Letter from First Minister to Senator Kerry

[What follows is the text of a letter sent today by the First Minister, Alex Salmond, to the chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, Senator John Kerry.]

Dear Senator Kerry

I am writing to you about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's recent interest in the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. This letter sets out the Scottish Government's position on the key issues that have been raised in recent days. I trust it will assist your Committee's consideration of this matter.

I want first of all to restate the revulsion of the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland at the bombing of Flight Pan Am 103 and to acknowledge the terrible pain and suffering inflicted on the victims and the relatives of all those who died in the Lockerbie atrocity. Whatever different views we have about the release of Al-Megrahi, I am sure we stand together on that.

My understanding is that the recent interest from the Committee and from other Senators stems mainly from concerns over any role played by BP in Al-Megrahi's release. I can say unequivocally that the Scottish Government has never, at any point, received any representations from BP in relation to Al-Megrahi. That is to say we had no submissions or lobbying of any kind from BP, either oral or written, and, to my knowledge, the subject of Al-Megrahi was never raised by any BP representative to any Scottish Government Minister. That includes the Justice Minister to whom it fell to make the decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release on a quasi-judicial basis.

Where BP has admitted that it played a role is in encouraging the UK Government to conclude a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with the Libyan Government. I must make clear that the Scottish Government strongly opposed the PTA and the memorandum that led to it was agreed without our knowledge and against our wishes. Indeed it was the Scottish Government which first drew attention to these negotiations involving former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Libyan counterparts as soon as we learned of them in 2007. By definition, a PTA with Libya concerned Al-Megrahi since he was the only Libyan national in Scottish custody. This point was underlined when the UK Government failed to exclude Al-Megrahi from the face of the agreement.

As was highlighted last year, the Scottish Government rejected the application for transfer of Al-Megrahi under the PTA specifically on the basis that the US Government and families of victims in the United States had been led to believe that such a prisoner transfer would not be possible for anyone convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. If your Committee is concerned about BP's role or the PTA then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your enquiries. There is nothing the Scottish Government can add to this since we have had no contact with BP at any point in the process of considering Al-Megrahi's position.

The position of the then UK Government in this matter was best expressed by the former Foreign Secretary Mr Milliband in his statement to the House of Commons on 12 October 2009 when he said "The UK Government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision. Although the decision was not one for the UK Government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation would be damaged. .. if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison."

The decision of the Scottish Government to release Al-Megrahi was made on the basis of an application for compassionate release. This is a separate and long-standing process within the Scottish justice system under which a total of 39 prisoners - including Al-Megrahi have been released since the present provisions were introduced in 1993. During that period, all applications meeting the required criteria and which had support from the Scottish Prison Service, doctors and social work staff, and, in appropriate cases, the Parole Board for Scotland, were granted. I can assure you that consideration of Al-Megrahi's application followed the due process of Scots Law at all stages and that the decision was made in good faith and on the basis of the appropriate criteria.

In order to demonstrate that due process was followed, we published all the key documents related to the decision where permission for publication was given. The only significant documents that we have not published are US Government representations and some correspondence from the UK Government, where permission was declined. The Scottish Government is, and has always been, willing to publish these remaining documents if the US and UK Governments are willing to give permission for that to be done.

There has been some questioning of the medical advice that was used to inform the decision on compassionate release. That advice was compiled by Dr Andrew Fraser, the Director of Health and Care in the Scottish Prison Service, drawing on medical expertise provided by two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and the primary care physician. All of these specialists are employed by the National Health Service in Scotland. I do not believe there is any value in questioning the professional integrity of Dr Fraser, who made clinical judgements in good faith and who had no interest in giving anything other than the most professional standard of advice he could offer. There is no evidence that any of the doctors were placed under any outside influence whatsoever and what they provided was an objective view of Al-Megrahi's condition at that time.

Quite separately, the Libyan Government commissioned and paid for advice from other leading cancer specialists. These reports commissioned by the Libyan Government played no part in the decision on compassionate release. Indeed, the report most widely quoted, compiled by Professor Sikora, was not received by the Scottish Government until four days after the medical advice on compassionate release had been presented to the Scottish Justice Minister. I can therefore reassure you and your Committee that the medical evidence which informed the decision to release Al-Megrahi took no account of any assessments paid for by the Libyan Government.

I know that some of your colleagues have questioned how Al-Megrahi can still be alive 11 months after release, when the decision was based on medical advice that 3 months was a reasonable prognosis for his life expectancy. While he has lived for longer than the prognosis suggested, there was a recognition at the time that he could die sooner or live longer. This was made clear in the Scottish Government's public statements, and was an acknowledgement that prognosis in cancer cases is subject to several variables that could affect the estimate of life expectancy. The fact remains, however, that Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer.

I am aware of comments from Secretary of State Clinton to the effect that she would encourage the UK Government and Scottish Government to review how the decisions were reached. I would note that the Scottish Government's actions have already been subject to scrutiny by Committees of both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Their reports and our responses are a matter of public record. There is nothing within them to challenge the Scottish Government's position that the decision was made in good faith and in line with due process. However we will gladly co-operate with the UK Cabinet Secretary in reviewing the publication of any further documents germane to the case.

On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government do not doubt the safety of the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity. The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature. As was indicated last year, the Scottish Government would be happy to co-operate fully with such an inquiry. I would add that the case remains open with regard to others who may have had an involvement, with Mr Al-Megrahi, in the Lockerbie atrocity. Scottish and US authorities continue to work together in this area.

I am aware that the US Government and many relatives of those who died, particularly in the US, profoundly disagree with the Scottish Government's decision to release Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. I do not expect anything I say will change that but I do think it is important to put on record the background to that decision and reassure you that it was made with integrity and following a clear legal process. I hope that my doing so will assist the Committee.

I am copying this letter to Senators Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer and to Secretary of State Clinton. I am also passing a copy to the US Consulate in Edinburgh.

Alex Salmond

Cameron criticises al-Megrahi release before US visit

[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

David Cameron has attacked the release of the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, ahead of his first official visit to the US as PM.

Mr Cameron described the Scottish government decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds last year as "completely wrong".

The US Congress is investigating the background to the decision amid claims of lobbying by oil firm BP over it. (...)

Mr Cameron is expected to discuss ... the Lockerbie case during his first visit to the White House as prime minister on Tuesday. (...)

Asked about the decision in August to free Libyan al-Megrahi after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given three months to live, Mr Cameron stressed it had been a decision for the Scottish government alone.

However, he said he "deeply regrets" the pain the decision caused to the relatives of the 270 mainly US citizens, killed in the 1988 bombing.

"All I know is, as leader of the opposition, I could not have been more clear that I thought the decision to release al-Megrahi was completely and utterly wrong," he told BBC Breakfast.

Asked whether BP - which has lucrative oil contracts in Libya - had lobbied for al-Megrahi's release, he said: "I have no idea what BP did. I am not responsible for BP."

Foreign Secretary William Hague has written to his US counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stating that there was no evidence of BP involvement in the decision.

BP has acknowledged that it warned the previous Labour government of a possible "negative impact on UK commercial interests" of slow progress being made agreeing a separate prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.

But it has insisted that it had no discussions with either the UK or Scottish government over the issue.

On Sunday, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski called for a full public inquiry into the decision to release al-Megrahi.

[The four senators who triggered this furore have now written to David Cameron asking for a meeting while he is in the United States. But it appears from a report on the BBC News website that the request has been refused:]

"UK Prime Minister David Cameron will not meet four US senators to discuss allegations BP lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)

"But the British embassy said Mr Cameron had a full schedule on his US trip and the senators could meet the ambassador."

The right response?

Tony Hayward, the outgoing chief executive of BP, has refused to testify for the second time before a US Senate hearing about BP’s role in the release of the Lockerbie Bomber.

Mr Hayward, who also refused to testify in July shortly after resigning from BP, wrote to US Sen Robert Menendez that he is focused on ensuring a “smooth and successful leadership change” at the company and will be unable to testify. (...)

BP has admitted that Sir Mark Allen, an adviser to the firm, spoke to Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, about Britain introducing a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. Mr Menendez initially planned the hearing for last month, but was forced to postpone it when he could not get Mr Hayward or officials from Britain and Scotland to testify. (...)

Citing public comments from British and Scottish officials saying they found no evidence that BP played a role in al-Megrahi’s release, Mr Hayward in his latest letter said, “BP has nothing to add to these clear, unequivocal statements.”

Mr Menendez has said that although the committee cannot compel foreign nationals to testify at a hearing in the U.S., the committee will look into whether Mr Hayward could be subpoenaed because BP conducts business in the US.

[From a report in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph.

The Washington Post's Spy Talk blog has a post headed "CIA retirees call for escalated probe of Pan Am 103 bomber's release". The Association of Former Intelligence Officers, an organization of CIA and other ex-intelligence officers, is calling for Scotland, Britain and all relevant branches of the US government to cooperate with a US Senate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A number of US intelligence officers were amongst the victims of Pan Am 103. Now, if AFIO were to call for an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Megrahi's conviction and to call for the US and other governments to make available all documents and evidence pertinent to that issue, that really would be a news story.]

Why the US Senate should question Tony Blair

[This is the headline over an article by Mark Seddon, the former United Nations Correspondent and New York Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera English TV, on the Left Futures website. It reads in part:]

Silence speaks volume. In the unmitigated disaster that is the Gulf of Mexico, two silent partners watch as BP endures a hurricane of criticism, Transocean and Haliburton, who it has been alleged are at least as complicit over the oil spill as the company that has been re-born in sections of the US media as “British Petroleum”. (...)

Just because big business and Government frequently fuse and lobby in such a way all of the time, and just because ‘Big Oil’ has such political and economic power, does not mean that Senator Menendez is wrong to try and pursue answers. Far from it. And just because the British lawmakers he wants to invite in front of his Committee have not taken up his offer, doesn’t mean that his Committee should allow itself to get side-lined. In truth it is difficult to see US lawmakers agree to fly to London to be quizzed by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, just as it is for British and Scottish lawmakers to break all conventions and appear in front of a foreign legislature. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are supplicants.

However, there is nothing stopping Senator Menendez and others coming to London and Edinburgh to find out for themselves what really want on behind the scenes in the run up to the signing of al-Megrahi’s release, they might discover that the whole affair is a good deal murkier than even they imagine.

I interviewed al-Megrahi in Tripoli at a time when the Libyans were refusing to extradite him, and while Libya’s pedigree in backing terrorist outrages was not in doubt. I remember then thinking that something did not quite seem right, and wondering if al-Megrahi – the only man to be convicted for the downing of the Pan Am flight – was being set-up as some kind of scapegoat. A body of evidence amassed in the years since, not least by the now sadly deceased investigative journalist, Paul Foot, does indeed reach the conclusion that al-Megrahi was the scapegoat. The Senator and his team only need visit the offices of Private Eye magazine in Soho, London, and they can see the evidence for themselves. It is also worthy of note that many of the British families who lost family in the Lockerbie bombing also happen to agree that al-Megrahi could be innocent.

That then is one angle. But here is another. In recent days we have seen and heard much from the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, easily the most erudite and informed politician in these islands, a visible reminder of the calibre of politician we have lost. Senator Menendez certainly needs to meet Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, where he will discover I suspect that the Scottish authorities played the release of al-Megrahi by the book. I may of course be wrong, but somehow I do not see that Salmond in particular would have been swayed by lobbying by BP, still less by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In fact Salmond is adamant that, when it came to the Scottish Parliament, there was no lobbying by BP at all.

And so to the other silent voice, the loudest silence of all, from the man who was the architect of the rapprochement with Libya, the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Blair’s ties to BP were so close that the company was at one time nicknamed as ‘Blair Petroleum’. A revolving door existed between Number 10 Downing Street and BP’s head office, and while there is a good argument to suggest that Blair was right to want to lift relations with Libya out of deep freeze, it is probably time to ask exactly why.

Was it because Britain, a perennial target for Libyan inspired terrorist attacks, or Libyan financed terrorist attacks, genuinely wanted to turn over a new leaf with the unpredictable Libyan strongman, Colonel Gadaffi , or was the prospect of black gold too tempting a prospect? Or was it, more likely, a combination of the two?

Big companies such as BP have incredible clout, yet it takes Governments to legislate and Governments to agree prisoner transfer agreements. It takes Governments to revive trade and diplomatic ties. It therefore follows that Governments can if they wish resist the pressure and refuse to legislate or revive diplomatic ties. But when it came to Libya, still ruled by a despot who had never even apologised for the State sponsored financing of terrorism and whose agents shot Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in cold blood outside the Libyan Embassy in London, Tony Blair’s Government wanted to re-open economic ties.

If Senator Menendez wants to get to the bottom of this whole sorry affair he could do no better than inviting Tony Blair to testify on Capitol Hill. After all, Blair has close links with both BP and the Libyan authorities, and is no longer a Parliamentarian but a private citizen. Why should he refuse to go?

BBC presenter 'speaking nonsense’ over Megrahi release

[This is the headline over a report published this morning on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads in part:]

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has dismissed as “nonsense” a claim by BBC Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler ...

Mr Salmond was appearing on the UK Newsnight programme in order to address attacks from US Senator Robert Menendez. Mr Menendez is one of four senators whose letter to the UK ambassador resulted in the setting up of a Senate Committee hearing into the circumstances leading up to the release.

During the exchanges, broadcast live, Mr Esler appeared to claim that the release had harmed the chances of Scottish independence saying to Mr Salmond: “You would like an independent Scotland, you would like good relations with the United states particularly those 40 million or so who claim some kind of Scottish descent. This one case may have blown it”

Mr Salmond ridiculed the suggestion saying: “I think that’s just such nonsense Gavin, we have good relationships with the United States.”

Mr Salmond underlined the respect that the Scottish government has for all of the victims of Lockerbie who spanned 21 different nationalities. The FM included in that respect the surviving families who themselves were also victims and explained that there were some families in the US who actually agreed with the release.

When asked by Mr Esler whether the Scottish government would be prepared to ‘cooperate’ if senator Menendez were to come to Scotland the First Minister pointed out that the Scottish government were already cooperating where they could and highlighted the refusal of the US and UK administrations to release all documents relating to the case.

Mr Salmond promised that the senator would be extended the courtesy afforded all foreign representatives who visit and revealed that Kenny MacAskill had recently met with a dozen US Congressmen on the subject of Al Megrahi at the request of the American Consul General in Scotland.

However the First Minister made it clear that no Scottish Minister would be compelled to attend - and have judgement passed on them by - a committee controlled by another nation. Mr Salmond highlighted the United States refusal to attend inquiries into the ‘friendly fire’ deaths of UK servicemen, the ‘extraordinary rendition’ where people were spirited through UK airports by the CIA for torture and inquiries into Guantanamo bay.

Mr Esler suggested that US suspicions that the release was related to a BP oil deal were justified saying: “BP wanted drilling in Libya, Libya wanted Megrahi, You release Megrahi, BP gets drilling rights.”

Mr Esler added: “There was some lobbying by the LBBC of which BP is a part, you can understand why American senators, meaning no disrespect to the Scottish or British governments think there’s something deeply fishy about this”

This was addressed by Mr Salmond who explained that the lobbying on behalf of LBBC had been carried out by a Tory politician. The request had been rejected out of hand by Kenny MacAskill who had explained firmly to the Tory peer that business interests would play no part in the decision on Mr Megrahi.

The First Minister went on to suggest that if the senator was truly interested in Libyan oil deals negotiated on behalf of BP then the person to ask would be the man who was part of the negotiations - Tony Blair. Mr Salmond explained that the signing of the BP oil deal took place, not as the BBC presenter had suggested after the release of Mr Megrahi, but two years before on the same day that Tony Blair met with Libyan leader Col Gadaffi.

Mr Salmond also highlighted the silence from both the then Westminster opposition and indeed US senators when the SNP exposed Tony Blair’s secret ‘deal in the desert’.

Senate panel sets hearing on BP-Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over a report on the website of the Reuters news agency. It reads in part:]

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a July 29 hearing into last year's release of a Libyan convicted for the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, and related actions by BP.

The committee said on Thursday it will ask officials of BP plc to testify after the UK-based oil giant acknowledged that it had lobbied the British government in 2007 to agree to transfer Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi to Tripoli. The company said it was concerned that his continued imprisonment in Scotland could negatively affect an offshore oil drilling deal with Libya.

"BP told the UK government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya," BP said in a statement.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who had opposed Megrahi's release, said "details that have emerged in recent days in the press have raised new concerns."

Britain's ambassador to Washington sent a letter to Kerry on Thursday "to explain the facts" surrounding the circumstances of Megrahi's release.

"Under Scottish law, Megrahi was entitled to be considered for release on compassionate grounds. Whilst we disagreed with the decision to release him, we have to respect the independence of the process," Sir Nigel Sheinwald said in the letter.

"I am troubled by the claims made in the press that Megrahi was released because of an oil deal involving BP, and that the medical evidence supporting his release was paid for by the Libyan government. Both of these allegations are untrue," Sheinwald added.

Sheinwald said he hoped his letter would help to set the record straight and correct inaccuracies that he said were harmful to the United Kingdom. (...)

The Senate panel said it will ask "government experts" to testify at the hearing, but did not release details on witnesses it plans to invite.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would look into a request by several senators that her agency investigate.

Clinton to look into senators' request on BP, Libya

[This is the headline over a report on the website of the news agency Reuters. It reads in part:]

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday she would look into a request by US lawmakers that the State Department investigate whether oil company BP plc had a hand in the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.

According to media reports, London-based oil company BP lobbied the British government to support the prison transfer, which may have encouraged Libya to finalize an offshore drilling deal with BP. (...)

"I have received the letter and we will obviously look into it," Clinton said in response to a reporter's question, referring to a letter from Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer.

[This story also features in Thursday's edition of The Guardian, where Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is quoted as saying: "It is almost too disgusting to fathom that BP had a possible role in securing the release of the Lockerbie terrorist in return for an oil drilling deal."

The Herald also has a report in which Sen Schumer is quoted: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British Government and Libya.”

The Aljazeera news website also features a report.]

BP, the Lockerbie bomber and a cynical stunt

[This is the headline over a long article by Tim Edwards on The First Post website. The final section reads:]

... the Senators have succeeded in linking the two most poisonous blights on US-UK relations of the past year, and guaranteed maximum publicity for their campaign. Clinton says she will "look into" the request.

BP and its CEO Tony Hayward, for their part, could be forgiven for being a little bemused that Senators have grabbed yet another stick to beat them now that they are so close to capping the oil spill.

BP openly admits it told the British government in 2007 that delays in releasing al-Megrahi were an obstacle to an oil deal. Any investigation into the affair will only reveal what is already known: that Hayward's predecessor John Browne wasn't the only oil exec to negotiate with Libya (Rex Tillerson, the current CEO of ExxonMobil, met Gaddafi in 2005), and that Shell and ExxonMobil beat BP to Libyan oil licenses anyway.

Al-Megrahi would have been released with or without BP's lobbying. Although trade deals were an important factor, far more pressing for the UK government was the fact that al-Megrahi was preparing an appeal against his conviction that may well have resulted in an embarrassing acquittal.

In truth the focus on BP's relationship with Libya is a cynical publicity stunt by four US Senators who, quite understandably, are attempting to win what they see as justice for their constituents.

[Today's edition of The Scotsman contains a letter from Bob Taylor that reads:]

What exactly do the four United States senators hope to achieve by pressing for an investigation into the Lockerbie bomber's release (...)?

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's statement in support of his decision to let Abdelbaset al-Megrahi go on compassionate grounds has already been analysed in depth.

The rigour of the medical advice, the controversial visit by the minister to Greenock prison and the flying of the Saltire at Tripoli airport have all been rehashed ad infinitum.

What seems to have been ignored was a significant part of Mr McAskill's statement last summer. He made the point that he had come under no pressure from any quarter to make a decision either way.

But he also stressed another matter: that the Scottish Government had no powers to examine the wider aspects of the case but would co-operate if a major inquiry was established at either UK or international level.

It is for this that the four senators should be campaigning. There is an understandable angst across the Atlantic about Megrahi's longevity.

This is not the main issue. It is that there are now a number of diplomatic, economic and legal barriers to the quest for truth on the whole affair. The bodies that can overcome these barriers are the British, Libyan and US governments.

How long Megrahi lives seems a small point compared with what might emerge if they were all truthful about what really went on.

[The readers' comments that follow the letter are also worth reading.]

Ex-BP boss Lord Browne did not discuss Lockerbie bomber release

[This is the headline over a report just published on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

Former BP chief executive Lord Browne has said he never discussed the release of the Lockerbie bomber when he held talks with Libya's leader.

Lord Browne, whose 12 years in charge at BP ended in 2007, said he had met Colonel Gaddafi twice to discuss gas and oil exploration in Libya.

But he told an audience at the Edinburgh International Book Festival he had not lobbied the UK government for the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in order to help BP land a deal. (...)

Lord Browne said that the inclusion of Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and a BP deal to look for oil in the North African country happened after he left the company. (...) [Note by RB: The "deal in the desert" was signed after Lord Browne's departure from BP, but the UK-Libya negotiations that culminated in it commenced in 2003.]

Lord Browne told the Edinburgh audience: "I went to see Gaddafi twice to see if I could negotiate entry to Libya.

"It did not happen but I think I got quite a way forward."

When asked if the release of Megrahi was ever discussed, he said: "Certainly not."

Obama, Cameron tread cautiously on BP, Lockerbie

British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday rejected calls for an inquiry into whether BP plc influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, even as he sought to ease transatlantic tensions in talks with US President Barack Obama.

Determined not to let the Lockerbie controversy and BP's role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill overshadow their White House meeting, the two leaders reaffirmed the much-vaunted "special relationship" between their countries.

Cameron said he understood US anger over BP's role in the spill and tried to defuse US lawmakers' concerns that the company may have had a hand in Scottish authorities' release last year of a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

But Cameron, under pressure at home to stand up for the British energy giant against the bashing it has faced in Washington, also insisted it was in US and British interests for the company to remain strong and viable.

Obama, whose approval ratings have been undercut by public outrage over the spill ... also played down the simmering controversy over the Lockerbie case.

"I completely understand the anger that exists right across America. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a catastrophe," Cameron told reporters as he stood side by side with Obama in his first US visit since taking power in May.

"It is BP's role to cap the leak, clean up the mess and pay appropriate compensation," Cameron said.

But he also cautioned, "Let us not confuse the oil spill with the Libyan bomber."

Cameron insisted BP had no role in the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, which he opposed at the time as opposition leader, and pledged his government's aid in any US Senate probe into the matter.

Steering clear of any public disagreement, Obama said he was confident the British government would cooperate to make sure all the facts are known.

In an apparent bid to assuage US concerns, Cameron ordered his Cabinet secretary to review documents in the case and met US lawmakers on the issue on Tuesday.

But he rejected in advance their demands for a full British investigation. "I don't need an inquiry to tell me what was a bad decision," Cameron said.

New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, one of four senators who met Cameron, said they were in agreement Megrahi should not have been released but that did not mean "case closed."

"Only with complete information about the circumstances surrounding al-Megrahi's release can we get the full understanding that is needed to determine the next steps," Menendez said in a statement after the meeting.

Menendez, who will chair a hearing next week on the release, also said Cameron gave assurances his government would cooperate with requests from the Senate.

[From a report on the website of the Reuters news agency.]

Megrahi inquiry 'is kicking BP while it's down'

The BP spill and a senate inquiry in the release of the Lockerbie could overshadow David Cameron's visit to the US. But former UK Libyan ambassador Oliver Miles tells Channel 4 News the al-Megrahi inquiry is a case of kicking BP while it is down. (...)

You told Channel 4 News last year that you thought there had been a deal on al-Megrahi's release. How would it have worked?

The problem is this: why did Megrahi and Libya decide to abandon the appeal. It was probably Libya rather than Megrahi, because Megrahi was very ill and had given the Libyans full powers to act on his behalf.

The obvious reason for abandoning it was that it was a precondition under the prisoner transfer agreement – but the PTA wasn't actually used. And under Scottish humanitarian arrangements, it wasn't a precondition. It means we're left with an unanswered question as to why he abandoned it.

So there's a mystery there. The only half-solution I can think of is that someone convinced the Libyans or Megrahi that this was the only way he’d get a ticket home.

And has UK-Libya trade improved since al-Megrahi's release?

UK trade has improved. That's a fact if you believe the statistics. But whether one can link it to Megrahi or any other political factor, I would doubt.

The position I probably was taking last year and my feeling now is that if this had gone wrong, it would have had a serious negative impact on relations, including trade.

Put it this way. I was in Libya in May leading a delegation of British business people, and Megrahi wasn't mentioned - and I would have been amazed if he had been.

What will the US Senate inquiry reveal?

It seems to be there is no basis for an inquiry at all. Why are they raising this? The answer, to be blunt, is because of BP? Everybody knows that BP s a baddie, and when they're nearly down, this is the time to kick them.

Libya knows the only way it can achieve a boost in oil production is by bringing in the world's biggest oil companies – that’s the country has signed a deal with BP, with Shell and with Exxon Mobil as well.

[From a report on the Channel 4 News website.]

Straw fights release of transcript of calls over Libyan oil deal

Justice Secretary denies agreeing to release of Lockerbie bomber in talks with BP lobbyist

Jack Straw was accused last night of trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

The Secretary of State for Justice has turned down a Freedom of Information request from a Commons select committee to reveal whether, during two phone calls with the lobbyist, he agreed to include Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in Britain's Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya.

Mr Straw has admitted having two conversations with Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent turned BP consultant, in the autumn of 2007. But he has insisted that "at no stage was any undertaking promised, hinted, given to the Libyans, that in return for an overall bilateral arrangement Mr Megrahi would be released". (...)

Megrahi, convicted for the 1988 bombing which killed 270, was released last August on compassionate grounds – rather than under the PTA – by the Scottish Executive.

But Mr Straw's discussions with BP are still contentious because MPs believe ministers gave a smooth path for the release in the interests of trade with the Libyan government.

In early 2007, BP signed a $900m (£562m) oil exploration deal with Libya but the energy giant was concerned that the ongoing stalemate over the PTA would damage the contract. Sir Mark, who was involved in the 2003 deal for Colonel Gaddafi to give up his weapons of mass destruction programme, left MI6 in 2004 to work for BP. He telephoned Mr Straw, whom he knew from the minister's time as Foreign Secretary, on 15 October and 9 November 2007. On 19 December 2007, Mr Straw wrote to Mr MacAskill informing him of the British government's change of position.

The Conservative MP and member of the Scottish affairs committee Ben Wallace has written to Mr Straw demanding to see notes of the calls.

During Mr Straw's appearance before the committee last Wednesday, Mr Wallace told him: "I think we should know to what extent HM Government gave commitments in exchange for trade and whether that included Megrahi."

Mr Straw replied: "There's been no secret about the fact that I took two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen – I take telephone calls from all sorts of people. Sir Mark Allen is somebody I knew from my time in the Foreign Office. He actually had very extensive knowledge of the Middle East and in a role in the Foreign Office had been very much involved in these negotiations. I thought he was worth listening to. And that's what I did."

Asked by Mr Wallace whether he would release the notes, Mr Straw said tersely: "Decisions about the release of material under FOI are dealt with separately, with respect, all right?"

Mr Straw's spokesman said the request was turned down under section 35 of the FOI Act, which exempts ministerial communications. Mr Wallace is appealing on public interest grounds.

[The above are excerpts from a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. Readers may also care to have a look at this blog post.]

US should examine its own conscience

[This is the headline over an editorial in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

The decision by the Scottish Government that the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) director of health, Dr Andrew Fraser, should not give evidence at a United States Senate hearing into the release of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has brought claims they have something to hide.

But the charge should be directed at the US and the Senators should invite evidence from their own State Department. The letter from the US State Department to the Scottish Government effectively accepting the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds as preferable to repatriation under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) confirms the US condemnation of the Scottish Government as hypocrisy of the first order.

The Justice Secretary and the SPS health director are right to rebuff the US Senators’ invitation to attend the hearing into the release of Megrahi. Their actions have already been explained in a letter from Alex Salmond to Senators, along with an offer to answer further questions. It is therefore difficult to see what the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has to gain from the Justice Secretary appearing before them other than to bait him in a febrile political arena.

Wilful confusion has been stoked by US politicians who have deliberately ignored the inconvenient truth that a major obstacle to the PTA was that the only Libyan of any consequence in a British jail, Megrahi, was subject to the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland.

His release last year was on the separate grounds of compassion due to a diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer. Only its timing, which closely followed ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK Government and Libya and the announcement of drilling rights for BP in Libya, has allowed conflation by those seeking to exploit outrage over the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

Nevertheless the Scottish Government’s avowal of transparency is brought into focus by the refusal of the Justice Secretary to explain why he took the unprecedented step for a government minister of holding a private meeting with a prisoner before release. As long as that question remains unanswered, suspicion will continue that Megrahi’s withdrawal of his appeal was part of a deal. If MacAskill has nothing to hide, he should be open about the reason for that meeting, unless there is good cause to keep the matter under wraps. By the same token the US Senators should be honest and decouple Scotland’s compassionate release of Megrahi from BP’s interests in Libya.

The attack on PanAm flight 103 has been mired in the complexities of international politics from the beginning and, unfairly or not, Scottish justice has been found wanting in the international court of public opinion. The most glaring affront to justice, however, will always be that 270 people died on December 21, 1988 as the innocent victims of a terrorist crime. Their memories should be honoured by a quest for the truth, not the sordid continuation of political posturing based on misinformation on the other side of the Atlantic.

[I presume that The Herald also has an article describing in more detail the letter from the US State Department to the Scottish Government. Once that article appears online I shall add a reference to this post.

There is no further article on the document: I went so far as to buy a copy of the newspaper to make sure! What there is is a full page of readers' letters, nine out of the total of ten of which support the Scottish Government's stance. They can be read here.

An article by the paper's UK political editor Michael Settle contains the following:]

The US inquiry into release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was in danger of becoming an embarrassing no-show last night after Jack Straw announced he too had declined the offer to attend.

The former justice secretary said he could not help the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing because he had “absolutely nothing to do” with the decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, which he stressed was an “entirely separate decision for the Scottish Justice Secretary”.

However, the SNP’s Christine Grahame insisted Straw had no principled reason not to go, given his activities directly related to the committee’s central point of concern about oil.

She insisted his decision was deeply embarrassing for Scottish Labour, which had attacked Kenny MacAskill for declining the Senate’s invitation. (...)

Invitations to five foreign witnesses have gone out from the Senate committee and three have so far been rejected from Straw, MacAskill and Dr Andrew Fraser, the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service, who drew up the final medical report on the Libyan.

It is not yet known if Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, will attend or Sir Mark Allen, a former lobbyist for the oil giant who helped broker the £590 million “deal in the desert” with Libya, but in light of the rejections, this is thought unlikely.

Confusion still surrounds the invitation written out for Tony Blair, the former prime minister, to attend but which was then swiftly withdrawn. The committee simply said it had been “an error”. (...)

Yesterday, there was a deal of support for Straw and MacAskill’s decision to decline to attend the Senate hearing. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Conservative foreign secretary, who was Scottish secretary at the time of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, said British ministers “should co-operate but not to the extent to give evidence in person”.

Sir Christopher Meyer, the former UK ambassador to Washington, said: “As a matter of principle, a British government or a Scottish government should not submit to the jurisdiction of an American congressional committee.”

Mike Gapes, Labour chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the senators of political grandstanding while his colleague Kevan Jones, a former Labour defence minister, claimed they were engaged in a witch-hunt against BP. (...)

Meantime, the Justice for Megrahi committee, which believes the Libyan to be innocent, called for the Scottish Government to launch its own inquiry, which would cover all aspects of the Lockerbie case. [Note by RB: The call for an inquiry is fully reported in an article on The Guardian website.]

The Senate committee’s hearing takes place at 7.30pm UK time on Thursday and is expected to last three hours.

[The Scotsman has an editorial on the subject. It is supportive of Kenny MacAskill -- perhaps a first for this virulently anti-SNP newspaper. It reads in part:]

In matters of international relations, protocol counts for much, diplomacy a great deal but integrity most of all.

The US senators who have sent out requests for Scotland's justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to appear before them in their inquiry into the Megrahi affair might usefully have borne this in mind.

Why expect Mr MacAskill to respond positively when the former UK prime minister Tony Blair has not been so summoned? It was Mr Blair who was in the tent with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi when a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) was discussed. It was Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi who was behind the plot to blow up the Pan Am jet with the callous slaughter of life over Lockerbie. It was both Col Gaddafi and Mr Blair that BP addressed in their lobbying over oil interests in Libya. As the First Minister Alex Salmond has made clear in his reply to the senators, "if your committee is concerned about BP's role or the PTA ,then it is BP and the previous UK administration that should be the focus of your inquiries". Quite.

The Scottish Government, publicly and by letter to the senators, has made clear the independent status of Scots law, the grounds under Scots law and the circumstances of Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. It has also emphatically stated that at no time was it lobbied by BP on this matter.

Perhaps the senators felt that it would be unseemly to be seen to interrogate a former British prime minister who has been honoured by Congress. (...) Whatever the reason for the senators' actions, it is surely Mr Blair and Mr Straw, not Mr MacAskill, who are more central to the course of their inquiries. Requesting Mr MacAskill but not Mr Blair is at best asymmetric. But it smacks of an easy gesture to the gallery and also leaves the impression, unintended we are sure, that the Scottish justice secretary would be the easier to fry in the public pan.

While there is a wholly respectable case for Mr MacAskill to have accepted the senators' invitation and taken the opportunity to explain Scotland's legal system and put their concerns over its independence at rest, the senators have made it difficult for him to do so while not appearing to be a substitute for inquiries best addressed elsewhere.

In other circumstances Scottish ministers would have been happy to make their position plain to an American audience understandably outraged by an act of wanton terrorism and understandably appalled if Megrahi's release was the result of what has become widely known as "the deal in the desert".

BP, the USA and the repatriation of Megrahi

[Today's edition of The Herald contains two letters on the current furore over BP and its alleged role in the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The first, from Dr Jim Swire, reads:]

Any genuine attempt to uncover any aspect of the truth about the Lockerbie disaster and its aftermath is welcome (“Clinton to probe BP link to Megrahi”, The Herald, July 15).

But unless Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, believes that our new coalition government is so keen to castigate our previous administration that it would be glad to cooperate, she can hardly call upon the UK government to explain itself. Would that not be to put the fox in charge of the hencoop?

She would soon see how desperate Jack Straw (as Justice Minister) was to push through the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) in time for the start of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s second appeal, even overriding the request of the House of Commons Select Committee on Human Rights for more time.

She might then stop to wonder what the motivation might have been for Straw’s clumsy haste, and why the UK authorities seem to have been desperate to neutralise Megrahi’s attempts to overturn a verdict influenced by multiple instances of government and Crown Office withholding of documents from the defence and indeed the court.

Interference in criminal justice for political reasons would be a far more serious charge than a mere grubby oil deal, of which there are so many examples in both our and her own country’s history.

As her husband once commented: “It’s the economy, stupid”, and oil is central to the economies of both our nations but, currently, flogging BP is such a popular cause in the US.

Clinton would find that the PTA from “the deal in the desert” was not, in fact, used by Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary. He used the compassionate release route which was no part of that deal but is a precedent in our criminal law, and which did not dictate the withdrawal of Megrahi’s appeal. His decision weakens the scope for bashing BP. But, then, what influenced his choice?

The US is often accused of seeking to impose its own law overseas. Bill Clinton’s brave decision to allow the holding of the Lockerbie trial outwith the US removed the near certainty of a summary death penalty for Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhima, his co-defendant. Subsequent doubts amplified by our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have amply justified that relief.

[The second, from Iain A D Mann, reads:]

Why do Americans always think they have a God-given right to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations? Pan-Am flight 103 fell to earth in Scotland, which, under international law, meant that all investigations and subsequent trials and criminal prosecutions came under the jurisdiction of Scots law.

If former barrister Tony Blair did not understand or ignored this when he made a deal with [Colonel] Gaddafi to release Megrahi (as I suspect he did), that does not alter the fact. And if the deal was made in exchange for Libyan oil concessions to BP (which I suspect it was), neither Blair nor the UK government was in a position to deliver the prisoner exchange. Many like me have concerns about the trial and conviction of Megrahi, but it was carried out under the independent Scottish justice system, as was the decision of Kenny MacAskill to release him on compassionate grounds.

What do the Americans find difficult to understand and accept about this? If the situation were reversed, would they be willing to let British politicians interfere in the US judicial process? I find distasteful the apparent American thirst for revenge and retribution, as if incarcerating one terminally-ill old man in a prison cell would make them feel better and somehow assuage the tragic loss of so many American (and Scottish) lives. Has it never occurred to them to wonder why Libya would have wanted to undertake such a massive operation against the United States, and why a low-ranking Libyan security officer would have been entrusted with the operation?

Is it not more likely that another country was responsible, in direct retaliation for the reckless shooting down of one of their civilian air liners by a US warship just five months earlier?

And is it not strange that the [Maltese] shopkeeper who provided virtually the only evidence of Megrahi’s involvement was later financed by the CIA and set up in a new life in Australia?

The American senators and Hillary Clinton would be better engaged in addressing some of the many short comings in their own criminal justice system, including holding untried foreigners for years at Guantanamo Bay and many convicted prisoners for 25 years on death row before executing them, rather than criticising the British and Scottish legal systems, which still try to uphold the principles of both justice and compassion.

US House of Representatives Resolution

[The following resolution was introduced into the US House of Representatives on 30 July by Representatives Maffei (D, N-Y), Lee (R, N-Y) and McMahon (D, N-Y). It was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.]

RESOLUTION

Encouraging the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt practices.

Whereas Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people, including 189 United States citizens;

Whereas the Scottish courts released al-Megrahi from prison on August 20, 2009, under the understanding that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer;

Whereas the Scottish authorities have never clarified why al-Megrahi could not receive humane treatment while still in captivity;

Whereas al-Megrahi seems to have well outlived his original diagnosis;

Whereas it is very troubling that al-Megrahi received a hero’s welcome to his home country of Libya;

Whereas British Petroleum (BP) admitted on July 15, 2010, that a delayed prisoner-transfer between Britain and Libya ‘could have a negative impact’ on BP’s oil negotiations;

Whereas there are allegations that BP inappropriately attempted to affect the Scottish Government’s decision and possibly even the doctor’s diagnosis; and

Whereas al-Megrahi’s release sends an incredibly offensive message to the families that lost loved ones on Pan Am Flight 103:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives encourages the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt practices.

[It is hugely entertaining to see politicians jumping onto a bandwagon just as its wheels come off.]

Hillary Clinton raises Lockerbie bomber concerns

[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

The US has raised concerns about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after the foreign secretary said the decision to free him was "a mistake".

William Hague spoke to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Britain may wish to explain the circumstances behind Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release.

Four US senators believe oil giant BP lobbied for the move to secure a deal with Libya.

The Scottish government said Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds.

It has denied having any contact with BP before its decision last year to release the Libyan intelligence officer (...)

On Thursday, the US Senate foreign relations committee said it would ask BP officials to testify after the company admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya.

It confirmed it did press for a PTA because it was aware that a delay might have "negative consequences" for UK commercial interests.

But the firm said it was not involved in any discussions regarding Megrahi's release.

The bomber was released in August by Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill because he was suffering terminal prostate cancer and was said to have as little as three months to live. (...)

Meanwhile, Britain's ambassador to the United States, Nigel Sheinwald, also said the new UK government disagreed with Scotland's decision to free the bomber.

However, he said the inaccuracies over the case were harmful to the UK.

A Scottish government spokesman said: "The Scottish government had no contact from BP in relation to Mr Al-Megrahi.

"The issues being raised in the United States at present regarding BP refer to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the governments of the UK and Libya, and therefore have nothing to do with the decision on compassionate release which is a totally different process, based on entirely different criteria.

"We were always totally opposed to the prisoner transfer agreement negotiated between the UK and Libyan governments.

"The memorandum that led to the PTA was agreed without our knowledge and against our wishes."

US may release Lockerbie files

[This is the headline over a report in The Herald by UK Political Editor Michael Settle. It reads in part:]

The US Government is deciding whether to release all of its Lockerbie files, after Alex Salmond called for full disclosure – including details of the contacts between the UK Government and BP.

With a Senate hearing just four days away, the focus is beginning to fall on the exchanges between Washington, Edinburgh and London in the run-up to the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Louis Susman, the American ambassador to Britain, stressed the US Government is examining whether its correspondence over Megrahi could be released. “We will come up with a decision later on in relation to the hearing,” he said.

Salmond, meanwhile, noted the previous UK Government’s exchanges with BP were “more extensive than anyone had hitherto thought”. The First Minister was referring to a seven-page letter sent at the weekend to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by William Hague, the UK Foreign Secretary, confirming BP had met the former Labour Government five times in October and November 2007 over fears that disputes about a prisoner transfer agreement could damage its oil exploration contracts with Libya.

However, Hague emphasised this was a “perfectly normal and legitimate practice for a British company”, and said there was no evidence to corroborate the allegation BP was involved in Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

In the autumn of 2007, Jack Straw, the former UK Justice Secretary, had at least two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 agent and a BP consultant. It has been suggested the oil giant, which a few months earlier had signed the “deal in the desert” with Tripoli, worth almost £600 million, was concerned that any delay in the prisoner transfer agreement between Libya and the UK could damage its commercial interests. (...)

Salmond said: “Just as I would say it would be helpful for the US to publish all the correspondence, the present Prime Minister is right in saying he is going to publish all that correspondence as well. When all that is published, the position of the Scottish Government will be vindicated.

“We’ve acted throughout with total integrity.” (...)

Elsewhere, a leaked memo has shown that while the US Government did not want Megrahi released, it made clear that compassionate grounds were “far preferable” to his transfer to a Libyan jail.

This seems to fly in the face of the statement last week by Barack Obama that America had been “surprised, disappointed and angry” about the release.

Susman said: “We had a mutual understanding with the British Government that if he was tried and convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland.

“The fact [MacAskill] made a decision on compassionate grounds to release him was something we were not in favour of.”

Labour and Tory hypocrisy over Megrahi release

[On this date five years ago, an article by The Scotsman’s then columnist Duncan Hamilton was published on the newspaper’s website under the headline Why the release of Megrahi remains the right decision.  It reads in part:]

Sadly, the full truth about Lockerbie will never be known. The case will not now be satisfactorily concluded in the courts. Megrahi's appeal against conviction was the nearest I suspect we were going to get to the truth, not just because of the forensic focus of the Appeal Court but because of what new material would have entered the public domain.

Instead, we are suffering from a confusion created by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, all firing off in different directions. Some still want the truth about the bombing, others want to investigate Tony Blair's "Deal in the Desert" with Colonel Gaddafi, many want to give BP a public flogging and there remain calls to re-examine the controversial decision of the Scottish Government to send Megrahi home. There is no unity of purpose. The cross currents those lines of enquiry create do little more than create a media storm.

Perhaps the greatest deception, however, is the idea that somehow the Scottish Government did something which the US and the UK opposed. That, in my view, is utter nonsense. There was no more than the necessary disapproving noises from Washington while the Labour Government offered tacit approval. In opposition, even David Cameron was critical, but careful. After all, wasn't it Gordon Brown who made it clear to Libya that he did not want Megrahi to die in Scotland? Wasn't it Tony Blair who assiduously worked on the deal to get a prisoner transfer agreement covering Megrahi in place from May 2007? Do you really think Blair acted alone and without US approval in seeking to "normalise" trade and oil relations with Libya? Do you really think he was freelancing?

The then UK Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, said the prisoner transfer agreement was partly because "we wanted to bring it (Libya] back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal." That was a shared priority for the UK and US. Is that murky double dealing or just the reality of global politics? Both, probably, but let's nail the suggestion that the US and UK wanted anything other than Megrahi returned home. Those who had most to gain did most to make this happen.

The Scottish Government was never likely to touch the prisoner transfer agreement with a barge pole. It plainly recognised that to do so would raise precisely the allegations now flying around. The crucial point from a Scottish perspective is therefore that the wheeling and dealing of the UK and BP is an important and potentially scandalous back story to the separate decision to release Megrahi, but it is no more than that. That decision was made, therefore, solely on compassionate grounds. That doesn't mean the Scottish Government existed in a foreign policy bubble, entirely unaware of the external pressures and preferences of those around them. But no-one, on either side of the Atlantic, has produced anything, at any time, to suggest this was anything other than a very tough, divisive but objectively considered decision. That is precisely why the Scottish Government published all the evidence upon which the decision relied.

The consistent and considered stance of the Scottish Government stands in contrast to the behaviour of others. (...)

David Cameron also emerges damaged. Scots will not quickly forget the ease with which he decided to side with BP and blame the Scottish Government. Next time he tries to tell us we are strengthened abroad by being part of the Union, we might fairly ask why he was so eager to join the condemnation of the Scottish Government rather than explain to an American audience, on our behalf and as our Prime Minister, the complexities of the decision.

He could have emphasised three facts to protect our position. First, BP did not lobby the Scottish Government but did lobby the UK Government. All parties concerned have confirmed it. Secondly, the Scottish Government had no part whatsoever to play in the discussions and deals around the prisoner transfer agreement and any related oil deals. No-one has at any time suggested otherwise. Thirdly, the decision to release Megrahi - right or wrong -- was made on its own merits and without interference or lobbying. He didn't emphasise any of that, instead allowing misunderstanding and misinformation to fill the void.

I also resent the suggestion that compassion is time limited to three months. Just because Megrahi has not done the convenient thing and died within his allotted slot, are we to say that the decision was wrong? That position is absurd and cruel. Megrahi will die soon enough. We chose to let him do so at home and with dignity. That was, and is, the right decision.

Lockerbie truth must be known

[This is the headline over an article by Pamela Dix on the Comment is free section of The Guardian website. It reads as follows:]

The BP issue is another example of the way the truth has been hidden over Lockerbie. We need a full inquiry into the atrocity

Yet again Lockerbie has hit the headlines. The latest twist is the role BP might have had in the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, leading, ironically, to a call for an inquiry into the circumstances of his release. This while the families' calls for an inquiry into the atrocity itself are denied.

The families have faced years of denials and obfuscation, as we have painstakingly sought answers to the many unanswered questions about Lockerbie. The BP issue is just another element in the shameful way in which the truth behind Britain's biggest mass murder has been hidden.

Gordon Brown said that there was "no deal on oil" for Megrahi's release. Yet the then foreign secretary, David Miliband, said in the House of Commons in October 2009: "British interests, including those of UK nationals, British business and possibly security co-operation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than in Libya."

In its statement, BP was careful to say that it had made no mention of Megrahi while discussing the need to conclude the agreement on prisoner transfer between Libya and the UK. BP must think we were born yesterday: what other Libyan was supposedly holding back progress on oil drilling deals with Libya?

Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill assures the world that representations made to him, for and against Megrahi's release, played no part in his decision, which he apparently made on the basis of medical and legal evidence. Would they really have released a mass murderer on compassionate grounds if they truly believed he was guilty?

Our new prime minister, David Cameron, takes the view that Megrahi "should have died in jail". Perhaps he thinks in agreeing with the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton that it shouldn't have happened, that it was just a bad decision by the Scottish government, it will make the problem go away. He is yet to get to grips with the complexity of Lockerbie – that it is not a simple case of a guilty man, a few US senators causing trouble, and business as usual for the oil industry.

Cameron's statement takes no account of the fact that although he was convicted, Megrahi continues to protest his innocence. With the abandonment of his appeal last year went all our hopes and expectations that finally we would get to the bottom of the case against him. Dismay does not begin to convey the feelings I had then and now as speculation and a drip feed of "information" about Lockerbie fill the vacuum that a full inquiry should fill.

Where does the public interest truly lie: in getting to the bottom of the worst terrorist crime this country has ever known, or in securing the national economic interest? Are these two things incompatible?

Cameron should indeed explain the UK government position to President Barack Obama and others in the United States. Over 180 Americans died in the bombing. It is equally right that he should stand by his own recent statement to the House of Commons on the Bloody Sunday inquiry – "It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness." With this in mind, I can only hope that he will respect the maxim of UK Families Flight 103, that "the truth must be known".

UK Families Flight 103 will soon find out whether the letter we sent today to Cameron, reiterating our call for a full independent inquiry, will be heeded.

Perhaps some readers will think I am like a stuck record – still calling for answers, for justice, for the truth. However slim the prospects may be, that maxim is at the forefront of my mind today, along with our second, "their spirit lives on".

[Another Comment is free contribution by Ewan Crawford entitled "Megrahi release was compassionate, not political" can be read here.]

US politics struts the stage over Lockerbie bomber row

[This is the headline over an article by journalist, commentator and clergyman Ron Ferguson in today's edition of The Press and Journal a daily newspaper circulating mainly in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. It reads in part:]

The Scottish Government is quite right to turn down the invitation from Washington to appear before the US Senate. Why on earth should Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill accept a summons to cross the Atlantic and be interrogated by senators who are posturing before their own electorates?

Let's be clear: this furore is more about domestic politics in the US than it is about an international incident. Senators who are nervous about their prospects at forthcoming elections are trying to gain political kudos by grandstanding in front of the TV cameras.

“Thanks, but no thanks," is the correct response from the Scottish Government. Scotland may be a small country, but our elected representatives should not roll over just because America snaps its fingers. (...)

What about the fact that al Megrahi is still alive? Kenny MacAskill could deal only with the expert medical information he was given. He is not a medical man. He depended on the reports of the experts.

As any doctor knows, predicting how long someone with a terminal illness will last is far from being an exact science. Various factors can come into play, such as the morale of the person suffering the illness.

Al Megrahi’s return to his family may well have had a positive effect on his inner wellbeing. What no one disputes is that al Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer.

I applaud First Minister Alex Salmond's statement that he will not let the US “bully” Scotland. He is right to point out that American anger at the huge BP oil spill has fuelled the attacks on his government by politicians from across the Atlantic.

“This is all about BP,” he said. “We don’t object to people asking us questions, but the point about going to the Senate hearing is quite clear. Serving ministers are responsible to their parliaments and their people. I am responsible to the people and parliament of Scotland – not, with great respect, to the American senators.

“No American senator or government official would ever turn to any other parliament’s committee to be held responsible. No American came to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, for example.”

Mr Salmond has written to Senator John Kerry, who will chair the US Senate committee, laying out the Scottish Government’s position on the matter. He added: “John Kerry described the letter of evidence that I sent as thoughtful and thorough and asked if it could be read on to the record of the committee, and I said yes.

“That tells everything that we have got to say on the issue. They are inquiring into BP’s influence, as they see it, in securing the release of al Megrahi. BP had no influence over the Scottish Government and there was no contact between BP and the Scottish Government – formal or informal – in this entire process. Fact.”

We could do with an inquiry into the whole Pan Am case, but it should be an independent inquiry, not a piece of political theatre designed to save skins in Washington.