They're at it again. After last weekend's bungled attempt to convince us that a "smoking gun" had turned up that proved the SNP were willing to free Megrahi in exchange for concessions from London, the Mail and their increasingly ludicrous cheerleader Paul Staines have brazenly repeated that lie and tried to back it up with 'something Jack Straw has told them'. Mysteriously, though, it's a full nine paragraphs into the Mail piece before a direct quote from Straw appears, so it's rather a long time before we get to find out whether the claims that -
"Mr Straw said that Mr Salmond and Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill both told him personally that they would be prepared to let Abdelbaset Al Megrahi go home to Libya in return for political concessions from Westminster"
- have any basis whatsoever. And do they? I'll give you three guesses. Here is what Straw actually says...
"What he's forgotten is that when I went to him in late 2007, asking him [Salmond] to agree to a PTA that would not exclude Megrahi, he indicated that he could be more accommodating if I could offer him two concessions"
So, whether we believe Straw or not (and Kevin Pringle on behalf of the Scottish government hotly refutes the allegation), he is talking once again about the narrow issue of whether the SNP government would consider dropping their public opposition to a PTA with Libya that didn't specifically exclude Megrahi, and not about a proposed deal to release Megrahi - an outcome which at that point London wasn't even seeking.
Put simply, the Mail are lying, and they know they are. If it wasn't unthinkable for a government to do this, it's getting to the point where the SNP would be well within their rights to ponder legal action.
Just listen 09.50am its got beyond a joke.
ReplyDelete"What he's forgotten is that when I went to him in late 2007, asking him [Salmond] to agree to a PTA that would not exclude Megrahi, he indicated that he could be more accommodating if I could offer him two concessions"
ReplyDeleteThat's the bit that puzzles me. Why did Jack Straw ask Salmond for an agreement on the PTA when Straw had the power to include Megrahi in the PTA without Salmond's agreement? Which is what in the end Straw did anyway.
CABINET SECRETARY’S REVIEW OF PAPERS RELATING TO THE RELEASE OF ABDELBASET AL-MEGRAHI Monday 7 February 2011
ReplyDelete14. Subsequently it is clear that HMG's understanding was that a PTA without any exclusions might be acceptable to the Scottish Government if progress could be made with regards to ongoing discussions relating to liabilities for damages under the Scotland Act for breaches of Human Rights (the "Somerville" judgment), and devolution of firearms legislation.
7 - 19 December 2007; footnote 21; correspondence between Jack Straw and Des Browne
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.
What he's forgotten is that when I went to him in late 2007, asking him [Salmond] to agree to a PTA that would not exclude Megrahi, he indicated that he could be more accommodating if I could offer him two concessions
What's missing are the words, "asked", or "offered", or "proposed".
It's quite possible that just talking about Megrahi, Somverville and airguns in the same conversation was enough for Machiavellian Jack to think there was a deal being offered.
The total cost of the compensation for slopping out if there was no time limit was estimated at around £50 Million. The idea that Kenny MacAskill or Alex Salmond were willing to put the SNP's reputation and their careers on the line for something like a 0.2% hit on the Scottish budget is laughable. Especially as any outrage in Scotland about compensating prisoners could be laid directly at the feet of the Labour government in Westminster and their failure to legislate.
The best explanation is that Jack Straw made the linkage between the PTA, Somerville and airguns not MacAskill because they came up in the same conversation. As the SNP were the one's who exposed the, "Deal in the Desert", which set up the PTA and were always adamant that Megrahi would never get free under a PTA it's the most logical explanation.
"It's quite possible that just talking about Megrahi, Somverville and airguns in the same conversation was enough for Machiavellian Jack to think there was a deal being offered."
ReplyDeleteThat sounds eminently plausible to me, and it may well be that the Labour spin machine have given Straw a nudge and told him (or should that be "indicated"?) that it would be helpful in the run-up to the May election if he beefed up the allegations. However, we'll probably never know for sure.
Incidentally, I was tickled to spot this reponse to a poster called Ron, who linked to this blog on Staines' thread -
"Wow your in the top 25 of scottish blogs! Im impressed, a bit like saying your in the top 25 of animal faeces"
A delightful bunch, aren't they? One day, they might even evolve to the point of being able to spot the difference between the names "Ron" and "James"...
I used to read order-order quite a lot especially when it was focused on the expenses scandal in Westminster but I gave up on it after a while as it just got boring.
ReplyDeleteThe commenters are occasionally funny but it's usually just a one or two line comment from the usual Daily Mail style ranters and neither Paul Staines nor Harry Cole (Tory Bear) appear to have a great deal of brains or insight about politics when it comes down to anything beyond expenses receipts.
It's quite funny how a site which used to attack Labour at every opportunity has now turned to Jack Straw as a source of wisdom. I detect the hand of Harry Cole here where Labour are now brothers in arms against the SNP in Scotland.
Absolutely, they were happy enough to gloat about Glasgow East (even if the victory was delivered by "sweaties") but now, seamlessly, we're the enemy.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to Cynical Highlander's comment, I see that Peter Curran has written an excellent post about what happened on the Shereen show. Disappointing that Sarah Oates was one of the offenders - she was one of my tutors at Glasgow University and I always quite liked her. (Although she used to give me worse marks than anyone else, right enough!)