John Ashton’s Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters was launched this morning at a press conference in Edinburgh. The book contains the following chapters:
Foreword by Dr Jim Swire (9 pages)
Foreword by Dr Jim Swire (9 pages)
1. Flawed Charges (18 pages)
2. Getting Away with Murder (18 pages)
3. A Nation Condemned (9 pages)
4. A Shameful Verdict (9 pages)
5. Burying the Evidence (23 pages)
6. A Bigger Picture (16 pages)
7. The Crown out of Control (15 pages)
8. A Failure of Politics (13 pages)
Conclusion: A System in Denial (12 pages).
At the launch, addresses by John Ashton and Jim Swire were followed by a lively question and answer session to which, amongst others, representatives of The Herald, The Scotsman, The Times, STV News, Iain McKie and I contributed. A taste of Dr Swire’s remarks can be found here. The press release issued to accompany the launch can be accessed here. An open letter sent today to the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC by Mr Ashton and Dr Swire can be read here.
Mr Ashton indicated that he would, starting next week, be releasing previously unpublished documents: “These are the documents the Crown didn’t want you to see. I am making them public because, after 25 years, the authorities are still trying to keep a lid on this scandal.”
At the launch, addresses by John Ashton and Jim Swire were followed by a lively question and answer session to which, amongst others, representatives of The Herald, The Scotsman, The Times, STV News, Iain McKie and I contributed. A taste of Dr Swire’s remarks can be found here. The press release issued to accompany the launch can be accessed here. An open letter sent today to the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC by Mr Ashton and Dr Swire can be read here.
Mr Ashton indicated that he would, starting next week, be releasing previously unpublished documents: “These are the documents the Crown didn’t want you to see. I am making them public because, after 25 years, the authorities are still trying to keep a lid on this scandal.”
Following this morning’s launch, a further press release has been issued. It reads as follows:
Lockerbie 25th anniversary:
Will Scotland head for independence with a justice system the country can’t believe in? Will the politicians of Scotland continue to ignore 270 innocent victims?
Leading author joins voices with bereaved father to accuse Crown Office and Scottish Government of protecting murderers
At a press conference this morning, Dr Jim Swire, the father of a woman killed in the Lockerbie bombing, made his most outspoken attack on the Scottish authorities over their handling of the case. Speaking at the launch of a new book Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters, which marks the 25th anniversary of the bombing, Dr Swire said:
“It is Scotland’s shame that our judicial prosecution system is cowering behind its privileges in a brazen attempt to continue to block all reasonable allegations of its previous failures. In doing so it destroys its own credibility, demeans our country, and protects those who really were responsible for the murders of our families almost 25 years ago.”
He added:
“… of course there is still time for the SNP to announce an enquiry before this scandal undermines the referendum assuming it has not already done so and threatens independence. But this is much more than party politics and the 270 victims deserve more from our politicians.”
John Ashton, biographer of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and author of this new book: Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters, brands the case the greatest scandal of Scotland’s post-devolution era.
At the press conference this morning he stated:
“The conduct of the Scottish criminal justice system – and the Crown Office in particular – in the Lockerbie case has hugely undermined the public’s trust in it. This raises a fundamental question: if people don’t trust Scotland’s foremost independent institution, will they trust an independent Scottish government? I believe that this is why the current government has tried to keep a lid on the scandal by refusing a public inquiry in to the Crown Office’s conduct. It’s a significant miscalculation by Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill, because they would only gain public trust by granting an inquiry.”
He also questioned Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s position:
“ Despite the fact that we now know that the Crown withheld numerous items of important evidence from Megrahi’s defence team, the current Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland has refused to acknowledge that anything went wrong. Furthermore, he has failed to order the police to follow up new witness evidence that undermines the prosecution case. Instead he has engaged in bluster and distortions and has smeared his critics by branding them conspiracy theorists. I believe that, if he continues in the vein, he will no longer be fit for office.”
In this new book, Ashton argues that the evidence against Megrahi was so weak that the charges should never have been brought and that the guilty verdict against him was blatantly unreasonable. It also describes how the Crown Office withheld crucial evidence from Megrahi’s defence team and how successive Scottish governments have turned a blind eye to the scandal. It demonstrates that, as a consequence of these failings, the real bombers went free and the Libyan people were unjustly subjected to seven years of biting UN sanctions.
John Ashton will also release documents hithero unseen over the next few weeks:
‘These are the documents that the Crown didn’t want you to see. I am making them public because, after 25 years, the authorities are still trying to keep a lid on this scandal.’
I'll say it again. Why would the Lockerbie debacle influence anyone to vote one way or another in the independence referendum? I simply do not get it.
ReplyDeleteI spend quite a lot of time on the independence question, debating online and helping with Yes Scotland in my area. I don't think I have heard Lockerbie brought up in that connection at all, whether as a reason to vote Yes or No. I mean, it's a complete non sequitur. I'm hoping to go for Yes Ambassador training soon, and I can't say I expect anyone to be bringing that up as a point of concern that needs to be addressed.
If anything, I might suggest that an independent Scotland might be able to act more freely in that department, but it's not an argument I'd attach a great deal of weight to. I cannot imagine any rational chain of reasoning that would go from "Lockerbie" to "vote No".
Dear Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteLockerbie is most certainly not a reason to vote no. In actual fact it is an even greater reason to vote yes. How so? Scotland has a fairly minuscule population, therefore, the pressure upon individual politicians and bureaucrats has the potential to become more localised and personal. Call it, if you will, the 'we know where you live' principle. Furthermore, we are sick to the back teeth of your smug 'gentleman's club' style arrogance.
Frankly, western democracy is a farce, it's eyewash for the gullible. The mushroom culture: keep them in the dark and feed them on shite.
I, as you do too, have very strong notions of what Scotland is capable of. I have no notion of whether our political views concur vis-a-vis left right etc, however, one thing is for sure, as far as Lockerbie/Zeist is concerned, we stand a marginally better chance of getting this whole reprehensible issue put to bed under independence than not.
Yours,
Robert.
Indeed, Robert, that's my feeling too. Naebody's nails, and all that. I have no idea why Jim is touting Lockerbie as a reason to vote No.
ReplyDeleteOf course, he was touting Lockerbie as a reason not to vote SNP in 2011 as far as I remember, and I couldn't quite figure that out either. I mean, which party did he think was just waiting in the wings poised and willing to sort it all out?
Let's hope this current intervention works exactly as well as the earlier one.
The integrity of the justice system is an independence issue, but even without independence the Scottish government has the power to deliver on Lockerbie.
ReplyDeleteBut they have refused to do so and independence is unlikely to embolden the SNP, particularly as independence isn’t on offer.
Indeed the SNP’s description of devolution in EU as ‘independence’ and saying ‘Megrahi’s conviction is safe’ is hardly an improvement on the Unionist parties, who say the same.
Perhaps the SNP are now promoting a liberal devolution rather than nationalist independence policy for tactical reasons, but if so they have been trumped by Willie Rennie who also supports a public enquiry into Lockerbie!
Willie Rennie is a waste of space desperately seeking relevance.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, since you believe the UK isn't independent right now, I'm not sure why you seem to feel that removing a redundant layer of government between Scotland and Europe is so pointless.
I want Scotland to remain part of an independent Britain just as you want the Orkneys to remain part of an independent Scotland.
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe that devolution and restored local government throughout the UK would strengthen Scotland and the British Union.
Whereas the EU is too big and diverse to be run as one country with a single currency as Greece has found out!
But I understand the nationalist impulse for independence and if Scotland wants to declare independence, so be it, but it’s not on offer and it’s a fraud to say it is.
The SNP are proposing a liberal devolution in the EU policy, not nationalist fiscal independence, but without the liberal promise of a public enquiry into Lockerbie!
Get back to me when you have a vote on it.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that virtually nobody in Orkney (they get quite annoyed when ignorant people say "the Orkneys") wants to leave Scotland. They have not founded a political party to campaign for this, so obviously this non-existent party hasn't achieved majority representation. It's a non-issue.
We're leaving next year, and neither your ignorance, your misrepresentations nor your insults will make any difference.
The issue of who can vote in the referendum is an interesting one because, ‘Scots’ across the border can’t, whereas ‘non-Scots’ within Scotland can! Are you and Robert still speaking?
ReplyDeleteAnd what if Orkney folk want to remain in Scotland and UK?
Also for those involved in the Lockerbie saga the failure of the SNP to resolve this issue is a very good reason not to vote SNP and to vote No in the non-independence referendum.
This is because a genuine nationalist party would address the issue and saying the SNP is better than the Unionists is not good enough.
It’s a question of credibility and authenticity, not improved by the claim that devolution in the EU is the same as fiscal independence.
But that said, saying you won’t vote for someone is often an invite for them to say or do something different so that you can.
Dear Dave,
ReplyDeleteYes, we are very much still speaking. Why shouldn't we? Whether I lived in The PRC or, as I do, some two miles short of Gretna, no matter where they reside, all Scots should be enfranchised to vote in the referendum. In any case, regarding my personal arrangements, it is entirely possible that I will have returned to Glasgow by the time it takes place. Moreover, whilst I have JFM and general justice centred reasons for voting yes, I also have other much broader political ones too.
Yours,
Robert.
What if the Orkney folk want to become part of England?
ReplyDeleteThis is pure whatabootery. What if the folk of Selkirk want to become part of England? (Possibly more likely, in practical terms.)
There are two points to be made. First, do you English never learn? I mean it worked so well in Northern Ireland, didn't it? No, we are not going to ballot every council ward in Scotland and hand over to England all those who vote No. Not Selkirk, and not Crieff, and not Orkney. It's a ridiculous suggestion, and what's more it would be in breach of international law.
Second, as it happens the "Orkney folk" don't want to become part of England. There is no support for the proposal, nobody is campaigning in Orkney for it, and there is no group or party standing for election on that platform.
So really, why do you bring it up?
Robert, while I sympathise on a superficial level with your feeling that "all Scots" should have a vote in the referendum, after all I lived in England for 25 years myself, you must recognise the practical impossibility.
ReplyDeleteHow do you define a "Scot"? That's very tricky when you really examine it. Can you imagine writing the rules, and then adjudicating the appeals?
What about "Scots" residing outwith the UK?
How do you compile and administer an electoral register for these people?
If you want the vote to be an ethnic one rather than on residence, are you going to be the one to tell my nice English neighbours who have lived here for 20 years that they are to be disenfranchised?
Dear Robert,
ReplyDelete“Are you and Robert still speaking” was meant as a humorous aside, not necessarily meaning you, after Rolfe advised me to speak to him once I had the vote, implying he wasn’t speaking to people without the vote!
You say all Scots, wherever they are should be entitled to vote - and what about non-Scots?
Voting Yes in the non-independence referendum involves jumping out of the pan into a raging fire, because devolution in EU gives Scots less say over Scottish affairs than devolution in UK.
Confirmed by the SNP’s wish to remain in pound sterling rather than join the Euro.
Whereas fiscal (genuine) independence would be an entirely different proposition if it was on offer, but it isn’t – and nor is a Lockerbie public enquiry!
And in response to Rolfe, what if the north of England wanted to join Scotland?
This is all a bit off topic, but Dave seems obsessed by the currency issue.
ReplyDeleteIt would be extremely unwise to launch a brand new currency on the international money markets on independence day. So we will not be doing that. We will continue to use Sterling, until circumstances dictate that doing something different is a better idea.
Secondly, if Scotland were to pull out of Sterling, Sterling would tank. Immediately. This is not in Scotland's interests, so we will not be doing that. Forget the posturing, England will be biting our collective hands off for a currency union.
What if the north of England wanted to join Scotland? You tell me. What would be the processes that would have to be gone through?
Rolfe states:
ReplyDelete'Why would the Lockerbie debacle influence anyone to vote one way or another in the independence referendum? I simply do not get it.'
While I favour independence I will not be voting for it because of the government stance against a ‘Lockerbie Inquiry’.
My vision of an independent Scotland was one where the government would challenge the status quo and century’s old vested interests and act in the name of the people.
Effectively the current administration has shown an inability to break the stranglehold that organisations like the Crown Office and civil service have over our justice system. They have shown that when push comes to shove they are incapable of breaking down the barriers of self interest that stifle our system. Our government has shown a lack of the independence that does not encourage me to vote for it. We need vision and determination to effect real change so why, when we cannot face the tragedy that is Lockerbie, should I have any faith that things will change.
That is why, sadly, I will be voting ‘No’.
"And in response to Rolfe, what if the north of England wanted to join Scotland?"
ReplyDeleteTerrific! A Dave Special to lighten up a rainy Sunday here in Bangkok! :-)
(A "Dave Special" is defined as a question that -
- very few people in the world would ever think about asking
- if attempted answered, the chance that anyone would get any wiser on the issue discussed is virtually zero
- demonstrates, that the "think out of the box"-concept comes at certain costs
- makes you think "This is more than ten wise men can answer")
Love it. Seriously entertaining!
"If anything, I might suggest that an independent Scotland might be able to act more freely in that department, but it's not an argument I'd attach a great deal of weight to. I cannot imagine any rational chain of reasoning that would go from "Lockerbie" to "vote No"."
ReplyDeleteThat is nonsense Rolfe. I'm not surprised you don't attach a great deal of weight to it.
The Scottish Government, the one elected in May 2007, had the power to act "freely" when the SCCRC, in June of the same year, reported back its findings on the second appeal by Megrahi. The SG had the power,right then, to put immediate pressure on the Scottish Judiciary to have that appeal heard. It chose not to. Instead it did nothing while the Judiciary stalled the appeal, again and again.
To suggest the SNP government elected in 2007 could not do anything on Lockerbie is to attempt to mislead others. That you make such an attempt to mislead is unfortunate indeed. It is a good thing, however, that some of us have tracked the actions of the SNP government since then. Not least MacAskill's. Why, he has only redrawn the whole remit of the SCCRC and withdrawn its power to refer an appeal right back to the Appeal Court. Now a judge has to give their decision to do that "official" his/her approval. And this for an organisation which was meant to function "without political or judicial interference"? Furthermore he didn't put those new measures through in the appropriate way. He slipped them in with "emergency legislation" designed to deal with the implications of Cadder. Sinister indeed. (Perhaps he was looking to avoid controversy?)
"Rational" or not, the position of some out there that all politicians are liars is one I can understand. For on Lockerbie, the evidence to support that belief is surely overwhelming. For, on Lockerbie, they are surely all liars? I am sad, however, that, on Lockerbie, the SNP went further than others to ensure justice would become harder and harder to achieve. Who says independence for Scotland will make politicians honest all of a sudden?
Dave
ReplyDelete"The integrity of the justice system is an independence issue, but even without independence the Scottish government has the power to deliver on Lockerbie."
Correct. Absolutely correct. The truth is the Scottish Government did all in their power to work WITH previous UK governments to ensure the truth behind Lockerbie remained buried.
"I mean, which party did he think was just waiting in the wings poised and willing to sort it all out?"
ReplyDeleteRolfe. You actually posted that?
In answer to the question, clearly it WASN'T the SNP! Their actions since the SCCRC findings, published within a month of them taking office, support that view.
"It is Scotland’s shame that our judicial prosecution system is cowering behind its privileges in a brazen attempt to continue to block all reasonable allegations of its previous failures. In doing so it destroys its own credibility, demeans our country, and protects those who really were responsible for the murders of our families almost 25 years ago.”
ReplyDeleteIt is further to Scotland's shame that the Scottish Government, elected in 2007 and again in 2011, with a majority, still WON'T challenge on Lockerbie when they ABSOLUTELY had the powers to do so.
Just ordered the book John Ashton. Congratulations to you.
ReplyDeleteDear Dave,
ReplyDeleteI believe you mentioned a quote, which you contextualised with a reference to communism (one frequently and inaccurately attributed to Lenin), regarding 'the ends justifying the means' somewhere hereabouts. Unfortunately, I cannot at present locate it. I do not subscribe to this. I heartily dislike Lenin for a whole slew of reasons.
I also owe you an apology for not having picked up on your humorous aside, such seems to be the way of things when communicating on these platforms.
Dear Rolfe,
Regarding Scots voting whilst overseas, I am unaware that such a difficulty exists when members of the armed forces vote in general elections. Moreover, one could also vote by proxy. The central issue seems to be what is a Scot? Identity, much the same as belief, is always a fraught question. Might I make the apparently absurd suggestion that, quite apart from the likes of myself and my children (who were born and brought up in Scotland and are of Scottish parentage), anyone who wishes to become one ought to be enabled to do so?
These islands have been built on immigration, furthermore, I know quite a number of English folk too who rather prefer what is happening in Scotland than that which applies in England.
Clearly, this has no fundamental relevance to the Lockerbie debate, however, it may be, perhaps, an interesting, momentary diversion.
Yours,
Robert.
Dave
ReplyDeleteFor what its worth I would make the vote UK wide. I think that way Scotland would have a better chance of becoming independent!
As for the north of England? I'm not sure even Rolfe is qualified to comment on that one. The north of England is exactly that and in the event of independence for Scotland would surely remain part of England? I'm thinking your north of England would need to make its representations to the government that has jurisdiction over your part of the area which Labour and Tories like to speak of as, the country.
Also why does Rolfe insult Dr Swire by describing him as a tout, particularly when his own contribution ‘adequately explained by stupidity’ is very silly?
ReplyDeleteDave wrote:
ReplyDelete"Also why does Rolfe insult Dr Swire by describing him as a tout, particularly when his own contribution ‘adequately explained by stupidity’ is very silly?"
Dear Dave,
I have some considerations on this.
tout [taʊt] verb
1. (Business / Commerce) to solicit (business, customers, etc.) or hawk (merchandise), esp in a brazen way
2. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Horse Racing) (intr)
2a. to spy on racehorses being trained in order to obtain information for betting purposes
2b. to sell, or attempt to sell, such information or to take bets, esp in public places
3. (tr) (Informal) to recommend flatteringly or excessively
- - -
x. Is Rolfe implying that Jim Swire has a commercial interest in the outcome of the vote?
xx. Maybe Rolfe is suggesting that Jim Swire is involved in horse-betting? Hmmm.
xxx. 'to recommend flatteringly or excessively'.
You write:
"Rolfe insults Dr Swire by describing him as a tout".
I see 3 logical conclusions:
- You disagree that xxx is what matches the context best for Rolfe's statement or
- you disagree with my dictionary about what 'touting' could mean in English or
- you deliberately misinterpret Rolfe's statement as a way to throw dirt
Any other options? If not, which one of the three would it be?
- - -
"...when his own contribution 'adequately explained by stupidity' is very silly?"?
Would you agree to: 'stating opinions about unread matters is seriously disqualifying'
If so, can I assume that you have read the book?
- - -
As time has shown, there is room for other matters here than strictly the Lockerbie disaster here. "Everything's related" as Einstein didn't say.
Whatever discussed, it must be possible to keep a reasonable tone, which has failed lately.
Ad hominem attacks should at least be qualified so, or with a strike of humor.
They haven't been.
Wonder if I could have made that a bit shorter, and still have gotten the message through?!
ReplyDelete