Blair and Gaddafi

[The Daily Mail is currently publishing extracts from Blair Inc: The Man Behind The Mask by Francis Beckett, David Hencke and Nick Kochan. Here is part of yesterday’s instalment:]

The confusion Blair creates with his business methods is typified by his contacts with the Libyan dictator, Colonel Gaddafi — as Tim Collins, billionaire founder of a Wall Street investment company and now an ex-friend of the former Prime Minister, discovered to his disgust and dismay.

In April 2009, two years after leaving office, Blair was holding secret talks with Gaddafi about the possible release from prison in the United Kingdom of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Libya was threatening to cut all business links if Megrahi stayed in a British jail.

Blair, who flew to Libya at Gaddafi’s expense — and in Gaddafi’s private jet — invited Collins along.

Collins thought he was going in his capacity as a trustee of Blair’s Faith Foundation to promote a campaign for anti-mosquito nets for children in Africa.

When he got there, he found Gaddafi eager to discuss investment to build beach resorts on the Libyan coast.

Mosquito nets were barely mentioned. (...)

Whatever the truth, Collins cringed at Blair’s deferential attitude towards the dictator.

He himself thought Gaddafi quite mad and refused to do business with him.

Blair, however, seems to have had no qualms about an ever closer association with Gaddafi.

In an interview in 2010, a Gaddafi associate acknowledged that the dictator ‘talks regularly to Blair as a friend’ and ‘consults him on many issues.’

Papers found in Tripoli after Gaddafi’s overthrow in 2011 show that Blair held at least six private meetings with him in the three years after he left No 10 Downing Street.

Blair’s involvement with Libya goes back to his days as Prime Minister, when he spotted the considerable commercial benefits to be gained from access to Libya’s colossal reserves of oil and gas, as well as huge opportunities for foreign firms to renew its ancient infrastructure.

In seeking to take advantage of this, he was ably assisted by Sir Mark Allen, a former British spy who spent much of his operational career in the Middle East. He was head of MI6’s counter-terrorism unit, which is alleged to have colluded in the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ to torture terror suspects in Libya.

In 2004 his bid to become head of MI6 failed and he retired from public service.

But Prime Minister Blair cleared him to take work immediately as a special adviser for the oil giant BP, despite rules that would normally have prevented a former civil servant from taking money from a large corporation so soon after retirement.

As Blair’s premiership was coming to an end in 2007, Allen used his contacts in both the UK and Libya to resolve issues surrounding the release of Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi.

This in turn enabled a deal in which BP announced it would return to operations in Libya after a 30-year absence.

Libya under Gaddafi turned out to be a natural place for Blair to exercise his entrepreneurial talent.

On behalf of British companies, he courted the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) and the National Oil Corporation (NOC).

Both the LIA and the NOC were massive and corrupt institutions with fabulous wealth. Regime figures describe Blair lobbying extensively for clients, and in return he intervened personally to aid the Gaddafi clan on several occasions.

He tried to persuade Oxford University to give a place to Saif, Gaddafi’s son, and is thought to have been instrumental in the eventual decision of the LSE to admit him as a PhD student.

His relationship with Gaddafi continued right up to the dictator’s fall.

During the Libyan Revolution, Blair telephoned Gaddafi twice on February 27, 2011, reportedly to ask him to stop the violent crackdown on his opponents.

Gaddafi might reasonably have expected a little help at the time of his greatest need, but that was the last time the two spoke, and a few weeks later Gaddafi was captured and slaughtered.

Perhaps Blair shed a tear for his old chum. Then again, perhaps he didn’t.

Libya, UTA 772 and Pan Am 103

[On this date in 1999 a French court convicted in absentia six Libyans, including Abdullah al-Senussi, for the bombing of UTA flight 772 over Niger and the murder of the 170 passengers and crew. A BBC News report contains the following:]

Colonel Gaddafi's brother-in-law and five other Libyans have been found guilty of bombing a French airliner.

They were sentenced to life in prison by a special court in Paris. However, they were tried in absentia and will be allowed another hearing if they are ever taken into French custody.

The aircraft, a DC-10 operated by the French airline UTA, crashed in Niger in September 1989, killing all 170 people on board. Debris was scattered over hundreds of kilometres in the Sahara desert.

Libya helped France during part of the investigation but did not offer full co-operation and refused to hand over the suspects. (...)

Prosecutors said a package containing a bomb had been planted on a young Congolese with links to Libyan agents in the Congolese capital Brazzaville, from where the UTA flight to Paris had set off.

The prosecution said the six had been working for the Libyan secret service, which is also accused of bombing Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988. (...)

Correspondents have highlighted differences between France's handling of the case and the way the UK and US Governments have sought the extradition of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing.

Evidence against the UTA suspects is said to be much stronger than that against the two Lockerbie suspects.

Libya has been under UN sanctions since 1992 in connection with the UTA and Pan Am bombs.

[RB: As with Pan Am 103, Libya eventually paid compensation to the families of those who died on UTA 772. The most detailed account of the UTA 772 bombing and its relationship to Lockerbie is to be found here on The Masonic Verses website.]

Lockerbie: the CIA drug-running scenario

[On this date in 2011, Susan Lindauer’s article Lockerbie Diary: Gadhaffi, Fall Guy for CIA Drug Running was published on the Scoop website. The following are excerpts:]

From May 1995 until March 2003, I performed as a back channel to Tripoli and Baghdad, supervised by my CIA handler, Dr Richard Fuisz, who claimed from day one to know the origins of the Lockerbie conspiracy and the identity of the terrorists. http://issuepedia.org/1998-12-04_Susan_Lindauer_Deposition He swore that no Libyan participated in the attack.

Armed with that assurance, our team started talks with Libya's diplomats for the Lockerbie Trial, and I attended over 150 meetings at the Libyan Embassy in New York. After the hand over of Libya's two accused men, our team engaged in a concerted fight to gain permission for Dr. Fuisz to give a deposition about his primary knowledge of the conspiracy, during the Lockerbie Trial In a surprise twist, the US Federal Judge in Alexandria, Virginia imposed a double seal on a crucial portion of Dr Fuisz's deposition. The double seal can only be opened by a Scottish judge. In my opinion, that should be a priority, as testimony hidden by the double seal maps out the whole Lockerbie conspiracy. Most significantly, it identifies 11 terrorists involved in the attack. Dr Fuisz's testimony could put the whole matter to rest forever.

There's good reason for my confidence. Much to my surprise, during the Lockerbie talks, Dr Fuisz's allegations of CIA opium running in Lebanon received unusual corroboration. One day, as I left the office of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun on my lunch break, an older spook caught up with me in front of the US Supreme Court. From out of nowhere, he stepped in my path and invited me to lunch. With extraordinary candor, he debriefed me as to what motivated the CIA's actions. I remember it as one battle-hardened old spook sharing the perils of fieldwork with a gung ho young Asset, anxious to get started on great adventures.

It was a morality tale for sure. According to him, the CIA infiltrated opium and heroin trafficking in Lebanon as part of a crisis operation to rescue AP reporter Terry Anderson and 11 other American and British hostages in Beirut, including CNN bureau chief Jeremy Levin and Anglican envoy Terry Waite. The hostage crisis was a legitimate CIA concern. The CIA Station Chief of Beirut, William Buckley, was also kidnapped by Islamic Jihad and brutally tortured to death, his body dumped in the street in front of CIA headquarters. The rescue was protracted and complicated by Lebanon's Civil War—ultimately, Terry Anderson's captivity lasted seven years. Many of the hostages suffered beatings, solitary confinement chained to the floor, and mock executions.

The older spook who refused to identify himself swore that the CIA considered it urgently necessary to try every possibility for recovering the hostages. The concept of infiltration into criminal networks cuts to the murky nature of intelligence itself. Drug enforcement frequently rely on the same strategies. Where the CIA went far wrong was in pocketing some of those heroin profits for itself along the way. The dirty little secret is that the CIA continued to take a percentage cut of opium and heroin production out of Lebanon well into the 1990s.

As for the hostage rescue itself, considering the operation took years to accomplish, it's always been whispered that a corrupted CIA officer enjoying those opium profits might have swallowed reports on the hostages' locations, or otherwise diverted his team in order to protect his narcotics income.

That appears to have become a serious fear at the time, among other US officers jointly involved in the rescue.

In December 1988, infuriated Defense Intelligence agents issued a formal protest, exposing CIA complicity in Middle East heroin trafficking. When teams from both agencies got summoned back to Washington to attend an internal hearing, they boarded Pan Am 103. A wing of militant Hezbollah led by Ahmed Jibril, his nephew Abu Elias, Abu Talb and Abu Nidal took out both teams in order to protect their lucrative cartel.

Classified Defense Intelligence records show that Jibril and Talb had been toying with a conspiracy to bomb a US airplane during the 1988 Christmas holidays anyway. They planned to bomb a US airliner in revenge for the USS Vincennes, which shot down an Iranian commercial airliner loaded with Hajiis returning from Mecca in July, 1988. However the Defense Intelligence threat to expose their heroin network put the bombing plan into action. Islamic Jihad's ability to discover actionable intelligence on the flight schedules would definitely confirm that somebody at CIA was operating as a double agent, keeping Islamic Jihad a step ahead of the rescue efforts.

That's the dirty truth about Lockerbie. It ain't nothing like you've been told. (...)

But the bottom line is that Libya had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103, which exploded over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland. We should care about Lockerbie because of the serious problem that it exposed. Opium trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley provides a major source for global heroin production. In turn, the global pipeline of narco-dollars keep militant operations alive world-wide from the Middle East to Indonesia, Colombia, Burma and the Far East.

More international pressure on UK & USA over Lockerbie trial intransigence

[On this date in 1998 The Pan Am 103 Crash Website edited by Safia Aoude carried a report on a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider renewing sanctions against Libya. The report reads in part:]

The Security Council on Friday regrettably retained without change the sanctions imposed on Libya since 1992 for failing to hand over two suspects in the 1988 midair bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people.

But, at the request of Arab and African countries, council members agreed during private consultations earlier this week to hold a full-scale debate on March 20 on the Libya sanctions in light of a recent World Court decision. Last Friday, the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled it had jurisdiction to hear Libyan arguments that the 1971 Montreal civil aviation convention allows the suspects to be put on trial in Libya and that Britain and the United States are acting unlawfully in insisting on their extradition to one or other of those countries.

London and Washington played down the ruling as a technicality. Tripoli called it a victory and Libyan revolutionary leader Muammar Gaddafi, in a speech last Monday, urged the Security Council to suspend the sanctions. Despite support for Libya among some council members, the sanctions remain in force unless the council takes a specific decision to ease them. Such a resolution would need a minimum of nine votes to be adopted and could be vetoed by the United States and Britain, as permanent council members.

Libya, backed by Arab, African and many other nonaligned countries, has long been pressing for the two suspects to be tried at a so-called neutral venue, saying they could not get a fair trial in Britain or the United States where the two alleged intelligence agents have both been indicted.

Friday's closed-door review of the sanctions, which include an arms and air embargo and the downgrading of diplomatic relations, was the 18th in a series conducted every 120 days. The initial sanctions were tightened in 1993 with a freeze on some Libyan assets abroad and a ban on some types of equipment used in oil terminals and refineries. But they do not affect oil exports or oil drilling equipment of a certain size and fabrication.

Libyan ambassador Abuzed Dorda spoke of the “strong support for my country from all of the international community” except the United States and Britain. “Libya has no problem with the Security Council and the Security Council has no problem with Libya at all,” he said. “The only problem was between his country and the United States and Britain,” he told reporters. (...)

China's deputy UN representative Sheng Guofang expressed regret that “the various sides have still yet to reach consensus” and hoped the council would be able to “take a step forward on this issue.” “China does not favor any kind of sanction against any country, including sanctions on Libya,” he said, expressing support for options put forward by the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity for a trial at a neutral venue.

[A further report reads as follows:]

The Security Council decided on Thursday to hold a full-fledged debate on March 20 on sanctions imposed on Libya since 1992 in light of a recent world court ruling.

But Britain and the United States rejected combining the public meeting, requested by Arab and African states, with the council’s periodic review of sanctions against Libya.

The closed Security Council review went as scheduled on Friday retaining without change the sanctions imposed on Libya since 1992. Friday’s closed-door review of the sanctions, which include an arms and air embargo and the downgrading of diplomatic relations, was the 18th in a series conducted every 120 days.

Libyan ambassador Abuzed Dorda spoke of the “strong support for my country from all of the international community” except the United States and Britain. “Libya has no problem with the Security Council and the Security Council has no problem with Libya at all,” he said. The only problem was between his country and the United States and Britain, he told reporters.

China’s deputy UN representative Sheng Guofang expressed regret that “the various sides have still yet to reach consensus” and hoped the council would be able “to take a step forward on this issue.”

“China does not favour any kind of sanction against any country, including sanctions on Libya,” he said, expressing support for options put forward by the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity for a trial at a neutral venue

Last Friday the Hague-based International Court of Justice ruled it had jurisdiction to hear Libyan arguments that the 1971 Montreal civil aviation convention allows the suspects to be put on trial in Libya and that Britain and the United States are acting unlawfully in insisting on their extradition.

London and Washington have played down the ruling as a technicality but Libya, backed by Arab, African and other nonaligned countries urged the Security Council to suspend the sanctions.

US Senator Robert Menendez 'faces corruption charge'

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

The US justice department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, US media reports say.

The politician from New Jersey is alleged to have used his office to promote the interests of a Democratic donor, in exchange for gifts.

Attorney General Eric Holder has reportedly given prosecutors permission to proceed with charges.

Senator Menendez has labelled the probe a smear campaign.

"I am not going anywhere," he said on Friday at a press conference in New Jersey.

"Let me very clear, very clear. I have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law."

An official announcement from prosecutors is expected in the coming weeks.

Sen Menendez is one of the highest-ranking Hispanic members of Congress and a former chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee.

[Senator Menendez has been one of the most high-profile US politicians to intervene in Lockerbie matters. His history in this regard can be followed here.]

Lockerbie analogy drawn about Obama-Netanyahu spat

[The following are excerpts from an article by Allan Gerson (a former US Deputy Assistant Attorney General) headlined The Guts of the Netanyahu-Obama Flare-Up: The White House Versus Congress which was published yesterday in the US edition of the Huffington Post:]

President Obama may be violating Congressional prerogatives in making deals with foreign governments that are unprepared to renounce their allegiance to terrorism. (...)

Congress has a special constitutional interest in this matter. In fulfillment of its prerogatives as the legislative branch it duly passed laws calling on the State Department to assist it in listing foreign governments considered sponsors of terrorism, and it has repeatedly designated Iran as the world's key supporter and sponsor of terrorism, resulting in the death of thousands of Americans as well as huge numbers of foreign nationals. Dealing with any country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, absent special exemptions, is subject to stringent criminal penalties. This is not to say that the Executive Branch cannot secretly engage in negotiations with states so designated, but it does mean that no deal can be struck with those states that eliminates their subjection to US sanctions unless they are prepared to renounce allegiance to terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Otherwise, it is the Executive Branch that is trampling on the Legislative Branch's legitimate powers.

For example in dealing with Libya, successive US administrations made clear that Libya would first have to renounce terrorism as an instrument of state policy before any agreement could be effectuated that would eliminate US sanctions against Libya imposed after the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988. (...)

Police media relations chief for Pan Am 103 investigation dies

[What follows is taken from an obituary in today’s edition of The Herald:]

Angus Kennedy, who has died aged 71, was a police officer who became known to journalists throughout Scotland as the head of the former Strathclyde Police Press Office; he was the main spokesman for the force for many years.

Joining the City of Glasgow Police in 1964, he was initially posted to G Division, Govan Police Office, before progressing through the ranks to reach the rank of superintendent in charge of the demanding environment of police and media relations. (...)

His distinguished police career was defined by the catastrophic event on 21st December 1988 when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie killing 270 people sparking the largest murder enquiry in British history.

Although it had occurred in Dumfries and Galloway, it was agreed by both police forces that Strathclyde would coordinate the media, which, as it turned out, was on an unprecedented scale as within 24 hours there were more journalists than police officers in the small Scottish town. He did a remarkable job not only keeping the world's media informed but importantly he dealt sensitively and compassionately with the relatives that made the journey to Lockerbie in the days that followed. Many came from the United States grief stricken but understandably anxious to find out what had occurred. Angus Kennedy took it upon himself to keep them fully informed and guided them carefully into the media spotlight when appropriate. Out of this tragedy he formed many lifelong friendships with relatives from home and abroad all of whom remained ever grateful for his guidance, strength and comfort at a time of such personal grief.

In 1989 in recognition of his services to policing, in particular his outstanding handling of the exceptional pressures in the aftermath of Lockerbie, he was awarded the Queen's Police Medal.

International pressure led UK and USA to agree to neutral venue trial

[What follows is an item headed Libya Sanction Hearings Sought in the UN Security Council posted on this date in 1998 on The Pan Am 103 Crash Website:]

Arab and African countries are urging an open Security Council debate to pressure Britain and Washington to ease sanctions imposed on Libya after the 1988 Pan Am bombing. The 15 council members had been scheduled to review -- and presumably renew -- the sanctions for another 120 days this week. Such reviews are routinely done in closed sessions.

But Arab and African members of the Security Council are urging the current president, Abdoulie Momodou Saleh of Gambia, to postpone the review and schedule an open debate, diplomatic sources said Wednesday on condition of anonymity. That would enable any UN member state to join the discussions.

The United States and Britain could block any decision to lift or ease the sanctions, which were imposed in 1992 to pressure Libyan revolutionary leader Moammar Gadhafi to extradite two suspects in the fatal bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The bombing killed 270 people. Still, an open debate would draw attention to calls by the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity to lift the sanctions. Libya has proposed sending the two Libyan suspects to a third country for trial. Washington and London insist they be tried in Scotland or the United States.

But a growing number of council members, including Russia, have urged the council to consider Gadhafi's offer. The use of sanctions as a means of pressuring governments has lost favor among many of the 185 UN member states, in part because they cause suffering among populations who often have little influence on their governments' policies. In an attempt to head off the debate, Britain and the United States have asked UN legal officers for a ruling on whether the review must be completed by the end of the week, the sources said.

If so, there would not be enough time under UN rules to organize an open debate.

[RB: Apart from the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement were losing patience with the intransigence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the face of Libyan willingness to countenance a trial of Megrahi and Fhimah in a neutral country. Here is the text of a communiqué issued on 25 September 1997 at the conclusion of a meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Non-Aligned Movement:] 

73. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation reconfirmed the position of the Movement as contained in paragraph 163 of the Final Document of the Eleventh Summit in Cartagena. They expressed concern at the non-acceptance by the three Western countries of the appeals of regional and international organizations and their efforts to reach a peaceful settlement based on the principles of international law. They also affirmed that the measures imposed on Libya are no longer justifiable, and urged the Security Council to expeditiously review the air embargo and the other measures imposed on Libya with a view to lifting them. They further underlined that the escalation of the crisis, the threat to impose additional sanctions and the use of force as a means of conducting relations among States are a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. They reiterated their support for the proposals submitted jointly by the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States, as contained in the declaration of the 65th regular session of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity held in Tripoli from 24-28 February 1997. These proposals are as follows:

Option 1: To hold the trial of the two suspects in a third and neutral country to be determined by the Security Council.

Option 2: To have the two suspects tried by Scottish judges at the International Court of Justice ICJ at the Hague, in accordance with Scottish law.

Option 3: To establish a special criminal tribunal at the ICJ headquarters in the Hague to try the two suspects.

They called for refraining from resorting to the imposition of sanctions unless a real threat to international peace and security exists and only after all other peaceful means for settling the dispute have been exhausted. They also called for the refraining from adopting measures in the economic, financial, transportation and communication fields, due to their serious and inhumane effects on the people and should reflect the views of the General Assembly. The General Assembly is the only forum that reflects the position of all Member states. Where the imposition of sanctions is inevitable, they should be limited in their duration. After which, a decision should be made whether a consensus for their renewal exists and also serious consideration should be given to lift similar sanctions that are in place.

[RB: It was this erosion of international support for continuation of sanctions against Libya that motivated the UK and USA reluctantly to agree to a neutral venue trial in August 1998, some four years and seven months after my proposal had been accepted by the Libyan Government and the suspects’ defence team.]

Giving Scottish Government perfect excuse to do nothing

What follows is excerpted from an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2012:

Let Megrahi's abandoned appeal be revived to allow new evidence

[This is the headline over a letter from Iain A D Mann in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

I welcome Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill's assurance to the Holyrood Parliament that the Scottish Government is anxious to publish in full the report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into the Camp Zeist trial of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and its concerns about the safeness of his conviction ("Let us see reasons for appeal on Megrahi conviction", The Herald, March 1). (...)

However, the most important part of Mr MacAskill's Holyrood statement was his assertion that there is a mechanism by which Megrahi's abandoned second appeal could be revived, even posthumously. Mr MacAskill was adamant that either SCCRC or Megrahi's family were entitled to ask the High Court to resurrect the appeal, and that the court has the power to do so.

As far as I know, this is the first time this has been officially stated. In view of recent revelations and widespread public concern, it is difficult to believe that the High Court would deny such a request. The revived appeal would allow the new evidence, and also the critical information previously withheld from the defence, to be given in open court and tested under oath.

[Megrahi's abandoned appeal cannot be revived. There is no legal mechanism for this to happen. What could happen, and what Kenny MacAskill was referring to in his parliamentary statement, is a further application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. But what Mr MacAskill signally failed to mention is  that legislation that he himself promoted (section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 -- the "Cadder Act") places significant new hurdles in the path of any such application. Before granting any such application the SCCRC must be satisfied that an appeal is in the interests of justice and specifically now "must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings". And even if the SCCRC grants the application, under the Cadder Act the High Court can refuse to hear the appeal if it believes that it is not in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed. In determining this matter the High Court is directed that it "must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings".

Accordingly, contrary to the impression that Mr MacAskill sought to create in the Scottish Parliament, a further appeal by members of Mr Megrahi's family (or by relatives of Lockerbie victims such as Dr Jim Swire) is not something that can be readily and easily brought about.  Kenny MacAskill's intervention is, in my view, nothing more than a transparent diversionary tactic designed to give the Scottish Government the perfect excuse to do nothing about the scandal of the Megrahi conviction. We must not allow the tactic to succeed.]

The last two paragraphs were my comment at the time. There is now a further application before the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. But its path is not a smooth one.

Andrew Fulton, MI6 and Lockerbie

On this date seven years ago the rôle of Andrew Fulton in the Lockerbie saga was recalled in the context of his appointment as chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland:

Andrew Fulton: is he a professor?

The Sunday Herald reports that Andrew Fulton's CV, issued to the press when he was appointed chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, claims that he is a visiting professor at Glasgow University's School of Law. The university denies this. The article reads in part:

"The new chairman of the Scottish Tories has become embroiled in a row over his CV after false claims were made about his academic credentials.

"Andrew Fulton, a former MI6 spy who was appointed by the Conservatives on Friday, was hailed as a 'visiting professor' at Glasgow University's school of law.

"But a spokesman for the university rebutted the claims, saying: 'Mr Fulton is not associated with the University of Glasgow's law school and is not entitled to call himself a professor.' Fulton, 64, took up the post as the Scottish Tories' top official last week and received endorsements from Conservative leaders David Cameron and Annabel Goldie.

"The biography supplied to the media claimed he had read law at Glasgow University and was 'now visiting professor at his alma mater's school of law'.

"But Fulton, who was a government diplomat for 30 years, was only briefly a visiting professor at the university between 1999 and 2000. He worked in the university's law school at the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit until he was dropped from his post when he was unmasked as an ex-spook.

"Visiting professors lose their title after leaving a university, but the academic status symbol has somehow followed Fulton in his business career."

The full article can be read here.

An article in The Herald the previous day had contained the following:

The former agent, who was born in Rothesay on the Isle of Bute, also brings his own baggage to the post: his unmasking as an MI6 operative led to him stepping down in 2000 as an adviser to Glasgow University's briefing unit which advised the media about the Lockerbie bombing trial amid speculation - which he strongly denied - that he had a competing agenda.

[Coincidentally, another player in the Lockerbie saga is currently chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland. That is Richard Keen QC who successfully defended Lamin Fhimah at the Zeist trial.]