I listened to Alex Salmond on the Today Programme this morning. He occupied the peak listening slot at 8.10 am normally given to very senior English politicians.
The main thrust of the interview was the Al Megrahi compassionate release question and its re-emergence into the public’s eye today grace à Wikileaks.
In fact the leaks tell us virtually nothing new. They confirm that the British (English) government was told that if Mr Al Megrahi died in a Scottish prison the Libyans would punish Britain economically. An American diplomat used the expression “cut off at the knees”. Apart from that phrase, we knew all that anyway.
We knew that Blair made a deal with Kaddafi on prisoner transfer (which, in fact, was probably out with his remit to do); we knew that the British Foreign Secretary wrote to the Scottish Government saying that it would not be in British interests if the prisoner died in a Scottish jail; we knew that the Libyan Foreign Ministry contacted the Scottish government and offered “treats and blandishments”, which were turned down.
We also knew, because it was laid out to us in the simplest terms, the steps which Scots Law demanded be taken in the case of a person considered to be dying in prison. We know that these steps were followed to the letter. We know too that there was some politicking by Labour and the Tories, but that no senior legal figure has come forward to dispute that what was done was correct.
Alex Salmond
performed faultlessly. In a calm and measured tone, with none of hysterical arguments or the trotting out of the latest political buzz phrase so habitual at 8.10, he explained that Wikileaks had told us little that was new. He agreed that he had spoken with the Edinburgh Consul General of the United States Government. He agreed that the just of what he had said was transmitted on to Washington, although not in the exact language that he had used.
Reflecting on the circumstances I can see no reason, other than the one that Alex offered, for releasing Al Megrahi. The government knew that it was dealing with a situation with ramifications well beyond Scottish shores, and most importantly in America. It will not have been lost upon them how much America could hurt Scotland economically. When France refused to join its illegal war in Iraq, it was rewarded by a ‘hate France’ campaign which not only involved changing the name of French Fries, but was economically damaging to France particularly in wine exports and tourism! Scotland’s tourism industry is hugely dependent on American visitors. Its whisky exports to America are not insubstantial. The release risked damaging these businesses.
What measures Libya could take against Scotland along these lines is not clear. The threats made were against the British government and presumably had to do with arms sales and oil exploration. Given that the British go
vernment had treated the new Scottish government with distaste and disdain, and that relations between Alex and Brown were abysmal, it seems unlikely that the Scottish government would have risked Scottish tourism to save British armaments.
In all his dealings with the United States, with the UK government, with John Humphries this morning, and with our own parliament and people, Alex Salmond has shown that the process was both thought out and carried out in accordance with the principles of Scots Law.
The main thrust of the interview was the Al Megrahi compassionate release question and its re-emergence into the public’s eye today grace à Wikileaks.
In fact the leaks tell us virtually nothing new. They confirm that the British (English) government was told that if Mr Al Megrahi died in a Scottish prison the Libyans would punish Britain economically. An American diplomat used the expression “cut off at the knees”. Apart from that phrase, we knew all that anyway.
We knew that Blair made a deal with Kaddafi on prisoner transfer (which, in fact, was probably out with his remit to do); we knew that the British Foreign Secretary wrote to the Scottish Government saying that it would not be in British interests if the prisoner died in a Scottish jail; we knew that the Libyan Foreign Ministry contacted the Scottish government and offered “treats and blandishments”, which were turned down.
We also knew, because it was laid out to us in the simplest terms, the steps which Scots Law demanded be taken in the case of a person considered to be dying in prison. We know that these steps were followed to the letter. We know too that there was some politicking by Labour and the Tories, but that no senior legal figure has come forward to dispute that what was done was correct.
Alex Salmond
performed faultlessly. In a calm and measured tone, with none of hysterical arguments or the trotting out of the latest political buzz phrase so habitual at 8.10, he explained that Wikileaks had told us little that was new. He agreed that he had spoken with the Edinburgh Consul General of the United States Government. He agreed that the just of what he had said was transmitted on to Washington, although not in the exact language that he had used.Reflecting on the circumstances I can see no reason, other than the one that Alex offered, for releasing Al Megrahi. The government knew that it was dealing with a situation with ramifications well beyond Scottish shores, and most importantly in America. It will not have been lost upon them how much America could hurt Scotland economically. When France refused to join its illegal war in Iraq, it was rewarded by a ‘hate France’ campaign which not only involved changing the name of French Fries, but was economically damaging to France particularly in wine exports and tourism! Scotland’s tourism industry is hugely dependent on American visitors. Its whisky exports to America are not insubstantial. The release risked damaging these businesses.
What measures Libya could take against Scotland along these lines is not clear. The threats made were against the British government and presumably had to do with arms sales and oil exploration. Given that the British go
vernment had treated the new Scottish government with distaste and disdain, and that relations between Alex and Brown were abysmal, it seems unlikely that the Scottish government would have risked Scottish tourism to save British armaments.In all his dealings with the United States, with the UK government, with John Humphries this morning, and with our own parliament and people, Alex Salmond has shown that the process was both thought out and carried out in accordance with the principles of Scots Law.
