Relevant letters to be released

Back from my hols.

Just popped back a post to see what else was going on.

Half the comments ruled out and then the whole shebang shut down.

Ah, it's good to be home.

See how long this 'un lasts.

For the sake of a fighting chance:

So, is it not possible, likely indeed, that, as ministers insist, no deal was done..

Yes. It is possible. But as it seems much no one knows about is to be known further, the stretch to likely I feel one too far.

Nick:

So, is it not possible, likely indeed, that, as ministers insist, no deal was done, no incriminating piece of paper exists but that everyone involved understood each others positions very clearly?

I hope that the United Kingdom authorities are going to released (the) unsanitized versions of the letters....Because, they contain all of the relevant information available...

=Dennis Junior=

So what you're saying is, of course a deal was done, but it was done in such a way that no-one will be able to prove it.

Politics is such a moral cesspit these days.

A fine pair of terrorists.

We have something in the al-Megrahi deal that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck but we are being told it is a swan.

quack quack.

When these New Labour politicians and their spin-meisters lie all the time when the time comes they do actually need to tell the truth,nobody believes them.
I don't believe for a second that Oil Companies were sqirrelling around Whitehall lobbying ministers in order to secure acreage in Libya.
They simply couldn't afford to-if they did and got found out their reputation would be in tatters and result in losses akin to business suicide.
The trouble is that Gordon Brown, a pathelogical liar,hints they didn't so the public reaction is to assume that they (Oil Companies and probably Prince Andrew) did.
I don't know why he just won't admit that the devolutions of the Scottish Parliament allowed this to happen by failing to take into account issues of a diplomatic nature that span the UK.
The Scots did nothing more than what Messrs,Blair,Brown,Dewar and Cook allowed them to do.

The decision to release Megrahi was Kenny MacAskill's alone as justice secretary, having taken on advice from competent medical and judicial sources. To even think that a deal was done between Westminster and Holyrood is laughable considering the political enminty between Labour and the SNP.

"Interestingly, what ministers in London and Edinburgh have agreed as "relevant" does not go back to that trip in 2004 or the lead up to it."

This would also be from a time whilst the Labour/Lib Dem coalition was still in power in Scotland, therefore if any 'under the table' dealings were shown to have taken place at that time would the SNP not delight in publishing this as well for political gain, even more so to counter the media whirlwind which has sought on behalf of the opposition parties to tarnish the SNP on this issue.

The whole issue has become a political football detracting from the matter at hand and highlights again the low levels that some parties will go to in order to claw back lost ground.

For a deal to have been done and all parties to keep quiet on it would require something monumentally huge to hold all parties together in silence, especially considering the possible political games that could be played by either side. Short of independence having been granted I can't see why the SNP wouldn't be shouting from the rafters if having been played false by Westminster. A non-starter from the beginning.

As far as Westminster having had 'discussions' previously, well that's another matter entirely.

I don't buy the conspiracy theories over this affair. They overlook the outright hatred that exists between Labour and the SNP, so therefore why would Alex Salmond and his party agree to be willing stooges for Labour?

If there was an oil deal at stake how could Whitehall make the Scottish government do it's bidding? I have yet to see any plausible mechanism for doing that put forward. The SNP is trying to go for an idependence referendum next year and therefore they have far more at stake than Labour who are doomed to defeat no matter what. If it turned out that there was a squalid quid pro quo behind this, either for oil or for an independence referendum then I think that even a lot of the people who are prepared to accept the release on compassionate grounds would turn against it.

The only other possible way would have been to goad MacAskill into releasing him, something like "We would prefer if you didn't release him." "I don't have to answer to you so I'm going to release him!" Tom Harris MP suggested this at the weekend but with so much at stake I think the SNP would have seen through it.

I think this was just a cock up. The Scottish government mishandled the way the decision was made and Labour put itself in an untenable position because of the various business deals and Mandelson's meeting with Gaddafi Jnr. There does need to be an inquiry so all involved can explain themselves.

One final thought, if Flight 103 had been delayed another 10-15 minutes then it would have fallen on Cumbria and the decision to release Megrahi would have been Jack Straw's! Can you imagine the uproar there would have been then?!

I doubt very much if there will be anything in writing but just a tacet understanding between TB and Gadaffi. They are two of a kind. PM ie Peter Mandelssohn (the initials are a give-away) operates in much the same way. They are no more than snake-oil salesmen but many do not see it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It's quite obvious that some form of a deal was done, and the alleged bomber was part of the deal, as was access by British oil companies to explore for oil. It was to be expected. Why is there always this assumption made by politicians that they somehow are the bastion of truth when they have all or nearly all have been caught out in the lies over their expenses?
As you are aware, the public, no matter the clamor, will NEVER be told the whole truth about anything, so even though its clearly obvious that a deal was reached, we are just going to spend time speculating about the ins and outs because no one in office has the spine to tell the truth. The same principle of " lie to your constituents " will remain whoever is in power.

So, is it not possible, likely indeed, that, as ministers insist, no deal was done, no incriminating piece of paper exists but that everyone involved understood each others positions very clearly?

---------------

So the position as described in the blog is that it is widely believed, by those in the know that a deal with Libya has been done.

The government is releasing documentary evidence to prove no deal was done. (although absence of evidence is not always proof of innocence).

Isn't this rather weak ploy an illustration of the contempt that this government has for the general public.

Its not the paper trail I want to see but each and ever phone call..

We have the situation that Brown, Blair, the Home Sec and Mandy have all been in discussion with Libya YET apparently have had little discussion with Scotland. Fisrt there had been none then the Times published some letters and OH Yes we did that BUT he wasn't released under that system.

We have far too many policy direction changes after Mandy's has had a meeting with key players opposed to goverment policy. IE Internet piracy and Lybya in the last 2 weeks alone.

Even if it is whiter than white and nothing underward has happened it just looks dodgy and looks to the outside observer that NuLabour is corupt.

"...the answer was "no".

So, is it not possible, likely indeed, that, as ministers insist, no deal was done, no incriminating piece of paper exists but that everyone involved understood each others positions very clearly?"

I get you Nick, I get you.

So only relevant papers will be released, that will be papers that don't show that there was a deal then implying that any paper that does show there was a deal in place will be....errrr....irrelevant then.

As for the theory that New Labour and SNP cannot work together on this is ludicrous. This is politics, and anything is negotiable.

#15 newthink

"As for the theory that New Labour and SNP cannot work together on this is ludicrous. This is politics, and anything is negotiable."

That being the case then please explain to me the benefit to the SNP and Scotland in all of this.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The UK government has lost so much credibility that they have an uphill struggle to convince anyone that there was no shady deal.

On top of that, such a deal fits so well into the NuLab modus operandi that I would be very surprised if there was any evidence to prove otherwise.

Nick asks the key question, that is, no incriminating piece of paper exists but that everyone involved understood each others positions very clearly?

I am convinced that this protocol occurs quite frequently amongst policymakers.

That is their insurance against any comebacks further down the line, i.e. no visible audit trail leading back to the perpetrators.

Anyway, for some reason, I find myself thinking less and less about foot soldier Megrahi and more about the relatively anonymous Iranian Government Minister who apparently initiated the revenge action (IR655) which resulted in the deaths at Lockerbie.

And wonder if revenge is a central tenet of Islam or yet another false interpretation of a major religion?

This is the "Yes Minister-esque" revealing of a mass of non evidence to support Jack Straws position.

If the Lockerbie bomber was "entirely a scottish matter" why was government involved with such correspondance in the first place.

Just out of interest, does anyone know how many prisoners would be affected by the "Prisoner Transfer Agreement" which was "entirely seperate" from the Lockerbie bombers release ?

The only thing that is clear in all of this is that Colonel Kaddaffi will still be the president of Libya long after Gordon Browns Prime Ministership has been consigned to history - and this will undoubtedly happen relatively soon. I have to say Nick, I'm suprised that you have not picked up on this to spin the line asking what David Cameron would do about this !

Nick, are you implying that there is a tacit agreement between Libya and the UK for the exploration for oil/gas and the release of the bomber?
If this is so, where is there any involvment with the USA? After all it was their plane and many passegers were American citizens.
What is the EU involvment, as we are told, all UK law must be approved by Brussels? In order for this type of exploration, there must be Government legal agreement, does it go further back to when Mandelson was an EU Commissioner?
Let us, for once have the truth please. All this jiggery pokery does nothing for the enhancement of this slippery eel of an administration. Any thought that it does, is misconceived.

I'm with #8 on this one. As a general principle, I'm quite willing to believe that our government is up to no good, but if they had some cosy understanding with the Libyans, then how exactly are they supposed to have convinced the SNP to go along with it? New Labour and the SNP hate each other with a passion, and the idea that they'd join in a conspiracy together is simply ludicrous.

BTW, welcome back Nick. I hope you had a good holiday. And I also hope we don't have to wait until you next go away before you let Laura at this blog again. She did an excellent job of holding the fort in your absence, and personally I think it would be great if you could both contribute to this blog on a regular basis.

This is the story that just would not go away.

Typical Gordon Brown to do a disappearing act on an issue of national security.

Never mind the hundreds murdered by this terrorist, never mind the war against terror, never mind the poor people of Lockerbie whose town was left with a small crater in it where a bungalow had once stood. Never mind the relatives who like 9/11 were left with no remains of the loved ones.

This prime minister was never much good from the outset but now any attempt to act statesmanlike has to be treated with nothing other than contempt.

This last twelve years has been the story of towering incompetence; finacially and politically. Education standards have been lowered; billions have been wasted on reviews and benefits; targets have been met but no improvements made to public services and a monstrous debt burden has been bequeathed to our children.

Governments have resigned for one of these blunders in the past but this administration blusters on the about the right thing to do and savage tory cuts when the entire country has watched unparalled newlabour waste and incompetence and is heartily sick of it.

Never has there been such a malicious, profligate and self righteous administration in the history of the UK.

Resign and call an election.

How coy you are, Mister Robinson. How very coy indeed. We can only hope your next reference to the al-Megrahi affair will be less so.

So, is it not possible, likely indeed, that, as ministers insist, no deal was done, no incriminating piece of paper exists but that everyone involved understood each others positions very clearly?

==================================================

This period of government is when the the cabinet operated using the "sofa government" style of government. So I doubt very much there will ever have been any written evidence in existence which would be genuinely relevant, and which would presented to throw may further light on the matter. Similar to the cabinet minutes on the Iraq invasion I would think.

I have no idea what actually went on here, but I am way past the point where I believe anything that any government minister says at face value. Especially where Peter Mandelson is involved meeting some of the interested parties on holiday.

The reasoning behind the 'no deal' between Salmond and Brown just because they don't like each other takes some believing.

These are politicians and when it comes to something in for them the enmity quickly evaporates to mutual understandong.

They would hardly release letters that are incriminating and the very fact that they are reaching agreement on what should be published is a sad indictment that all politicians will do whatever it takes as long as the price is right.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I have yet to find a "common" person who doesn't believe this is a conspiracy. The idea to use the compassion to release this hero was carefully planned. A release due to technical reasons would have raised a lot of questions and controversy, while the compassion could be blamed on the judgement (or lack of it, as it appears) of one man or one party only. Compassion is now being used for political propaganda. The Minister concerned talks about a way to show the humanity and judicial values of the Scottish people. Frankly if I was Scottish I would be ashamed of myself. Compassion should have been THE only reason for not releasing our hero. 270+ people didn't have the choice to die peacefully at home. As for this side of the border can anyone believe a single word of what is being said when Tony Blair and our Lord Mandy are involved? (not to mention the unelected and unofficial P.M.)

P.S. does anybody remember a certain Tony Blair refusing an enquiry into certain deals with the Saudi Arabians because it would harm the interests of our Country?

It is all a case of wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more, say-no-more.

Some would call this diplomacy but I think our foreign policy is being run by a Monty Python sketch. It would be better if it was run as a Monty Python sketch as this would imply a writer and a producer. However, since both of these important figures are missing I am now waiting for the Spanish Inquisition sporting a dead parrot.

It is chaos out there but never mind we are all having a good laugh. I don't think. When do the Knights Who Say Ni appear?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick:

They believe that the release this afternoon of all the "relevant" letters between the British and Scottish governments about the fate of Megrahi will re-inforce their case.

I am waiting to see the *relevant* letters, before I make my final opinion on the fate of the Megrahi case....

=Dennis Junior=

The Scots, on their own, decided this was something that needed to be done. Could we have a record of other "Compassionate" releases of convicted murders, might want to know who is moving in down the street. Maybe they drew straws. Human beings need to think about the way we have organized governments, because the present system gets lots of people killed, money stolen and dishonesty accepted as a matter of course. As in any cesspool, the scum rises to the top. Time to drain the swamp.

Just so I'm clear, there are some that seek to believe that despite NuLabour and the SNP holding polar views on nearly every issue that matters that they have somehow colluded on this one particular issue? Did NuLab at Westminster then not tell their counterparts in Scotland about the deal, doesn't appear so from their actions.

A level of trust between NuLab and the SNP would be required on both sides in order that they felt secure no-one would leak any details to embarrass those involved. All so 'British' petroleum companies can explore Lybian oil fields, despite the SNP always wishing to regain control of it's own North Sea oil from Westminster they would now collaborate to explore foreign fields? Also, until now all the recriminations from the USA have been directed at the SNP, the media and opposition parties have sought to damage the SNP politically in domestic eyes, does that seem a likely trade off that the SNP would accept in order to explore Lybian oil fields instead of our own?

BUT

they're all career politicians so none of that matters.

Now I get it! The Westminster system and it's political elite really has poisoned the minds of all the electorate against our would be representatives, tarring Holyrood with the same brush doesn't quite work at the moment though.

NuLab and in particular a certain Lord deserve their reputations for questionable meetings and playing false, whatever dealings have gone on between NuLab and Lybia is there business and nothing to do with the legal decision Kenny MacAskill was charged to make.

Nick

Any word on the extradition from Libya of the Libyan murderer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London?

"So, is it not possible, likely indeed, that, as ministers insist, no deal was done, no incriminating piece of paper exists but that everyone involved understood each others positions very clearly?"

Nick, you're making out that political bargaining is some sort of cross between Masonic togetherness and Mafia-like offers that can't be refused.

The SNP were, IMO, given just such an offer by Downing St;
1) invoke the temporary self-righteous indignation of the USA and others by allowing the release and transfer, or
2) be held to account at home if Scotland and the UK were subjected to wholesale attack by terrorists if al-Megrahi had died in jail.

The whole business reeks! I think we'd all like to know some more truth; not necessarily about this particular end of the affair, but some of the stuff in the middle. I cannot separate conspiracy theories from cover-up. Does the government (and the US government) know things that we don't, for example? They may know for certain that this man is innocent - simply paid to take the fall. They may know who did it (Iran as a tit-for-tat?). All I know is that I don't know, and I don't know who is telling lies. As I can tell from other posts here, many people in the UK don't believe a word spoken by Brown, Straw, Mandelson... But we wouldn't believe the truth if they told it, either.

Glad to see you are back from your holiday, Laura. But somehow your posting has lost some - je ne sais quoi - sparkle. And only one post per day? You are slipping!

Nick:

Off topic but on the story, you are reporting about: What time and what is the letters from Edinburgh and London regarding the MEGRAHI situation, going to be released to the public...

=Dennis Junior=

36 bertrambird

"Glad to see you are back from your holiday, Laura. But somehow your posting has lost some - je ne sais quoi - sparkle. And only one post per day? You are slipping!"

========================
It is Nick who is back from his hols, and Laura is no longer doing this blog ! I do, however, agree with your comments !

Reading between the lines it's clear that Jack Straw, Gordon Brown & others wanted to release Megrahi for trade reasons and what they did was to come up with a political strategy to accomplish that in a way which they felt would give them plausible deniability.

Had this been a government which had acted with transparency, honesty and integrity they may well have got away with it, but this government has lied through its teeth since taking office, has made an artform of spin and deception and continues in the same way to cover up the corruption in its ranks and the ineffectiveness of its decisions and actions.

Nick Robinson:

Gaddafi knew that Britain badly wanted access to Libyan oil and gas. British ministers and officials were left in no doubt that he cared deeply about the return of the Lockerbie bomber.

Well, (dah) the Libyans (via) Gaddafi has knew that Britain and the others have this insensible quest for Libyan Oil and gas.......So, I am not surprised with the released of the Bomber and the quick turnover!!!!!

=Dennis Junior=

So here is another reading of what might have happened. It is just as plausable as other views expressed in this blog.

The British government did not object to the bomber's release at any stage and put no obstacles in the way of the Scots releasing him. They did this because it would have been, to them, a hollow gesture. The decision was always up to the SNP. The UK government did want the trade deal, but it would have been British companies paying British taxes and adding value to British institutions which would have partly been the beneficiaries. That's you and me as well as the government. So the UK government decided not to put obstacles in the way. Of course if they had said no, then the SNP would have said yes and blamed his non-release on Westminster providing evidence of interference, boosting the SNP. The deal could then have gone to the Americans. It would have been lose all the way for Westminster.

Now for the SNP's decision. Any attempt to influence them by Westminster would have been seen as Westminster interference. Those who have said well there could have been simply inuendo in their communications could just be joining the banks of conspiracy theorists who dislike the available evidence (not that they are always wrong). Anyway the damage done to everyone's reputation if there was ever a leak (of collusion beteween Edinburg and Westminster)would have been so bad that even a trade deal would not have been sufficient reward. If Westminster had dared to say anything in public the SNP would have done the opposite, boosting their vote at the next election.

In the end the SNP said yes. They are probably going to lose votes to Labour. Trade is undamaged (and not going to the Americans and their crocdile tears). In four weeks there will be other things going on and south of the border this will be forgotten. Labour's position will be no weaker than it already deservedly is.

Finally, if you want to know how important Lybian trade is to UK Plc, look at what Cameron has actually said and done. Finely judged, just enough to have a dig at Brown and Co, but not enough to offend Lybia.

It's all about UK politics.

Perhaps someone at NuLab Westminster should've told their stooge in Ian Gray (leader of the Labour party in Scotland) what Straw and Broons take on Megrahi dying in Greenock jail was.

All last week he was telling the world that his only concern was the families of the victims, which outwieghed everything else including compassion, and that Megrahi should die in Greenock jail.

Oops!

Plausible deniability or a case of never thinking the correspondence with his true opinion would be published for all to see? Bit of both probably, not as if NuLab in Scotland ever had a mind not to tow the Westminster party line before.

The documents just released confirm that "Gordon Brown didn't want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison" and that the Lybian Minister had warned of "catastrophic consequences" if that had happened.
I think this closes the matter. What is still not clear is how the Scottish Justice Minister can feel compassion for someone that even for the humane Scottish law is regarded a mass murderer and terrorist.

"So, is it not possible, likely indeed, that, as ministers insist, no deal was done, no incriminating piece of paper exists but that everyone involved understood each others positions very clearly?"

As you suggest, Nick, it is indeed possible.

International and commercial diplomacy is often extremely murky. No surprise there. Been like it for centuries. The problem nowadays is that information flows at the speed of the internet. "Real information" and speculation travels equally fast.

I was intrigued by the timing of Jack Straw's decision to authorise Ronnie Biggs' release on compassionate grounds (after opposing it as a bad idea) just before the Scottish Administration decided a similar action for Megrahi. Showing a truly "compasionate" approach embedded in all of the UK's quasi-judicial systems? Pure serendipity?

(Not trying to compare one convicted person - who revelled in his notoriety - with another, who seems most unlikely to have been able to commit the act without at least significant assistance from others who remain unpunished.)

Funny that this government's own assessment of energy supply predicts that (largely due to this administration's failure to plan ahead - apart from subsidising windmills) electricity demand will overwhelm predicted supply within 7-8 years.

So where could alternative raw-materials come from, fairly quickly (with a bit of luck)? Bring on the camels.

i would think its as obvious as the fake smile employed by tony blair that a deal has been done but yet again the voting public of this country are kept out of these plans becouse we may not like what is up behind the screen.
public outrage has nothing to do with what this inept and corrupt government are doing becouse we dont count for beans in their eyes.

#43 giannir

"What is still not clear is how the Scottish Justice Minister can feel compassion for someone that even for the humane Scottish law is regarded a mass murderer and terrorist."

I agree that is the crux of the matter as far as the SNP and the Scottish government is concerned. After receiving judicial amd medical advice, and within the legal requirements of granting compassionate release (less than three months to live, although if longer is within the judgement of the Justice secretary as I understand it), Kenny MacAskill made his decision. That is the issue, you may agree with his decision, you may not.

Goes to show in the current climate that no-one can be principled anymore without the masses crying wolf, and with good cause after everything that's went before at Westminster, however in this case with regards to Kenny MacAskill it's misplaced.

All the other issues are NuLab's circus and they're welcome to reap the rewards of Mandy and co.s 'meetings'.

The plot thickens! Lockerbie's dirty little secrets are beginning to unravel albeit very slowly. What is becoming clear is there's more to al-Magrahi's release than just a shabby deal over oil.

More likely a need to put a stop to his hugely embarrassing appeal which could have cleared his name and laid bare the truth of the whole Lockerbie outrage.

For the moment it seems easier for the government to take the flak and suffer the fall out from the 'oil for prisoner' row than open up the can of worms of al-Magrahi's conviction.

Former ambassador Oliver Miles describes this as the ‘political deal’. James Chapman over at the Mail and Jon Snow at Channel 4 News are coming up with similar suggestions.

I too suggested this as the likely reason for al-Magrahi's release very early on. What is clear is that the truth over Lockerbie would only now come out with a full public inquiry.

The question for the moment is how long does the public have to suffer Macavity Brown and his government tying themselves up in knots?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-outrage-over-lockerbie-ignored.html

Nick:

I saw the FCO letter prepared by Ivan Lewis on behalf of the Scottish Justice Secretary...

It doesn't answer my questions to the point about the rationale of releasing him (MEGRAHI)...

The link for the letter:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]


=Dennis Junior=

6. gavin_humph wrote:

When these New Labour politicians and their spin-meisters lie all the time when the time comes they do actually need to tell the truth,nobody believes them.
I don't believe for a second that Oil Companies were sqirrelling around Whitehall lobbying ministers in order to secure acreage in Libya.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well you had better believe it Gavin.
What do you think Blair was doing over in Libya back in 2007?
Wasn’t over there for another one of his holidays that’s for sure.

The fact is that there are large oil & gas reserves in Libya & we are (probably) better off dealing with them than our old friends (sic), the Russians.
If things carry on the way they are, we will be importing about 15 per cent of our gas requirements from Russia if we don’t pull our fingers out, & we know what happened last year don’t we.

We all know that Blair doesn’t do anything without the USA giving the thumbs up, & they also stand to benefit from renewed relations with Libya, hence the rather muted official response to the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
In fact, they have already put in bids for Libyan contracts, so can,t be that upset about how things have turned out.

There might have been no direct deals on the table, but I would be very surprised if business deals have not been discussed & preferences to contracts established well before the release.

Money talks, but not as loudly as Oil.

We clear the way & take the wrap & the USA pick up the business with a clean pair of hands – simple.

Weapons of mass destruction anybody?

Does anyone REALLY believe a politician...... ANY politician since the Expenses Frauds?
Talking of which.... does anyone know the real reason that Freedom of Information expert Heather Brooke's evidence to the Committee dealing with MPs' fraud has been removed from the Committee's website?

Apparently it happened while you were away, Nick!

Check out the story on the Your Right to Know website.

Check it out on;

www.yrtk.org

Apparently it is all to do with someone sueing the Committee for defamation?

Sounds a lot like the 'We can't publish our second homes addresses because lots of MPs would fear for their lives' rubblish that they came out with before we all found out about their expenses frauds!

..... or am I just getting cynical in my old age?

...... Or might it just be an attempt, while everyone is looking the other way, at suppressing evidence of fraud by MPs?

Welcome back Nick.
I don't post as usually i don't have that much to say but i do read this blog quite a bit.

I think i have to agree with 41#Boilerbill on this one.
Also many here seem to think there has been a deal done.....
I'd like to ask everyone this:

When was the last time that any Gov. did NOT do a deal with another Gov. that was in the wider national interest?

You may argue that my definition of what the wider national interest is is totaly wrong, however there are some things we need no matter what.
All government's do deals with other government's on all kinds of things.
Most do not see the light of day but the deals are done to secure that which we need, be it metals, uranium, oil, gas, trade deals, arms deals to keep the factories humming etc etc....

The vast majority of which are neccessary to keep this current Technological/Industrial Civilisation running.

If you are interested in the kinds of deals that governments do then read Ghost Wars.
This doesn't tell you anything you didn't really know in your heart of hearts but it does give an insight into how governments conduct all sorts of business.

I am not in particular saying that Ali al-Megrahi should not have been released by Kenny McAskill, simply that real world politics demanded it.

#47 theorangeparty

I agree that a full public enquiry is called for to establish the facts of who, why and how the Pan Am Flight 103 became targeted and for what reason.

I can also see Westminster being complicit in helping their American allies keep the details under wraps regarding the CIA's provision of the sources used to seal Meagrahi's conviction.

What I still can't see is where there is any reason for an SNP led Scottish administration to also be complicit in the cover up of the facts. For me this is even more far reaching than the implication of benefits from a trade deal.

Again, I don't buy that the decision by Kenny MacAskill was influenced by these factors, it is and was a purely judicial decision, and no attempts by the media or others will be able to conflate other 'theories' with it. As has been said by Deputy First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon already before all of these other revelations the SNP and Scottish government would have prefered Megrahi to have continued his appeal.

I'm sure like many other like minded people that the SNP would welcome nothing less than the full facts of the Lockerbie case to come to light.

Deal done and no paper work - that's what International Politics is all about surely?

Nick

Welcome back! You shouldn't go away at such important times!

Anyway the killer question really has to be how are we going to get out of this fine mess now? How is the PM and his government going to repair the damage done to our international relations with the US? But also with our new friend Libya? Surely Gordon's new pal Muammar will be a little disgruntled with the duplicity of what has been occurring.

that the UK government may have tried to promote the interests of British companies in Libya, I don't find too much of a story ... even if the fate of the LB was included in certain discussions - a BIG story would be behind the scenes collusion between Brown and Salmond - seems unlikely

not often the conspiracy get two bites at the same cherrry.

The cuurent malarkey ove the release of Megrahi.

And the orignal event itself. There is about ten times more conspiracy material on the Lockerbie event than on the shooting of JFK.

When bomb warnings were circulating from the 5th December naming Pan Am as the target and flight 130 as the flight on the 18th and the exact flight blowing up on the 21st. Thats a good starting point. Then there is the CIA involvement. And so it goes on.

This will run as long or longer than the JFK assasination.

Interesting question Nicholas....

Watching your peice on the 10pm News though, I somehow doubt it. D'ya need to do an update? :-))

Well are we all nieve surely its obvious.How many UK citizens/prisoners have been released under this agreement? How many other Libyan prisoners have been released under this agreement? Why did Jack Straw change his mind overnight(with little explanation "not in the best interests") to remove the clause asked for again and again by the SNP in thier letters?
Conveniently as soon as the agreement was ratified the Libyans imediately applied for the release and concurred that they had a written confirmation that the appeal would be dropped.
My opinion is that the UK government knew this before ratification.They also knew that the SNP would be in the insideous position of having to have an appeal or release Megrahi.Although my understanding of the process is that after ratification of a UK agreement even if the scottish system refused no doubt the Libyans had the option of an appeal to a higher court.(House of lords?)
Personally this smacks of a NuLab clever strategy.

Alex Salmond keeps referring to Nelson Mandelas endorsement of releasing Megrahi but is Mandela's view based more on the alleged question mark over Megrahi's role in the Lockerbie murders?

It is interesting that those countries with leaders speaking out in favour of the decision to release Megrahi either have a problem with their own system of justice or have/have had other motives regarding Libya.

South Africa is a very troubled country with a massive crime wave of rape and murder and perhaps Alex Salmond would be better waiting until proper opinion polls are carried out in countries like S Africa before claiming that Mandela's comments represent S Africa. My guess is that most S Africans are not interested in Lockerbie and Megrahi as they have too many troubles of their own.

Alex Salmond might be better organising his own referenda in Scotland and looking more to public opinion at home regarding the conduct of his government and legal executive.

Mandela's experience of truth and reconciliation is far different from Scotlands problems of evaluating justice and compassion. Mandela's experience is almost entirely internal to S Africa whereas Scotland is dealing with a country (Libya) for which justice and compassion are an exploration zone.

Perhaps Mr Salmond might remember this when he chooses his comparators and evades all direct questions and continually frames his answers regarding prisoner transfer agreement?

When justice is outweighed by compassion the decision will always be questioned?

In a week or so's time, this will all have disappeared from the media, especially the synthetic outrage expressed by 'Dave' on behalf of the 'British' people, which of course, does not neccessarily mean either the English, Scottish or Welsh people.

The media caravan will have something else to hitch itself upon.

For example, I see that Mandelson is already positioning NL as the (governing) party that 'saved' the UK economy (subtext - so please don't wipe us out at the General Election).

It is possible, providing no more huge economic shocks happen in the next few months, e.g. a big German bank goes belly-up, then Labour might come out of the next General Election surprisingly intact (apart from in Scotland where they are surely doomed).

'Interestingly, what ministers in London and Edinburgh have agreed as "relevant" does not go back to that trip in 2004 or the lead up to it.'

Yet again, why is everything on and in Tony Blair's term of office so secretive ???

If there are any "understanding", it is likely to be one of those unwritten wink-wink jobs.

I have no right to be surprised at the ability of the media to construct a vast house of cards on the basis of absolutely no evidence, and in the face of the manifest improbablity of the conspiracy. But nonetheless I find that I am surprised that such nonsense is the main item of news on the BBC, and that their political correspondent should return from his hols to waste his time chasing such moonbeams. I can understand Adam Boulton being required to find that his master's sunday paper really had a story, but surely the BBC doesn't have to follow suit?

Nick:

At # 60

When justice is outweighed by compassion the decision will always be questioned?

I have my doubts that the compassion of the decision will be questioned to the point, that some families in the United States; going to be ever answered....

=Dennis Junior=

Nick:

I am currently reading the files that were posted on BBC News Website...Are making a limited case for his (Meghrai) case....

=Dennis Junior=

The lack of maturity on this issue from the usual suspects and their hero David Cameron is par for the course. People must grow up. In the world of International Politics is there value in trading the last few months of a (probably innocent) terminally ill man for the neutering of Libya's terrorist tendencies and frankly access to oil? The answer is obvious.

puzzling @ 62 is puzzled ... as to why is everything on and in Tony Blair's term of office so secretive.

Setting aside Mr. Blair for one moment, surely most English people who take a passing interest in politics can recognise that for decades, there has been a culture of secrecy in the machinery of Government.

Not usually for any particularly dark reasons, although there are bound to be some, but more prosaically to simply cover up appalling maladministration and waste.

Regarding Mr. Blair, he is still in the frame as prime candidate for the mooted President of Europe job (with dear Cherie as Empress of Europe), so his reputation must be kept relatively pristine, which it is amongst those who count (which is certainly not us, the peoples of Europe).

Democracy, don't you love it (but nothing better has been devised yet).

there has always been more to this than meets the eye.....
what was the point of the prisoner transfer agreement?
How many prisoners have been transferred?
How many other prisoners has Kenny MacAskill visited in prison?
Why did Brown not want a convicted terrorist to "die in jail"?
Why did Megrahi drop his appeal?
How did London and Edinburgh decide which were the "relevant" papers relating to the case?
What information was contained in other documents? Why has Gordon Brown constantly refused to give his view on the wisdom of releasing Megrahi?
What has Mandelson got to do with this affair? What did he say to Gadaffi's son?
Where are the "Blair papers"?


MacAskill repeatedly claims that Megrahi will soon be judged by "a higher power", well if that is the case, surelyhe should free all prisoners from jail....!

#68 jolo13

A number of your questions have already been answered - at least those from a Scottish perspective.

"what was the point of the prisoner transfer agreement?

Oil


How many prisoners have been transferred?

None


How many other prisoners has Kenny MacAskill visited in prison?

None. He was the only Libyan in a Scottisj jail for whom a PTA transfer appeal had been made.


Why did Brown not want a convicted terrorist to "die in jail"?

Oilk


Why did Megrahi drop his appeal?

No way he could know which (if any) appeal MacAskill was going to grant. The appeal stood in the way of the PTA.


How did London and Edinburgh decide which were the "relevant" papers relating to the case?

London published what they had to, knowing that the Scottish Government were goiong to publish


What information was contained in other documents? Why has Gordon Brown constantly refused to give his view on the wisdom of releasing Megrahi?
What has Mandelson got to do with this affair? What did he say to Gadaffi's son?
Where are the "Blair papers"?

These last are the unanswered questions! Oh what a surprise! They are all UK questions!

The dirty backhand dealings of this goverment have done nothing other than bring shame onto a once proud country. Are the majority of us still proud to be british. No. Everything that we thought this goverment stood for. Education, Justice, Health. even Health & Saftey have been tampered with to the point of destruction. We are no longer safe on our shores because they are not policed. We no longer have an education system to be proud of due to satistics. Justice! well that is none existant. as for Health. We are over run with immigrants that make all sorts of demands from all our front line services meaning that they have to be rationed for the rest of us who are legaly entitled to them. The Human Rights of the British People has been flushed

#70 countryjane

"Education, Justice, Health. even Health & Saftey have been tampered with to the point of destruction. ''''''. The Human Rights of the British People has been flushed"

Did you mean the English people? Education, Justice, and Health have never been run on a British basis. Scotland has run its own systems in these areas throughout the period of Union with England.

Rants are fine, but they are better when accurate.

It all makes you wonder what might have come out if the appeal of Mr Al-Megrahi had gone ahead.
Also why it all seemed to have been arranged so quickly.

Sadly the world is run on lies, imorality and corruption. Makes you wonder if it has ever been any different.

the obvious conclusion of this tawdry affair is that the authorities wanted to stop the appeal at all costs... I wonder why?

Given that this is the seventieth year since the outbreak of World War 2 I am left asking myself if Britain then had a government like Britain today.

Now poor old Neville Chamberlain has had a bad press since selling out the Czechs for a piece of useless paper, but just think what Gordon Brown's government would have done in the same situation.

No doubt that since the fleet was based at Scapa Flow they would have left the declaration of war to a parish council in Caithness and the Prime Minister would have expressed concerns through a deputy talking to Ribbentrop that Herr Hitler might perish in a bunker.

However there would have been no prospect of defeat at Dunkirk because the Ministry of Defence would still be working out the paperwork required with which to deposit the BEF on French soil by the time the Nazi Blitzkrieg hit Holland. There would be no Spitfires or Hurricanes to fight any Battle of Britain but not to worry as the Nazi hordes would get stuck in a traffic jam on the A2 caused by an over-enthusiatic speed camera. The subsequent German occupation of Britain would have been very short as the taxes would have become intolerable for any self-respecting fascist.

OK, I'm having second thoughts now about my earlier post (#22).

Having listened to David Miliband on Today this morning going to great lengths to avoid any straight answers to Evan's questions, I now suspect that the government has something to hide on this one.

Although exactly what is going on, I have no idea. I still find it hard to believe that New Labour and the SNP were in it together.

Once again we have Mandy out this morning countering the views of Clegg and Cameron (leaders of their parties) whilst Brown is nowhere to be seen. New Labour are not even subtle in keeping Brown out of the headlights now.
It is however a measure of the distrust that now exists between the Government and electorate that even when the PM doesn't say anything still no-one trusts him!!!

43/57/72
You are on to something and I am here to tweak your perspective.
You think oil for Megrahi is the back story, and want more information which an enquiry would reveal.Inquiries also have their own dynamic and expose more than may be desirable.I`m not talking political embarrassment, or whether Mr.Megrahi was the real culprit.
Think politically,examine all circumstances,all actors in the Lockerbie tragedy.
Then ask if disclosure would be a signal for war?
This is why questions are hard to answer for governments, and easy to ask for oppositions.

"They believe that the release this afternoon of all the "relevant" letters between the British and Scottish governments about the fate of Megrahi will re-inforce their case."

The British Government is the Scottish Government, those who are in power in Scotland are the Executive.
https://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980046_en_4

To quote:

"44 The Scottish Executive (1) There shall be a Scottish Executive, whose members shall be—
(a) the First Minister,
(b) such Ministers as the First Minister may appoint under section 47, and
(c) the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland.
(2) The members of the Scottish Executive are referred to collectively as the Scottish Ministers."

Nowhere in the Scotland Act is any reference to a Scottish Government and the continual use of the phrase by both British Government Ministers and the BBC is giving credence to the SNP's unilateral claim of Independence.

So come on BBC be accurate and call them what they are; a Scottish Executive.

Mr Milliband had already put some information required by the Megrahi defence team under lock and key for 50 years.
This must suggest to some journalist somewhere that the UK and US Governments have much to hide.
I hope Mr Megrahi survives long enough to release some of his evidence.

#74

But now we are the party capital of the world! Booze, drugs, nightclubs everywhere; consumer spending unlimited; work optional; teenage motherhood a wise career; abortions on demand; the list goes on.

No wonder Hitler held off, we were quite able to finish ourselves off while the rest of Europe was subsumed into Greater Germany.

Can someone answer two questions?

Also is it the home office or the Scotish goverment that paid to keep him in prison?

If the appeal had gone ahead and he had won, possibily on the grounds of a miss trial (highly likley key as evidance was held back at the original trial, for example; a break in at Heathrow laguage handeling area around the time the plane was loaded; and that all bags from malta were full accounted for) would scotland or the UK tax payer have paid his compensation?

Listening to Jack Straw i get the impression that it is soley a Scotish descision and he is a scotish prisoner, So i can only asume that Scotland is paying the bills?

Off topic: The world service news at 5 this morning stated that G.Brown had hinted that the 50% tax bad would need to be lowered to effect a LOT more people to help pay off our rapedly expanding debt.

I can find no mention of it in this site and didnt hear anything about it on the Today program....

IF the world service is corrent this is a MAJOR story as up untill now Brown has implied that their will be no tax rises after the election.

As I said on one of Laura's blogs: Is this dying man actually innocent and, if so, the facts should be made public. I am not saying I think he is, just querying the reasons.

Also, given that this man actually is guilty - who were his accomplices?

It is a huge enigma and oil may or may play a part. I don't know.

Somebody does and they should speak now or hereafter get no peace.

Hodgey, I was chatting to a young serviceman at a function recently and he came out with the amazing statement:

"The way Britain is now, it makes you wonder if we would have actually done better had Germany won the War".

Food for fodder.

This whole Lockerbie affair has been a mess shrouded in a mystery from start to finish.

It is a matter of judicial record that:

1 Security services had warned that Pan American was a target for some catastrophic action. There was even an indication that Flight PA103 would be the target. (No sign that anybody knew which day/week, whatever, but it made sense that an American target moving from a UK airport would be a good way of hitting out by somebody with a grudge.)

2 Scottish police and recovery services stated that US operatives they believed were CIA were searching at - and even removing articles from - the crash site. Since when was that allowed under normal UK investigative protocols?

I'm still intrigued that there have been no documents released covering conversations between the UK and US administrations that may include "assurances" by Blair's team that any convicted person would serve a complete term in a UK prison. The current outburst from the US is largely based on their belief that such assurances existed.

It doesn't surprise me that international politicking is murky. It always has been.

It does surprise me that a political elite, who believe they always "know best", are dumb enough to think that in today's information enabled society they can still get away with obfuscation.

Verbal tap-dancing on the point of a pin just doesn't do it for me.

I never expect total transparency from any government. But I'd like it if ours was just a little more translucent than those in other countries.

it is a sorry state of affairs when one tends to believe an unelected dictator over a democratically elected government... but this government has taken the art of lies and spin to new heights... and given that the UK government acts like an unelected dictatorship, maybe we should not be surprised.. Milliband's Today performance was so predictable...why could he not bring himself to answer the question? Because he knows the truth and dare not speak its name...

Everything the Government has done since 1997 has been to ensure that responsibility is at arms length to it so it is always someone elses fault.

GB has added the "Macavity factor" so that he conveniently disappears when things get tough and the "arms length" responsibility crumbles.
GB is silent on the matter, however Miliband has confirmed that they wanted the bomber to be released and not die in prison.

You can read the T S Elliot poem at https://www.mccavity.com/

stanilic @ 74

I enjoyed your tongue-in-cheek post.

However, a local bookshop is currently displaying various items from the period leading up to the ouitbreak of WWII and one of them is a front page of the Daily Express from the day of the Munich Agreement and I noticed that the tone is euphoric that war has apparently been averted and a column item actually states that it is rumoured that Neville Chamberlain will be enobled for his efforts in 'bringing peace in our time'.

Furthermore, you jest about there being no Spitfires or Hurricanes to fight the Battle of Britain and in fact, with respect to the Hurricanes (which did most of the work in the battle) that is horrifyingly nearly true because the Treasury refused to fund the development of this fighter and a wealthy lady actually stumped up the £100,000 required by Hawkers.

It is a pity that the Treasury's track record has not been examined in more detail over the past few decades because they are often to be found wanting despite (or possibly because of) only employing the finest brains from Oxbridge.

A sure sign that politicians are trying to hide something is the repetitive use of often meaningless phrases cooked up to avoid giving a straight answer.
For example, during the Wendy Alexander affair she and her cohorts repeatedly stated that the cheque she recived from an ineligible donor was issued "under the auspices of" a Scottish company. This phrase has no legal meaning and was simply rubbish but served it's purpose as it was simply accepted by gullible journalists.
The interesting phrase being used now by both David Milliband and Bill Rammell is that the government were not "actively seeking his(Megrahis) death in jail". Think about what that actually means. To "actively" seek his death would require the government to press for a death sentence, which the law does not provide for, or try to have him killed in prison, which the government obviously would not sanction. As neither option is feasible why would anyone feel it necessary to make that statement?
The addition of the word "actively" appears to be an attempt to obscure what was actually said to the Libyans.
It's actually quite simple. Megrahi was given a life sentence. If the government did not want to see him die in prison then it must have been in favour of his release at some point prior to his death. Why can it not just admit this instead of hiding behind semantics?

66 peteholly

"The lack of maturity on this issue from the usual suspects and their hero David Cameron is par for the course. People must grow up.

In the world of International Politics is there value in trading the last few months of a (probably innocent) terminally ill man for the neutering of Libya's terrorist tendencies and frankly access to oil? The answer is obvious."
=========================

A bizarre post - isn't this exactly what Jack Straw and fellow government ministers are denying took place ? If "the answer is obvious" as you so clearly state, why can't Gordon Brown make some statement on this issue ?

It's nothing to with maturity or DC hero worship, many people would simply like to know what has happened with this matter, and can see that the various statements etc simply don't add up. The governments position on this is steadily eroding by the day, which is surprising given it was "entirely a scottish decision". Browns silence is starting to look very damning and sinister, and the waters of revelation are rising and will be lapping about this feet soon.

Wouldnt surprise me if just after he dies, this whole thing will just be blown open again. DC will come in with some new snide comments about NuLab and Broon and Meddlesome will do more pointless lying to the cameras.

FP @ 84

I was chatting to a young serviceman at a function recently and he came out with the amazing statement: "The way Britain is now, it makes you wonder if we would have actually done better had Germany won the War"

well you don't have to be too bright to join the Army

66. peteholly wrote:

The lack of maturity on this issue from the usual suspects and their hero David Cameron is par for the course. People must grow up. In the world of International Politics is there value in trading the last few months of a (probably innocent) terminally ill man for the neutering of Libya's terrorist tendencies and frankly access to oil? The answer is obvious.

90. StrictlyPickled wrote:
PH@66
A bizarre post - isn't this exactly what Jack Straw and fellow government ministers are denying took place?

Obviously not grown-up enough to understand international politics SP! Only the other usual suspects and their hero Brown can grasp the nuances.