The rolling news coverage regarding the report on the release of the Lockerbie bomber has resulted in some winners and losers, as follows:
Gordon Brown – Big loser
A bad day for Brown as he is forced to stagger out of the shadows to attempt to clear his name. By focussing on only one aspect of the story, the lack of contact between the UK and Scottish Governments on the matter, the former Prime Minister as good as confirms his guilt at facilitating a deal.
Iain Gray – Small loser
For all his “if I were First Minister†fire and brimstone at the time of the decision, the leader of the Labour group in Holyrood is now in a difficult position and will presumably be unable to just sit quietly throughout this latest chapter in the Megrahi affair in the short term, let alone during the election campaign. Gray really needs to come out and strongly disassociate himself from the actions taken by his party when in Government, not an approach that he is used to taking. Gray runs the risk of looking weak and opportunistic by strongly condemning the SNP for following the legal process in releasing Megrahi while not condemning his own party for facilitating that decision.
Guido Fawkes – Embarrassing loser
Paul Staines’ team jumped the gun on the Megrahi story last night, unable to resist the merest whiff of a suggestion that the SNP might have been involved in a quid pro quo deal (which it wasn’t). A verbatim posting of a Scottish Conservative press release, a premature dismissal of a response from Kevin Pringle and a simply bizarre suggestion that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill may resign next week has left Guido (or perhaps Tory Bear/Harry Cole?) looking more than a tad foolish.
Alex Salmond – Clear winner
The SNP in general will be feeling rather pleased with itself today, they have obtained no more detractors than they already had and will have won some sympathy given the ‘organised hypocrisy’ that has taken place, as Alex Salmond has called it. Some positive headlines for itself and negative headlines for Labour regarding Megrahi will go some way to relax that destabilising electoral factor that I was discussing a couple of days ago.
David Cameron – Big winner
From a report from the highly respected Gus O’Donnell, the Prime Minister has been served up an easy opportunity to sympathise with the Americans, remind everyone that the SNP made this supposedly “very bad decision†and, crucially, reinforce the message that Labour were fully immersed in the process leading up to a decision that was deeply unpopular south of the border and fairly unpopular up in Scotland. This is as close as you get to an open goal in Politics these days and Cameron took full advantage with a highly visible, albeit highly risible, Press Conference that is sure to make the TV headlines this evening and front pages tomorrow morning. Who needs Andy Coulson when media management is this easy?
#1 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on February 7, 2011 - 6:37 pm
Alex Salmond clear winner………..Um! perhaps not
I expect to read that kind of claptrap on Nunptynet Scotland
and not on Better Nation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/07/labour-government-lockerbie-bomber-release
However, O’Donnell’s inquiry has also found that, at an early stage, Scottish government ministers in Edinburgh tried to trade Megrahi for concessions on two controversial policies controlled by the UK government, on air guns and compensation payments for prison inmates.
The UK government’s records said Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, was prepared to shelve his government’s fierce objections to including Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya in return for concessions.
#2 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 6:48 pm
Wow, you’re twisting the facts beyond all recognition.
“government ministers in Edinburgh tried to trade Megrahi for concessions on two controversial policies controlled by the UK government, on air guns and compensation payments for prison inmates” – Absolute nonsense. Where in Gus O’Donnell’s report was that stated? You’ve provided a link; provide the exact quote please.
#3 by James on February 7, 2011 - 6:38 pm
I’m sure Sir Gus would have produced an entirely different document had GB still been in power. A report (pdf) a PM commissions from his own Perm Sec that damned his predecessor surely wouldn’t carry much weight.
Even so, it’s not clear that’s what it is. The BBC have pulled “underlying desire” out of context when the report says:
Sounds pretty immaterial, no? Actually, above all, does it matter? Kenny made the decision I’d have made in his position, Labour hate the Tories, the Tories hate Labour, Labour hate the SNP, the SNP hate Labour, here’s Heather with the weather.
#4 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 6:46 pm
I don’t think it sounds immaterial at all. I think it matters that a party acted outraged and disappointed with a decision that it was actively encouraging as best it could.
After all the questions, all the headlines, all the US sound and fury; it is what was unsaid by those in the know who left the SNP high and dry 18 months ago that is disappointing. I would have liked to have seen the Government, present or past, show a bit more UK team spirit in all of this and back Kenny’s right to make the decision and, where possible, back the decision itself.
#5 by Indy on February 7, 2011 - 7:16 pm
In fairness to Scottish Labour they probably didn’t have a clue what was going on at a governmental level.
The SNP would have known that the UK Govt would not have said or done anything to support Kenny MacAskill – for the sensible reason that it would have undermined his position as having taken the decision in a quasi-judicial capacity without taking political factors into consideration.
It can all be summed up fairly easily I think.
1. The UK Government did not want Megrahi to die in jail (neither did the US Government in all likelihood).
2. The PTA was intended to allow for a transfer to Libya by agreement.
3. The SNP objected to the PTA because it was agreed without their knowledge and was contrary to the assurances they believed had been given to the American victims’ families.
4. Kenny MacAskill however agreed to the application for compassionate release made by Megrahi on the basis that he was dying of cancer and the prison governer, medical officer and social work supported the application.
5. This suited the interests of the UK Government but they – correctly – refrained from getting involved in the political toing and froing because they acknowledged the quasi-judicial nature of the decision.
6. Scottish Labour jumped up and down and shouted because a) that’s what they do and b) they never really got the hang of this government thing and don’t know how to behave like grownups.
7. David Cameron is enjoying the high moral ground at present – but does anybody seriously believe that he would have done anything differently? If he really believes what he says why are any British businesses allowed to trade with Libya?
#6 by EphemeralDeception on February 7, 2011 - 7:16 pm
There are no winners here just various degrees of bad odour.
The biggest loser – Scottish Justice system. Bit of an oxymoron these days.
The Scottish Government have been somewhat vindicated but then again do not want to pursue an inquiry into the open questions of the Trial. They did well in attempting to put information into the public domain. Frankly it was in too many peoples interests to get the man released, one way or another.
Iain Gray is a small loser (as the leader in general) but I think he is a major loser on this issue, and will be hit hard on this point during the election. His hypocrisy and incompetence over this issue is plain to see.
@Jeff, “Uk team spirit”, you are joking right? The only team spirit is what is best for London centric policy and civil servants amongst themselves. Anything outside that club is 2nd class, unimportant and ‘regional’. And the further North you go the more 2nd class and therefore unimportant it becomes.
#7 by Hamish on February 7, 2011 - 7:27 pm
James, you write:
“I’m sure Sir Gus would have produced an entirely different document had GB still been in power. A report (pdf) a PM commissions from his own Perm Sec that damned his predecessor surely wouldn’t carry much weight. Even so, it’s not clear that’s what it is”.
You start with a splendid libel, courageous of you, but I struggle to follow the reasoning in what follows, or even to grasp the meaning of the last sentence.
Kindly elucidate.
[I can imagine that Mrs Thatcher might have had a Perm Sec, but not Gordon surely]
#8 by James on February 7, 2011 - 7:37 pm
What I meant was that it wasn’t as damning as Dave wanted it to be, that’s all. And Cab Sec is the correct terminology, not Perm Sec. Apologies for that.
#9 by Hamish on February 7, 2011 - 8:27 pm
Not just a matter of terminology, James.
One can be described as “HIS OWN Perm Sec” (my caps).
#10 by James on February 7, 2011 - 8:48 pm
In what sense is Sir Gus not Dave’s own Cab Sec then?
#11 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on February 7, 2011 - 7:31 pm
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/20110207-megrahi-review-report.pdf
The Rt Hon Des Browne MP
Secretary of State for Scotland
7 December 2007
SOMERVILLE CASE
As you know the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny McAskill, wrote to me on 25 October 2007 seeking urgent legislation to reverse the effect of the Somerville judgement on the Scottish
Executive’s liability for damages under the Scotland Act for breaches of Human Rights.
He has subsequently linked progress on this to agreement to the proposed prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.
#12 by cynicalHighlander on February 7, 2011 - 8:56 pm
I don’t see any reference to ‘that’ letter and before you go down ‘he’s still alive road’ look at this.
#13 by DougtheDug on February 8, 2011 - 12:49 pm
The timing of the conversation between Straw and Browne about the PTA, Somerville and Firearms is quite odd. On the 6th of December 2007 Kenny MacAskill sent a letter to Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, Des Browne, Scottish Secretary and David Milliband, Foreign Secretary in which he states the the Scottish Government’s position remains unchanged and that Megrahi should be excluded from any PTA. It’s in this pdf on the SG website:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085873.pdf
However Straw and Browne continue a conversation between the 7th and the 19th of December 2007 as Straw and Browne both appear convinced that Kenny MacAskill is willing to negotiate on Megrahi and his inclusion in the PTA. Either Straw and Browne didn’t read the letter Kenny sent on the 6th or they were convinced that he was willing to deal, notwithstanding what he said in the letter. That conversation and a lot of other files are contained in this pdf from the Cabinet Office:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/20110207-megrahi-review-report.pdf
Jack Straw’s letter to Kenny MacAskill on 19th December 2007 in which he tells him the PTA is going ahead with Megrahi in it, (reference 23 in the Cabinet Office report pdf), was a little hard to find as it’s on the Ministry of Justice website but luckily I can use Google quite well as the MOJ search engine came up with a blank. In that letter Jack Straw does not link the PTA with Somerville and firearms legislation. In fact he refers to Somerville and firearms separately in the letter by saying, “You also asked me on 2nd November about two separate matters – on firearms and the other on Somerville.” There’s nothing in that letter about not being able to make a deal on the PTA and linking Somerville and firearms to the PTA. Have a read of the whole letter here:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/docs/20071219-jack-straw-to-kenny-macaskill-libya-prisoner-transfer-agreement.pdf
The Straw/Browne conversation is a conversation which appears to be on a separate track from all the rest of the correspondence. There is no mention of a deal before it, Kenny MacAskill set his position out quite plainly in his letter of the 6th and in Straw’s letter on the 19th he makes no reference to any deal or any linkage between the PTA, Somerville and firearms. Even in the report of the conversation between Kenny MacAskill and Jack Straw on the 19th (Footnote 22 in the Cabinet Office report) there is no mention of any deal.
#14 by mav on February 7, 2011 - 8:43 pm
And the moral of this sad story? Don’t say one thing and do the other.
#15 by cynicalHighlander on February 7, 2011 - 9:29 pm
I don’t see how DC comes out as a big winner when he was silent over the PTA in the beginning when Blair signed the deal in the desert. Prisoner Transfer Treaty with Libya – Human Rights Joint Committee did he make noises then as the only complaints I remember came from the SNP.
Iain Gray’s rating depends on how much defence the BBC can give him without showing their normal bias.
Guido has shot himself in the foot over his guilty as I charge him and would do himself some good if he admits that he got carried away. Wait to hear Ian Dale’s version!
#16 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 9:41 pm
I can’t imagine many people will consider Cameron’s involvement in the PTA as a significant factor, myself included to be honest. The BBC has had some shoddy reporting today actually so fair point there regarding how much damage Iain Gray will take on this.
E.g. Brian Taylor’s blog: “For one thing, Scottish ministers and officials were perfectly well aware of the emerging views in Whitehall.” A nugget of information pulled out of the air seemingly without any backup. Sloppy at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
#17 by Indy on February 8, 2011 - 10:24 am
Of course the SG would have been aware of the UK Govt position.
That is why Kenny MacAskill was so clear right from the start that he was making the decisions on quasi-judicial grounds and on those grounds alone.
It would have made no difference whatever position the UK Govt took because an application for compassionate release would never have concerned them.
#18 by Gaz on February 7, 2011 - 9:33 pm
A bit desperate from Mr Unpronouncable there and sounds a bit like the diversionary slavers from Richard Baker the end of which I had the misfortune to hear when I got into the car tonight.
Des Browne, a Labour Minister, wrote that Kenny MacAskill has ‘subsequently linked’ agreement to the PTA to a reversal of Sommerville. Open and Shut, right enough.
A good post Jeff. I substantially agree but don’t underestimate Gray’s brass neck in trying to hold his line.
#19 by Erchie on February 8, 2011 - 2:22 pm
Mr unpronouncable gets his name from an annoying so and so in the DC Superman universe
The only guy I ever met who was a fan of that character was also an annoying place in Shetland.
Looks like these things happen in threes
#20 by John Ruddy on February 8, 2011 - 11:39 pm
I think another small loser must be the SNP spokesman I saw on Newsnight last night who tried to claim that Scottish Labour were both the Lapdogs of their ‘London Masters’ and ignorant idiots who were behaving hypocritically for saying something different to their ‘London Masters’….
Perhaps the SNP could stick to one narrative about Labour at once – and not try two conflicting ones at once. If nothing else it must confuse the hell out of the voters – are Scottish Labour “London Lapdogs” or a party which has opinions different to its London equivalent? It cant be both!
#21 by Indy on February 9, 2011 - 10:16 am
It can be both. Richard Baker claimed that Scottish Labour didn’t know about what the UK Government was up to re Megrahi – and also claims that they did not seek their views. The reason for that is surely that the UK Govt didn’t care enough to inform them and they (Scottish Labour) as junior partners did not feel that they had a right to be told. It is quite a fascinating insight into the internal relations within the Labour Party and reinforces the lapdog analogy.
#22 by John Ruddy on February 9, 2011 - 5:29 pm
The reason could also be that Scottish Labour felt that as this was a devolved matter, it was none of UK Labour’s business what they thought? And it could also be that as it was a devolved matter, UK Labour was leaving up to Scottish Labour to develop their own policy?
#23 by Chris on February 9, 2011 - 10:58 am
Or maybe, just maybe, they are capable of thinking for themselves and unsurpisingly agree with people in the same party as them with similar outlooks most of the time: but not all the time.
#24 by Indy on February 9, 2011 - 12:52 pm
Nope – there is no evidence at all that Scottish Labour disagreed with the position of the Uk Government. Rather, the evidence suggests that they did not know what that position was. Richard Baker specifically said that he was not aware that the UK Government was actively in favour of the release of Megrahi and he also specifically said that he had not sought the views of the UK Government before attacking the SNP.
That appears to most people to be an extraordinary state of affairs and in my view can only be explained if what I suggested is the case.
#25 by Chris on February 9, 2011 - 11:03 am
As a person who usually supports Labour I think that Jack Straw, etc. was in the right and the knee-jerk reaction of Iain Gray to just oppose was wrong.
Having said that I have a vested interest as I have a £1 a day spreadbet with a SNP supporting friend about whether Mergahi would outlive the Glasgow North East by election. I am currently £454 up.
#26 by James on February 9, 2011 - 11:56 am
That’s an outstanding bet. I tip my hat to you.