The naive wee soul that I am pondered for a second and thought, in any true democracy a national paper wouldn't really swallow hook line and sinker a story promoted by a right wing nut job blogger fed to him by a Labour mouth piece.
So imagine my surprise, feigned or otherwise, when I read on Newsnet this morning that McTernan did in fact have an article in todays Scotsman giving him the opportunity to regurgitate his story that claims Kenny MacAskill was angling for a 'deal' that would include Megrahi in the planned Blair, Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya as long as there was a timebar put on the ECHR ruling on slopping out compensation and a transfer on air rifle controls to the Scottish Government. I've always believed that the Tartan Overlord and crew are canny operators, but does anyone truly believe they'd get into bed with Labour for the price of legislation of BB guns and paying prisoners compensation for shiting in a bucket?
A brief visit to the Hootsman discovered that McTernan's piece was there, but no comments allowed and the content firmly hidden behind their ever popular and really profitable paywall... So, as a chap who has vowed never to buy a copy of the Scotsman or Scotland on Sunday, even for cat puke mopping up purposes, I decided to take a wee photo of it with my super duper iPhone.
McTernan, doesn't just get a wee sidebar column, he gets a whole page, with which to repeat his frankly dribbling assertions on a conversation he wasn't privvy too. But hey nevermind, it's the Hootsman, they'll print any old shoite as long as it bashes the SNP.
A wee analysis of the above article reveals propaganda worthy of the finest exponents of that dark art. For unprecedented levels of obfuscation, I take my metaphorical bunnet off to the man.
For example:
" It's now clear there was no 'Deal in the Desert' - no trade of oil for convict."
Say whaaaaaat?
" My name is being banded about on the blogosphere in relation to this story because someone leaked an email of mine from 2007 to Guido Fawkes."
I get it a political enemy, unbeknownst to you, held on to a long forgotten memo full of half baked conjecture and inconsistancies, that you sent to Mark Davies and Tom Greatrex from your official governement email address. Why sir, I would be outraged at such flagrant abuse of your communications, an inquiry must be established forthwith to discover which villain, Davies or Greatrex, forwarded your email to the arch Tory Fawkes.
How about this spectacular display of a lack of medical knowledge?
" I will never tire of asking why a man who had three months to live is still alive - not I think the quality of the Libyan health service."
Ok, here's my stab at explaining it. I'm informed by an oncologist chum that when Megrahi's hormone treatment failed, he chose not to undergo, the painful and invasive bouts of chemotherapy or radiation treatment associated with pancreatic cancer. Mr McTernan, put your feet in his size nines for a few minutes. You're diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, your first treatment which sometimes works, failed, your thousands of miles from home and family, your appeal is being strenuously fought by the Scottish and British legal establishment. There's nobody to sit with you and hold your hand as chemicals are pumped into your veins for hours on end. The possibility of getting out of jail, back to your family is remote, so you opt to stop treatment and die as fast as you can. Not an uncommon occurence I'm told. Naturally on return to Libya, his family and friends persuade him to undergo chemotherapy treatment, where the Libyan governement are only too happy to spend a fortune in bringing in experts to administer care. The result no cure, but certainly a prolonged life. Or do you really believe he's only pretending to have cancer?
Then there's this spectacular imagined conversation that get's its very own quotation marks, signifying it was actually said by someone, rather than imagined by a furiously back peddling spinner...
" You give us what we want and we'll give you Megrahi."
This quote is attributed to the catch all 'Nationalists'.
As if that wasn't bad enough, blow me and call me Uncle Fifi if the Hootsman didn't go and make it their top editorial too.
As Mr McTernan obviously trawls the 'blogosphere' I'd love it if he could answer this conspiracy theorists question. Jack Straw, in his letter of December 13th 2007, to then Secretary for the State of Scotland, your boss Des Browne, states the following.
Quote:
" I am also happy to speak to Wendy Alexander if you think that would be helpful."Mr Browne, in his reply of the 19th does not answer the Wendy question, is it safe to presume that either Mr Browne or yourself told Ms Alexander of the London Government's desire to facilitate Megrahi's release?
Overall, what a smashing display of the overt use of propaganda. You'll note that there's not one mention in the whole article of whether Iain Gray or Richard 'the boy who looks as if he chews with his mouth open' Baker, knew about Blair and Brown's determination to facilitate Megrahi's return to Libya.
One final comment, Pat Baskerville, Head of Offender Policy and Rights Unit sent the following note to Jack Straw on the 7th of December.
" There does not seem to be any direct gain to Scotland from the contracts (although BP provides at least 2,000 jobs in Scotland) and a further public disagreement over the terms of the PTA could allow Alex Salmond to take the moral high ground."
Two points, if there was no deal in the desert and a BP oil contract had nothing to do with the PTA, why does Ms Baskerville mention them, specifically in a Scottish context?
Finally isn't it the case that the last thing the Labour Government wanted to do was hand the 'moral high ground' to Alex Salmond and the SNP? Answers on a leaked email to madasahatstand@labour.org.uk
Posts
8 comments:
This is an amalgam of two comments I put on Newsnet and on Gary Gibbon's Channel 4 blog.
Even if you do believe that Kenny MacAskill was trying to do a deal with Jack Straw then it's quite obvious in the Cabinet Office pdf what the deal was thought to be. This is from para 14.
Subsequently it is clear that HMG's understanding was that a PTA without any exclusions might be acceptable to the Scottish Government if progress could be made with regards to ongoing discussions relating to liabilities for damages under the Scotland Act for breaches of Human Rights (the 'Somerville' judgment), and devolution of firearms legislation.
Jack Straw thought he could get Kenny MacAskill to drop his objections to Megrahi being in the PTA if MacAskill got some concessions on the Somerville case and on firearms. It's nothing to do with releasing Megrahi under the PTA or compassionate release.
But that's the only bit of logic in the whole idea of concessions for PTA inclusion of Megrahi.
It wasn't that Kenny MacAskill had a poor hand to play with it's that he simply had no cards at all. Jack Straw had the power to include Megrahi in the PTA whether or not Kenny MacAskill wanted it which Straw did on the 19th of December anyway. Kenny MacAskill could try and persuade or convince Jack Straw to leave Megrahi out but there could never be negotiations as Kenny MacAskill had nothing to negotiate with.
The whole conversation about concessions between Straw and Browne is bookmarked at the start by a letter from Kenny MacAskill on 06/12/2007 saying the Scottish Government wants Megrahi excluded just as they always have and bookmarked at the end by Jack Straw including Megrahi in the PTA on 19/12/2007 as he was entitled to do under his powers as Justice Secretary.
When looked at in the light of Kenny MacAskill's letter and Jack Straw's power to include Megrahi whether or not the Scots wanted it the conversation between Straw and Browne about negotiating for concessions is a little odd.
The conversation the 19th of December between Kenny MacAskill and Jack Straw that is used as evidence that Kenny MacAskill was negotiating a deal wasn't about negotiations at all.
It was the conversation where Jack Straw told Kenny MacAskill that Megrahi was going to be in the PTA like it or not.
It's quite evident from Straw's letter of the 19th and from the letter he sent to Des Browne on the 13th of December. I quote from the 13th Dec. letter.
"However you will also be aware that in the Summer I gave undertakings - following prior agreement with colleagues - that we would seek an exclusion in respect of Al-Magrahi on the face of the document Notwithstanding this you, I think, were agreed that given the overriding case in the national interest to agree the PTA with Libya, officials should be instructed to agree the standard PTA with Libya and remove references to Al-Magrahi. Once we are agreed I will both phone and write to Kenny McAskill..."
Study Points to New Prostate Drug
The comments are open on the Hootsman now & the story has been well dissected.
It's beyond pathetic - but it is interesting that Labour will plant stories on right wing Tory blogs in order to attack the SNP.
Even Alan Cochrane says it's rubbish.
I have to wonder what Guido will make of it when he realises he's been used.
I appreciate that it's scant consolation Mark but at least you know that anyone who has a functioning brain cortex would never buy or read a Scottish newspaper or watch or listen to the the BBC in Scotland for 'news'.
BellaCaledonia is a particularly vicious nest of Marxist vipers who moderate comments that don't follow their narrow left wing agenda.
But they make exceedingly good quotes.
Excellent post Mark and thanks to you too Doug. I'm now more informed.
It;s interesting that Straw is still holding the line that there was a deal done, albeit one that was conveniently not minuted.
Mike Wade has an article in today's Scottish edition of The Times:
Mr Straw recalled that he had had two conversations with Mr MacAskill early in November 2007. The first, on November 2, went unminuted because Mr MacAskill was in a car and it was “not practically possible” to record the details, according to Scottish government officials.
In the conversation, a UK government minute reveals, Mr Straw explained that if al-Megrahi was excluded from the PTA, a multibillion-pound contract between BP and the Libyan government would not be signed — to the detriment of Scottish and wider interests. Mr MacAskill told Mr Straw he would discuss these matters with the First Minister.
A few days later the two justice ministers spoke again. “There was then a conversation when he asked for a deal. He obviously spoke to (Alex) Salmond,” Mr Straw said.
He added: “He (MacAskill) understandably saw an opportunity to get us to move on two things that they wanted in return for their acquiescence with the fact that I couldn’t get a carve out on Megrahi in the text on the PTA.”
The first of these, according to Mr Straw, was assistance from the UK Government in limiting the compensation that the Scottish government might have to pay to prisoners suing for compensation over slopping out. The second was the devolution of firearms legislation.
Mr Straw said: “The inconvenient truth is that this is true. I’m not in the business of making things up and why would I make this up?”
That claim was hotly denied last night by Scottish government officials and Mr Salmond said in a television interview that Mr Straw had misunderstood his government’s position.
I'll repeat this passage becaue it amuses me. Mr Straw said: “The inconvenient truth is that this is true. I’m not in the business of making things up and why would I make this up?”
Anyone else remember Jack Straw and Colin Powell sitting cheek by jowl with vials of anthrax/talcum powder which they told us Saddam was ready to drop on an unsuspecting world in 45 minutes?
Post a Comment