US Lockerbie bomber investigation

[denuseri]

Yep thats the way its been since before Xenophon wrote about it all back in the heydays of the Greek Tyrants

[IAN 2411]

Labour aided Libya over bomber release - report

The Labour government tried to make it easier for Libya to seek the Lockerbie bomber's release, according to an official report published on Monday that could stoke anger in Washington.

Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was jailed for life for blowing up Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988. Scottish authorities freed him in August 2009 on compassionate grounds after concluding he had just months to live because of cancer. He is still alive

The report by Britain's senior civil servant, Gus O'Donnell, said the government decided British interests would be hurt if he died in a Scottish jail because of "the extremely high priority attached to Mr Megrahi's return by the Libyans."

The British government developed a policy to help the Libyans make an appeal to the devolved Scottish government for Megrahi to be transferred under prisoner agreements or released on compassionate grounds, the report said.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the report showed there was no conspiracy, as some in the United States had suggested, between oil giant BP, which has interests in Libya, the Scottish government and London to free Megrahi.

"It was a decision taken by the Scottish government, the wrong decision, but their decision nevertheless," Cameron told parliament.

Cameron, who took power after defeating Labour in an election in May and has regularly called the release a mistake, promised last year to publish documents reviewing it.

Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am 103, a group that represents the families of U.S. victims, said he did not believe the report's conclusion.

"I think this is one more evidence of everyone pointing the finger at someone else for having made this decision," Duggan told BBC television.

U.S. senator Charles Schumer, a long-standing champion for the victims, said it "strained credulity" that the British government's position was not well known by the Scottish authorities, even if no formal pressure was applied.

"This report confirms what many of us have long suspected: the British government and BP wanted Megrahi released so that an oil deal being negotiated with Libya could go forward," Schumer said.

Megrahi was given a triumphant homecoming in Libya and is still alive nearly two years later, despite being diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2008, causing anger in the United States because 189 of the 270 victims were American.

O'Donnell's report found that there was no evidence that either the government in London or BP had applied pressure on the Scottish national authorities who ultimately decided to release Megrahi.

However, the report said Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour government had taken steps after Megrahi was diagnosed that made it easier for Libya to appeal for his return.

Steps taken by London included ratifying a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, explaining to Libya how to apply for a transfer under that agreement or for compassionate release, and telling the Scottish government there was no legal barrier to a transfer.

BP and Scottish ministers have denied the oil company lobbied for Megrahi's release.

(Additional reporting by Daniel Trotta in New York)

[js207]

There is a leaked internal email, apparently authenticated, concerning the ongoing negotiations between London and Edinburgh - in essence, the SNP had said they would like two legislative changes from London in exchange for releasing Megrahi. The SNP wanted control over gun laws (which are UK-wide, set from London) and a way out of the huge compensation bill they faced over the "slopping out" court cases ... they got the second change they wanted, and then released Megrahi.

The worrying thing for me really is the government in London influencing Scotland to release Megrahi, rather than opposing his release or at least remaining neutral. I felt from the outset that Megrahi should have faced the death penalty rather than life in prison; waiving the death penalty and making it a Scottish court rather than American was, perhaps, a necessary compromise - but him leaving jail alive should never have been an option.

[IAN 2411]

I felt from the outset that Megrahi should have faced the death penalty rather than life in prison; waiving the death penalty and making it a Scottish court rather than American was, perhaps, a necessary compromise - but him leaving jail alive should never have been an option.

The thing is js most people in the UK thought he was stitched up, because as i said before in an earlier post, a lot of things the American inteligence stated was proved wrong at a later date. The American inteligence if they did their homework and investigated the case properly they might have got the Killer that is still out there somewhere, and i might add the UK inteligence. As cases prove since then you dont have to be from the Middle East to make and plant a bomb. He could be native American or British living next door, but in the end this was not carried out by one person, i doubt if the others are dying of cancer.

One other thing i would like to mention, my father died of prostrate cancer, and it is one of the most painfull of deaths, he was given two years and only lasted three months, it is a very fickel form of cancer and is hard to diagnose a time limit. Secondly the plane might have been American but it was over UK soverign area, when the Americans let us try our criminals that kill over in the states we will no doubt go Quid-pro-Quo. I would also like to point out that in no way am i siding with a bommer, i always look at both sides of the arguement.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[js207]

I know there are those here (I'm British, and lived near Lockerbie at the time) who think Megrahi is innocent - although both the judges and the appeal court felt otherwise, and as a matter of law he remains guilty and has officially ceased denying his guilt. I've seen some claims that one witness from Malta was "coached", but nothing convincing to point the finger away from Libyan intelligence, the owners of the detonator used. I also found the lavish welcome he was given not just distasteful, but indicative of guilt: he was being welcomed as some sort of hero, not the victim of a miscarriage of justice. He had already been afforded multiple opportunities to present any exculpatory evidence, without managing to shed any reasonable doubt on his guilt: after N failed attempts, why expect attempt N+1 to produce the opposite result?

If Megrahi had actually managed to succeed in his second appeal and been acquitted, I would feel differently - but to let the worst convicted mass murderer in the country's history go free, guilty but lightly punished? A travesty.

"Secondly the plane might have been American but it was over UK soverign area, when the Americans let us try our criminals that kill over in the states we will no doubt go Quid-pro-Quo."

No - Libya, the US and US are all signatories to the Tokyo Convention, which grants the US jurisdiction in this case: that aircraft, and those on it, were under US jurisdiction at the time, not UK. Equally, a crime committed on board a British aircraft flying from LA to London is under UK jurisdiction, and I can't see the US quibbling: indeed, they signed up for international law which would specifically prohibit any such prosecution! (That's why you need to be 18 to get served alcohol on a British aircraft, 21 on an American one.) Of course, unlike Libya, the US generally extradites criminals to the UK to face justice, as well as vice versa, with a few shameful exceptions like McKinnon. In a nutshell: we HAVE that 'quid pro quo' already, and have done for decades - with Libya as well as the US, though Libya violated that agreement over Megrahi.

I did, though, appreciate the irony: since the US has much more extensive screening for prostate cancer and far higher survival rates as a result, Libya's insistence on a Scots court and prison rather than US may arguably have shortened his life sentence in an unanticipated way. As for the uncertain prognosis, at the time officials assured us he had no more than a few months, "certainly not into next year"... you agree that they were lying to us about that aspect at least? It's already been admitted that the medical evidence was much less clear cut and more blatantly cherry-picked than we were told at the time.

Moreover, it has now been pointed out that a UN Security Council Resolution required that the culprits were to serve their whole sentence in the UK, nowhere else.

I am sorry about your father, but not sorry to hear that the man who remains convicted of the worst mass murder ever committed in this area apparently faces a painful end. Mine is still alive - although his deputy at the time committed suicide shortly after said atrocity, unable to cope with the traumatic experience of the aftermath. The absurd hoops Libya made us jump through instead of extraditing Megrahi properly were, to me, disgusting and pointless: making us build a temporary court in a foreign country!? Insisting on a UK court rather than the correct US one at least made sense - obviously you go for the softer touch system given a choice - but the circus of moving hundreds of people a thousand miles away, just for the sake of it?

[IAN 2411]

Scottish police and prosecutors are to meet Foreign Office officials to discuss Libyan defector Musa Kusa.
Representatives of the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Police will attend talks in London on Monday as part of the ongoing investigation into the Lockerbie bombing.
They asked to interview Muammar Gaddafi's former intelligence chief and foreign minister about the atrocity earlier this week.
But a Crown Office spokesman said they were unable to comment on the nature of the discussions, as the police investigation is still live.
Kusa arrived in Britain on Wednesday night, claiming he had defected from Libya.
Before becoming foreign minister in 2009, he had been head of Colonel Gaddafi's feared intelligence agency since 1994 and was a senior intelligence agent at the time of the December 1988 Lockerbie bombing in which 270 people were killed.
He is believed to have played a key role in securing the release of the only man convicted over the incident, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
........................................
Yea right, like the man is looking for political asylum in the UK... I am sure that the first thing on his mind will be admitting to being party to the mass murder of 270 people. I have to ask myself if the Scottish Police and prosecutors are on the same planet as the rest of us.

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

Yea right, like the man is looking for political asylum in the UK... I am sure that the first thing on his mind will be admitting to being party to the mass murder of 270 people. I have to ask myself if the Scottish Police and prosecutors are on the same planet as the rest of us.

He won't want to implicate himself, of course - but if he's got more information or evidence (like "yes, Gaddaffi ordered it himself", "these are the five people who were involved in Malta, and how they did it" - or about any evidence they may have hidden, destroyed or tampered with; I seem to remember there was some material from Malta that "conveniently" went missing). Like any defector, he'll want to be of some value to his new hosts - otherwise he risks just getting "nice of you to visit, shame you didn't have anything to offer - back to Tripoli with you!" If he has any sense, at the very least he'll have grabbed the juicy looking stuff out of the filing cabinet on his way out. Names of sources, safe houses, bank account details, contacts - all stuff our government would give its eye teeth to get, and this guy's probably got at least some of it.

[IAN 2411]

Scottish Govt Stands By Lockerbie Decision

Sky News – 16 hours ago

The Scottish Government insists its decision to free the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds exactly two years ago has been "vindicated".

Libyan Abdelbaset al Megrahi was said to be three months from death when he was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on August 20, 2009.

He was sentenced to life for murdering 270 people, mostly Americans, when he blew up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988.

The decision to release him was condemned by some relatives of victims and politicians, including President Barack Obama - but also attracted high-profile support from figures such as Nelson Mandela.

Two years on, with Megrahi still alive in his home country, a spokesman for Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond defended the release.

Senior figures in the US, British and Scottish jurisdictions have all agreed that the decision was taken in good faith, the spokesman said.

"Two years of extensive scrutiny, under three jurisdictions, vindicates the position that the Justice Secretary released al Megrahi on compassionate grounds and compassionate grounds alone, based on the rules and regulations of Scots law and the reports of the Parole Board for Scotland, the Prison Governor and the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care Dr Andrew Fraser - all of which have been published," he added.

Dr Fraser's report, the only publicly-available document on Megrahi's health, describes the three-month prognosis as "reasonable".

It also states that no one "would be willing to say" if Megrahi would live longer.

The spokesman continued: "Regardless of people's views, they can have complete confidence that it was taken on the basis of Scots law, and without any consideration of the economic, political and diplomatic factors that the then UK Government based its position on.

"Whether people support or oppose the decision, it was made following the due process of Scots law, we stand by it, and al Megrahi is dying of terminal prostate cancer."

Meanwhile, conflicting reports about the health of the Lockerbie bomber continue to emerge.

Some have suggested the cancer is spreading, while others say he is being kept alive with cancer drugs unavailable in the UK.

Relatives of victims of the bombing are still looking for answers.

Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the bombing, said: "It's extremely frustrating that we're here, still talking about this.

"The fact that it's now years later means that the decision was probably made on a spurious basis.

"I'm sure Kenny MacAskill made it in good faith, but why are we having this discussion now? It's just another thing that remains unsolved."

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

What "answers" will come from his death?

I don't recall any guarantees being given that Megrahi would be dead within 3 months of his release, or in any other period of time. What is certain, as Alex Salmond pointed out, is that he will die of cancer some time. Let those whom it will satisfy take satisfaction from that.

[IAN 2411]

What "answers" will come from his death?

I'll second that, because all the answers were lost when the investigation was bodged.

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

What "answers" will come from his death?

I don't recall any guarantees being given that Megrahi would be dead within 3 months of his release, or in any other period of time. What is certain, as Alex Salmond pointed out, is that he will die of cancer some time. Let those whom it will satisfy take satisfaction from that.

Rather a vacuous statement from Salmond there - we will all die eventually, and being a 59 year old man now living in a war zone, another cause of death would hardly be a shock. The period of time had considerable legal importance, though: the law which allowed his release permits "the release from prison of anyone deemed by competent medical authority to have three months or less to live". At the very least, out-living by a factor of eight suggests that prognosis was unduly pessimistic; I seem to recall hearing at the time that those engineering the release had, to be charitable, "cherry-picked" the reports to support the release.

[MMI]

Salmond was right and his remark was pertinent. He stated it was certain that Megrahi would die from cancer, but was it really necessary for him to say, "unless he dies of something else first"?

I find it necessary to ask, are you sure you're being charitable, and not (to be charitable) plain cynical? Did the person who alleged "cherry picking" know whereof he spoke, or was he just expressing an opinion, as opposing politicians and other people with their own agendas are apt to do? I should have thought Salmond would have issued a firm rebuttal if anyone had made such an allegation knowing it to be unfounded.

If anyone other than Megrahi had survived so long, you'd be pleased for the man (I hope) and would admire the medical support he had received. I doubt you'd question the motives of the doctors who originally gave him (that other person) just three months to live. Does anybody here know if anyone else has ever lived significantly longer than the doctors prognosticated?

[Thorne]

Does anybody here know if anyone else has ever lived significantly longer than the doctors prognosticated?

I don't know about the doctors, but my mother always used to say that I wasn't going to make it to 13. Almost 50 years later and I'm still going strong!

But seriously, how much of that 3 month prediction was based on the quality of care he would receive in prison, versus the quality of care he can get on the outside? Especially if the Libyan government is paying for that care? Just the emotional and psychological boost from being released would have impacted his health.

[IAN 2411]

One other thing i was told, that there was not a cure, but there was a way to hold the disease from spreading by taking steroids. Though it never stopped the outcome of the painful death.

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

But seriously, how much of that 3 month prediction was based on the quality of care he would receive in prison, versus the quality of care he can get on the outside? Especially if the Libyan government is paying for that care? Just the emotional and psychological boost from being released would have impacted his health.

At least one of the other doctors who had been asked the same question noted at the time that there was really no way to have any confidence in any prognosis. MMI seemed sceptical about the cherry-picking of medical reports, but also noted that if the allegation were really unfounded Salmond would have tried to refute it - it was reported at the time that they had been shopping around for a doctor willing to put their name to the three month prognosis they needed as the pretext for release, with several other doctors confirming they had been asked but couldn't give the prognosis wanted. I've seen that prognosis described as both "speculative" and "foolhardy" by a specialist in prostate cancer - and indeed the Prison Service's own report, which was the official basis for the release, noted that the specialists consulted refused to give such a prognosis - but conveniently, an unnamed GP said "a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient"; another surgeon who specialised in prostate cancer later said the government had "misrepresented the medical evidence" and "chose to disregard the advice of specialists and release al-Megrahi on the opinion of one doctor, who we now know was not a specialist".

Looks like the 'cherry-picking' statement is pretty much rock-solid, which is why it's been so widely reported without any attempt at rebuttal by Salmond or anyone else: all they can do is shelter behind the one non-specialist doctor who said what they needed him to and try to deflect criticism of that flimsy basis.

At the time, thinking the stated prognosis was probably fairly close to reality, it seemed poetic justice that the Libyan insistence on a UK prison rather than a US one might have resulted in Megrahi serving a much shorter life sentence than he would otherwise (prostate cancer is very proactively screened for in the US, with statistically much better outcomes as a result). In fact, in Libya he has been treated with Abiraterone, an anti-cancer drug developed in London ... but not yet available to NHS patients. Whether Megrahi would have received better care than other prisoners had he continued serving his sentence is an open question, I think: it is known that Gaddafi was paying for doctors in addition to the NHS provision (including, by at least one report, £200/hr to the one who provided the convenient 'three month' figure other doctors rejected) but I'm not sure if they could have administered the Abiraterone in Scotland as they have been in Libya.

[MMI]

Looks like the 'cherry-picking' statement is pretty much rock-solid, which is why it's been so widely reported without any attempt at rebuttal by Salmond or anyone else: all they can do is shelter behind the one non-specialist doctor who said what they needed him to and try to deflect criticism of that flimsy basis.

Based on your post - and I'm in no position to challenge any of it - it could look like cherry picking. Whether it was or not, I cannot say.

However, the guy does now seem to be at death's door, and calls for him to be returned to prison, in Scotland or USA are pointless to my mind.

[IAN 2411]

The period of time had considerable legal importance, though: the law which allowed his release permits "the release from prison of anyone deemed by competent medical authority to have three months or less to live". At the very least, out-living by a factor of eight suggests that prognosis was unduly pessimistic; I seem to recall hearing at the time that those engineering the release had, to be charitable, "cherry-picked" the reports to support the release.

Ten years ago my father was diagnosed with the same cancer, he was given two years, he lasted less than three months. Cancer has a mind of its own and if you know anyone with the disease you will know what I mean. To estimate death or life either way was is just the roll of the dice.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Lockerbie Bomber 'In And Out Of A Coma'
By James Matthews, Scotland correspondent | Sky News – 13 hours ago

The family of the Lockerbie bomber has told Sky News that he is slipping in and out of a coma and that his cancer drugs have been stolen.

In an e-mail from Tripoli, the son of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi says his father has moved out of the family home into his mother's house.

It is the first explanation to emerge of Megrahi's movements since he went missing after rebel forces took Tripoli.

Scottish officials have been making urgent attempts to contact him, in accordance with the terms of his release on licence from jail in Scotland two years ago.

Under his release conditions, Megrahi has to check in with East Renfrewshire Council on a regular basis.

His doctors must submit regular medical reports and he must inform council officials of any change of address.

In his e-mail to Sky News, Khaled Elmegarhi writes: "My father general health very bad sometimes his in coma, family trying to help him to eat at least a little food. We move him to hospital and his parents' house. Still confined to his bed, my mother and his sister helping him.

All our house telephones out of order. I personally tried to get in touch with drugs store to get his regular daily use of medicine thieves has stolen most his medicine. PLEASE I BEG YOU GIVE MY FATHER CHANCE TO GOD FACE HIS DESTINY AND OUR GOD THE REMAINING IF HIS LIFE IN PEACE."

While he served his term, his family lived in a house in East Renfrewshire, so it is the council responsible for ensuring he doesn't breach the terms of his release. Contact is typically made via a phone call or video link-up.

The terms of his release, however, do allow for considerable flexibility.

Scottish officials at local and national government level have said they are not concerned by an absence of contact with Megrahi, given the current situation in Libya and difficulty with communications.

The Scottish Government and East Renfrewshire Council issued a joint statement: "Over the course of the weekend, there has been contact through Mr Al Megrahi's family.

"There was no evidence of a breach of his licence conditions, and his medical condition is consistent with someone suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

"Speculation about Al Megrahi in recent days has been unhelpful, unnecessary and indeed ill-informed.

"As has always been said, Al Megrahi is dying of a terminal disease, and matters regarding his medical condition should really be left there."

Megrahi was convicted over the deaths of 270 people after the bombing of a Pan Am flight in December 1988.

He was released on compassionate grounds in 2009 after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
..............................................


With or without the drugs, I am surprised he lasted this long, and there is no way any person with that disease can die in peace or without pain. Depending on the outcome in Libya the truth might or might not go with him.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

"Cherry picking" is a basic human condition. People tend to hear and remember things which they agree with over things which they disagree with. The strange thing to me is that people with so much responsibility weren't able to do a much better job of it!

And I'm with you, MMI: the guy's dying, quickly. Just let it go, and get down to fixing the system that (apparently) railroaded him in the first place, then released him in the second.

[js207]

"Cherry picking" is a basic human condition. People tend to hear and remember things which they agree with over things which they disagree with. The strange thing to me is that people with so much responsibility weren't able to do a much better job of it!

And I'm with you, MMI: the guy's dying, quickly. Just let it go, and get down to fixing the system that (apparently) railroaded him in the first place, then released him in the second.

To me, the root problem is that the 'justice' guy was regarding anything supporting the mass-murderer's release as being good, anything impeding that release as bad ... shouldn't anyone in that position be at least neutral on the question of release, rather than wanting a reason to release criminals if he can? I'm not alone in suspecting he never really put his previous career as a defence agent behind him.

Yes, Megrahi will soon die - as he was "supposed" to almost two years ago now - which will at least bring a little closure. I would hope this debacle has at least made this government less trigger-happy about letting convicts out - perhaps amend the law to exclude violent crimes from the scope of this early release loophole, and/or change it to a tagging-based home release, with a curfew and absolute prohibition on leaving the country. As it is, even after Megrahi violated the conditions of his release (regular checkins and notifying the authorities of any change of address), was there really any chance of the Libyans returning him because of it?

Of course, bringing back capital punishment and applying it in his case would have avoided the whole issue - though sadly the promising start that e-petition had seems to have stalled now, and our politicians are probably too soft to comply anyway.

[Thorne]

the root problem is that the 'justice' guy was regarding anything supporting the mass-murderer's release as being good, anything impeding that release as bad

Which is the very definition of cherry picking. He had already made up his mind and only needed a minimum of support to "justify" his decision. To his credit, for what it's worth, he at least didn't try to misrepresent the doctor, trying to make it seem as though the doctor said one thing while in reality he'd said another. That's another all-to-common tactic.

[MMI]

While things look bad for the Government(s), if the Scottish authorities did cherry-pick, and it is by no means certain that they did, the presumption must be in their favour until proved otherwise. Why would Scotland want to appease Gadaffi; it has no foreign policy? Brown must have had Salmond's arm up behind his back while he did so.

Megrahi was released because he was going to die of prostate cancer. That was the reason he was let go, and it was a valid one. No amount of griping will alter that. Maybe he wouldn't have been so lucky without a handy arab state pleading his cause, but the reason for release, if convenient, was real. It must be borne in mind that there is a significant body of opinion the either Megrahi is entirely innocent, and that his conviction resulted from the worst miscarriage of justice in Scotland for a century. I, for one, would be unhappy to hang a man where there were such significant doubts about his guilt.

"Strong" politicians, no doubt, would hang everyone in sight until they found the right one?

As for the breach of the conditions of his release, I think Ian2411 has dealt with that.

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put, he never should have been realzedfrom Jail for "Health Reasons" is is not dying nor was he doing so know, it wil be interrsting to see what now come of him in Lybia with the chaging over the "Guard" there

[IAN 2411]

Simply put, he never should have been realzedfrom Jail for "Health Reasons" is is not dying nor was he doing so know, it wil be interrsting to see what now come of him in Lybia with the chaging over the "Guard" there

We all have to respect the written law whether we like them or not. He was releaced from prison under Scotish Law and when in Scotland we all abide by their laws, and irispective of what country we originate. He was realeaced under their health of prisoners law whatever, and no country will break their own laws for one person. Nothing will happen in Libya because he was released in the eyes of the law and is a free man. Even the Americans would not be stupid enough to put him back in prison for a few weeks or days. If their investigators had done their work correctly in the first place they might have convicted the right person, instead of framing and fitting up an easy target.

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

MMI: "Why would Scotland want to appease Gadaffi; it has no foreign policy? Brown must have had Salmond's arm up behind his back while he did so."

Actually, that near-absence of any official "foreign policy" would have been one factor pushing Salmond in this direction: Scotland has very little authority over any form of foreign policy, and Scottish politicians in general and Salmond's party in particular has yearned from the outset to change that - hence sending Scottish delegates to any foreign event they have an excuse for, renaming itself the "Scottish Government" rather than "Scottish Executive" and other little gestures in that direction. They've been trying to gather influence like this for years, for example over work permits: one of my co-workers a few years ago had a Scotland-specific work permit (for working in Scotland after graduating from a Scottish university) - as it happens her desk was actually in London, but for legal purposes she was being employed in Scotland to qualify for that visa.

IAN: "We all have to respect the written law whether we like them or not. He was releaced from prison under Scotish Law and when in Scotland we all abide by their laws, and irispective of what country we originate. He was realeaced under their health of prisoners law whatever, and no country will break their own laws for one person."

I don't think any law would have been broken by denying his release: as I understand it, the law permits prisoners to be released if their health deteriorates to a certain point and some other criteria are met - that does not mean the law requires their release until the sentence has actually been served.

[MMI]

MMI: "Why would Scotland want to appease Gadaffi; it has no foreign policy? Brown must have had Salmond's arm up behind his back while he did so."

Actually, that near-absence of any official "foreign policy" would have been one factor pushing Salmond in this direction: Scotland has very little authority over any form of foreign policy, and Scottish politicians in general and Salmond's party in particular has yearned from the outset to change that - hence sending Scottish delegates to any foreign event they have an excuse for, renaming itself the "Scottish Government" rather than "Scottish Executive" and other little gestures in that direction. They've been trying to gather influence like this for years, for example over work permits: one of my co-workers a few years ago had a Scotland-specific work permit (for working in Scotland after graduating from a Scottish university) - as it happens her desk was actually in London, but for legal purposes she was being employed in Scotland to qualify for that visa.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain how not having a foreign policy would cause Scotland to want to appease Gaddaffi ...

... and also how attendance at international events serves as a substitute for a foreign policy.

Meanwhile, I understand from Wikipedia that, although the Scottish Executive was renamed the Scottish Government in English, the Gaelic name, Riaghaltas na h-Alba has not been changed. The Gaelic translates as Scottish Government. This suggests that the English version of the name was mistaken originally: I'm sure Gaelic has a word or phrase for Executive that could have been used otherwise.

I don't know anything about how visas are issued, but it would surprise me if foreign students were not subject to certain restrictions if they are to be allowed to stay after graduation. In the case you cite, it seems entirely reasonable to stipulate that the graduate be employed in Scotland (or England, Wales or NI for that matter) if that's where she studied. But being employed in Scotland will not prevent her from going anywhere else in Britain, or anywhere else in the world, to carry out her duties, if that's what her employment entailed. Are you sure that the young lady in question was not given a British visa that happened to be issued in Scotland (just like some passports are) rather than a "Scottish visa"?

Or perhaps the visa was issued by the Scottish Government under powers devolved to it by Westminster.

[IAN 2411]

Blair's two trips to see Gaddafi
Press Association – 18th September 2011
Former prime minister Tony Blair twice visited Libya for talks with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in the months leading up to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, it has been disclosed.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that documents discovered in Tripoli showed that the ousted dictator had arranged to fly Mr Blair on his private jet for meetings in June 2008 and April 2009.

The talks came at a time when Libya was threatening to sever all commercial links with Britain if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was not released from the Scottish prison where he was being held for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103.

A spokesman for Mr Blair acknowledged that the Libyans had raised the issue of Megrahi's release but said that the former premier had simply told them that it was a matter for the Scottish Executive. The spokesman added that there had been no "commercial or business element" to the meetings.

However, the latest disclosure it likely to add to pressure for Mr Blair to make public the full extent of his dealings with Gaddafi since leaving Downing Street in 2007.

The Sunday Telegraph said that the documents showed that in both 2008 and 2009, Mr Blair negotiated to fly to Tripoli from Sierra Leone in west Africa in a jet provided by Gaddafi.

The first letter, sent on notepaper headed Office of the Quartet Representative - Mr Blair's title as Middle East peace envoy - was written by Gavin Mackay in Mr Blair's London office to the Libyan ambassador to the UK and is dated June 2 2008. It stated: "Let me begin my (sic) saying that Mr Blair is delighted that The Leader is likely to be able to see him during the afternoon of 10 June and he is most grateful that the Libyan authorities have kindly offered an aircraft to take him from Freetown to Tripoli and back to London."

Details of the 2009 meeting are contained in an exchange of emails between Victoria Gould, who was Mr Blair's events organiser, and Sir Vincent Fean, the former British ambassador to Libya. Miss Gould wrote to Sir Vincent on March 31 to say an audience with Gaddafi was "looking positive". She added: "If we were able to stay at the Residence I know TB would be really grateful (as would we all)."

A spokesman for Mr Blair said: "As we have made clear many times before, Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the government of Libya and he has no commercial relationship with any Libyan company or entity.

"The subjects of the conversations during Mr Blair's occasional visits was primarily Africa, as Libya was for a time head of the African Union; but also the Middle East and how Libya should reform and open up.
.................................................. ..................................

Well it might be that things are not as they should be, and it was Tony Blair and not poor old tough man Gordon Brown that brokered a deal.

If you keep shaking the can of worms some must surely drop out.

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

"I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain how not having a foreign policy would cause Scotland to want to appease Gaddaffi ... and also how attendance at international events serves as a substitute for a foreign policy."

It seems obvious to me: with official foreign policy (running embassies, negotiating treaties, etc) being 'reserved' to the UK government, Salmond's bunch want to do what they can to pretend they have those powers too: sending representatives to international events in lieu of having an actual ambassador, etc.

If the Gaelic and English versions differ, considering the name is set by legislation negotiated by English-speakers and passed by Parliament in London, why assume it is the foreign-language translation which is wrong? Even here in Scotland it's spoken by less than 2% of the population (as of the 2001 Census). Indeed, as the Wikipedia page itself notes, the official name remains "Scottish Executive"; it is the English-language text of the Scotland Act, including the name Scottish Executive, which is the legal one: the Gaelic translation has no more legal force than an Urdu one would (and, interestingly, fewer potential readers in Scotland!) From a legal perspective, by definition it must be the Gaelic translation which is wrong - but as you note, it could have been translated correctly had the translator wished. Care to guess the political leanings of most of those who do Gaelic translations?

"But being employed in Scotland will not prevent her from going anywhere else in Britain, or anywhere else in the world, to carry out her duties, if that's what her employment entailed. Are you sure that the young lady in question was not given a British visa that happened to be issued in Scotland (just like some passports are) rather than a "Scottish visa"?"

Very - I handled part of the paperwork for it. I did not mean it was issued in Scotland, I mean it was a Scotland-specific visa scheme. To quote the announcement at the time: "Home Secretary David Blunkett has provisionally agreed to the request made by the Scottish premier to allow overseas stundent to remain in Scotland for an additional two years after they graduate and be able to look for any type of job during this time." It's issued by the UK government like all other visas - the Scottish government doesn't actually have the authority to issue visas, which is why it had to ask the then-Home Secretary to do it on their behalf. Just like Gaddaffi: a back door route to exercising a little bit more power than they have in their own right.

[MMI]

js207: Nothing about appeasing Gadaffi, I note. As for the delegates to international events, I imagine that's motivated more by the desire to secure more international investment, or tourism or trade than to pretend to be able to negotiate binding treaties with other nations or pursue different policies from the British Government. I also have my doubts that the international events in question would accept the Scottish delegations if they did not believe they had something useful to contribute.

I agree that the Scotland Act is an English-language piece of legislation, and your point is well made to that extent: one would have expected the Gaelic name to be a more accurate translation. However, in a five minute skim through that Act, I did not see any provision preventing the Scottish Executive from changing its name, and, in 2007 it did so. As a consequence, Westminster proposes to amend the Scotland Act by changing all references to the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government in the Scotland Bill (2011).

(I hate to be picky, but I feel bound to mention that Gaelic is not a foreign language in Scotland, even if it is a minority one.)

Now that you have explained that the visa was issued by the Home Secretary, and that the Scottish Government has no power to do so, then I do not agree that your foreign colleague's permission to stay in Scotland after graduating demonstrates any creeping assumption of additional powers by the Scots. If she is now living and working in England by virtue of a legal fiction, then the lie is an English one rather than a Scottish one.

I think you have failed to show both that Scotland is trying top exercise more power than it rightfully should, and that Scotland released Megrahi in order to curry favour with Gaddaffi.

[js207]

The Scottish Executive's name was enshrined in an Act of Parliament which it has no authority to amend, and legal experts have noted that the legal name remains the Scottish Executive until the Act is properly amended - as you note, this amendment is now being proposed. If the Scottish Executive's change of name were valid, that amendment would be redundant. (In rather the same way the British Railways Board accidentally out-lived BR itself for a while) Gaelic is indeed foreign to England, where the Act in question was passed, and indeed is not spoken natively in most of Scotland either. If you follow such matters closely, you may recall the complaints when the government was asked how it would handle an enquiry sent in Gaelic: the answer was that it would be forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for translation, in exactly the same way such a letter in Urdu would be handled. How do you draw the line on "foreign" languages to include Gaelic, with less than 60,000 native speakers in the country and was actually introduced to Scotland by Irish immigrants, but not Urdu or Polish which are also spoken by people born here?

(Gaelic, or rather the expenditure of public funds on propping it up, is a long-standing bugbear of mine, as well as being tightly entwined with the SNP and independence, which is why I doubt the mistranslation to Gaelic was inadvertent.)

Incidentally, as a matter of pure fact, the body in question is actually an executive one, rather than an entire government, since the legislative and judicial functions are vested elsewhere. Again, trying to puff itself up into something bigger, in the way you deny it does...

You seem to have missed the main point there: the pattern of exercising powers they do hold, and influencing powers they do not (like requesting a special Scotland-only visa, despite visas remaining a UK-wide system in law), in order to exert indirectly more authority than they have been granted. Partly this is in the nature of governments everywhere, and part of this is their stated desire to become a full sovereign government. Since they have openly and repeatedly stated that they seek to secure all power - full independence - I'm surprised you even question the existence of that agenda!

As for currying favour, I was actually pointing out another motivation entirely, that it enabled Salmond and his defence-lawyer "justice" guy to posture on a bigger stage, to exercise a bit of power they don't normally get to use, to have a little bit more of that independence from Westminster they have said they crave - and yes, it brought financial benefits as well, as my Libyan colleague said it would the day this first hit the news - exactly the international investment you said yourself they would seek to obtain. Or they could just have let the mass-murdered die in jail as sentenced, and nobody outside Libya would really have noticed or cared. Which option would you expect politicians like that to take?