturing people, executing prisoners or even bombing sovereign countries into oblivion) have to go hiding behind propriety and rules?
It's a disgrace I tell ya.
Alec you may wish to read the coorespondence between the Scottish Government and US senators which, as with everything else connected with this matter, is published on the Scottish Government website.
In the initial letter to the UK Ambassador they raise a number of concerns - based they admit on press reports - including that the medical evidence provided to Kenny MacAskill was potentially fraudulent, that the 3 month prognosis was commissioned by Libyan doctors and that the release may have been motivated by political and business considerations. They suggest that due process was not followed.
The Scottish Government has already answered every single one of these points and has already published all of the evidence to support their position - with the exception of the correspondence which the US and UK Governments will not allow to be published. They have already given evidence to enquiries at both Holyrood and Westminster. Everything they have said is a matter of public record.
I have absolutely no doubt - and I suspect that you have no doubt either - that Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond are more than capable of defending their position in person before US senators.
However Dr Fraser, who the senators have also demanded appear before them and who has been accused of producing a fraudulent medical report, is not a politician and should not be subjected to a witch-hunt whether it is motivated by wishing to have a pop at BP or by anger at the compassionate release.
Either way, they have no right and no business to question the integrity of a public official without having the slightest shred of evidence to support such an accusation. Yet that is clearly what they want to do and, even if Kenny were to appear, he would not be able to answer questions about the medical prognosis because he is not a doctor.
You can surely understand that the fact that Megrahi did not drop dead 3 months after being released does not mean that the medical report was fraudulent. It just means that he has lived for longer than expected. That can happen. It is not a hanger for a whole conspiracy to be hung on and the Scottish Government is correct not to indulge that.
Alec, The Scottish Govt is held to account by the Scottish Parliament. Calling for Blair to be held account by Parliament at Westminster - which is the right and proper place.
>> Alec's right of course. What right do we lightweights in Scotland ( with no experience of kidnapping and torturing people, executing prisoners or even bombing sovereign countries into oblivion) have to go hiding behind propriety and rules?
What the **** are you talking about? First of all, which sovereign countries? Secondly, many of the conflicts you're confusedly referring have been fought with willing Scots troops.
This relates to the deaths of 250 ordinary airline passengers. If you think their murders can, in any way, be mitigated by these conflicts/policies (some of which took place years afterwards, and those which didn't weren't part of the reason for the bombing), you are making the case for terrorism.
This is what I despair about at Scots nationalism. Most nationalists are 'normal' enough to care for their own number. It's one thing to reduce the deaths of the predominately American passengers and crew to understandable result of American foreign policy, but a dozen Scottish villagers died as an aeroplane dropped on their houses. Yet they have been excised from the discussion completely and utterly.
Indy, who's talking about their being forced to attend? I'm not. Salmond and others have been happy to grandstand on the international arena before, so why is he worried now?
Questions.
... was flying to Copenhagen unannounced and uninvited an act of self-aggrandizement and over-inflated self-importance? (Especially paradoxical considering it was a conference on climate change.)
... was attempting to get Scotland observer status at the UN with regards to nuclear proliferation a pointless foray into international affairs, and overweening belief in her significance as a sub-state region?
... was claiming tax-payers' money (that is, not even being able to put his own Party's money in) to force someone else to speak at a Committee - which already had been roundly rejected - a waste and subversion of process?
... was helping to turn the Holyrood floor - a legislature we are all to be proud of - into a baying pack of school-children when someone else could 'be put on the spot' an abuse of the demographic structures?
If you answer in the affirmative to some or all of these (I answer all), the question remains what is so different about this?
I think it's because it's a situation he cannot control. Scotland does not have a foreign policy, which would make the visit to Congress a reasonable expectation, but that is not how Salmond has behaved before.
Alec,
Jack Straw didn't just want a foreign policy, he actually WAS Foreign Secretary.
Jack has just announced that he also won't be going to testify in this Committee. Is he now hiding behind rules or, as is more likely in my view, just doesn't see the point in taking part in what is something of a charade for the US electorate?
There are no pressing questions for either Straw or MacAskill to answer and you're conflating the SNP's wanting a foreign policy (duh, they want independence) with this issue is a little bit desperate.
>> Jack Straw didn't just want a foreign policy, he actually WAS Foreign Secretary.
I agree. Crawling little coward, ain't he?
>> There are no pressing questions for either Straw or MacAskill to answer and you're conflating the SNP's wanting a foreign policy (duh, they want independence) with this issue is a little bit desperate.
Why? So the SNP wish independence. Okay, they should prove their mettle even when they ain't formally obliged to. Otherwise, why should they be taken on their plain word?
Salmond's been happy to do so when there was a chance of self-promotion or where he's been in control [1]. On the foreign stage, one does not always get both.
I wouldn't mind so much if he and MacAskill showed a little more grace. First the latter timed the announcement with American breakfast television, then he phrased it in overtly nationalist terms; then the former said "Scotland and America could still be friends" without first, apparently, asking Americans.
'Cos who could hate Scotland?
Finally MacAskill insists he has no regrets (see above).
[1] I'm learning basic Mandarin, and especially like his doe-eyed belief he could establish lucrative deals with China.
>> If a lucky corollary from all of this is getting to show the Americans that they don't always get to call all the shots and they can't simply summon people at will, then that isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.
Sorry, I've just noticed this. If you think, for single moment, a 'benefit' is cocking a snoop at the Americans, it adds to my point.
There was me thinking it was just a common prison decision.
"Sorry, I've just noticed this. If you think, for single moment, a 'benefit' is cocking a snoop at the Americans, it adds to my point.
There was me thinking it was just a common prison decision."
Aha! You've fallen into my trap Alec.
It was just a common prison decision; well, a common Scots Law decision at least. As I say, it's a "lucky corollary", cocking the snoop will have formed no part of the decision, it's just (as far as I am concerned) a nice bonus.
It was just a common prison decision; well, a common Scots Law decision at least.
Except for the bit about America agreeing to see him serve his sentence in Scotland on the assumption it was going to be a life sentence.
And Macaskill turning his speech into a publicity stunt.
>> it's just (as far as I am concerned) a nice bonus.
This ain't telling dem Yanks they can't sell Coca Cola in the Holyrood building. It's about the murder of hundreds of their friends and families.
There is no political capital to be take out of this. I normally respect you in disagreement, but you have fallen seriously by the wayside on this.
If I saw someone dismiss the deaths of hundreds of Scots in similar terms, I would think the same. Speak of dead Americans with such irreverence, don't be surprised if your country is badmouthed.
"So the SNP wish independence. Okay, they should prove their mettle even when they ain't formally obliged to."
Why should anyone "prove their mettle" for the sake of it when there's no other good reason to do so?
Yes Salmond went to Copenhagen (I'm not convinced he was unwelcome as you suggest) but with a specific aim to ensure Scotland was represented in hugely important climate change discussions. Yes, he went to China, but to aid economic links. Yes, he aimed for UN observer status but to positively boost Scotland's profile. And yes he tried to have Blair indicted for War crimes but, ok, well I think that was actually a bit childish so I'll give you that one.
Anyway, Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland, he has no reason to indulge a foreign administration when he, or any of his Cabinet, is under no obligation to assist and there is no benefit for the state he represents. Your argument seems to be that he should send MacAskill to Washington so that Salmond can keep practising his coveted foreign policy agenda. Do I really need to point out the cracks in that argument?
You also say that Salmond can't build a foreign policy without taking the rougher end of the stick and entering into situations he can't control. I say he absolutely can. Of course he can, that's his prerogative.
Would Sarkozy attend these meetings? Would Blair? Would Angela Merkel? Of course not. It's a bunch of nonsense to suggest they would and the many suggesting that MacAskill should attend this hearing is, I think, an indirect attempt to diminish the SNP Government and, as an extension of that, the stature of the Scottish Government regardless of who holds the power.
You make many cogent points Alec. This isn't one of them.
"Except for the bit about America agreeing to see him serve his sentence in Scotland on the assumption it was going to be a life sentence.
And Macaskill turning his speech into a publicity stunt."
American opinion doesn't override Scots Law on an indefinite basis.
As for this supposed 'publicity stunt', had MacAskill given a short explanation for his decision then you would say he was being disrespectful; too long and it's a publicity stunt. Could he ever win that one?
Similar situation for the timing of his announcement for US breakfast shows. You say that was publicity stunt; I counter that by saying it's just respectful to allow the families of the victims see the announcement live. My naivety versus your cynicism I suppose...
>> it's just (as far as I am concerned) a nice bonus.
"This ain't telling dem Yanks they can't sell Coca Cola in the Holyrood building. It's about the murder of hundreds of their friends and families."
Let's not get carried away; i'm just saying it's refreshing to see the Americans not get their way for a while. Despite the nature of the case itself, that's not disrespectful, just the way it is.
And who is talking about "political capital"? Certainly not me.
Alec I have already explained quite clearly what is different about this.
You don't seem to understand that this is not about either Alex Salmond or Kenny MacAskill grabbing an opportunity for a bit of grandstanding.
It is about giving credence to completely unfounded allegations that a senior medical official would produce a fraudulent medical report in order to promote an oil deal between BP and the Libyan Government.
As Alex Salmond said in his letter to Senator Kerry "I have stated categorically that there was no contact of any kind between the Scottish Government and BP in relation to AI Megrahi. If the Committee were to receive any evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to refute any such suggestion."
Unless and until such evidence is produced - which I think you know it won't be - the Scottish Government is completely correct to refuse to take part in these proceedings.
This is not about "foreign policy decisions" or promoting the SNP on the world stage. What you have not considered here is that in many ways the release of Megrahi has forced the SNP to go against what might deliver political advantages.
Politically, it would have put the UK Government in a difficult position if Kenny MacAskill had refused to release Megrahi. But he chose to release him in spite of this.
Politically, the opportunity for Alex Salmond to appear before a Senate hearing with guaranteed global press coverage would be one which he would normally grasp with both hands and a whoop of delight.
However he has correctly put defending the integrity of the judicial process ahead of whatever political advantage could be gained.
Finally, if you think that Kenny MacAskill appearing before the UN Senate would bring any kind of closure or even enlightenment to the bereaved families you are, in my opinion, way off the mark. It would bring no further understanding because Kenny MacAskill cannot tell them whether or not BP had any influence on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. He wasn't there. He doesn't know anything about it.
Alec, or may I call you >>?
Sovereign countries. Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia for starters.
I can hardly be bothered replying to you as I find your straw-man style of response so depressingly predictable.
My comment was to contrast the way in which the Scottish Government adheres strictly to the rule of law unlike the US which is a law unto itself.
Nowhere in my post did I offer this as mitigation for anything but you went ahead and used it as a straw-man argument anyway so you could rebut it.
To reuse your own phrase, that is why I despair of unionists in Scotland.
Post a Comment