On the face of it, William Hague’s statement today continues the former government’s line that the release of al-Megrahi to Libya was entirely a matter for the Scottish government. That’s certainly a line helpful to BP.
But put another way, he’s simply saying that it was nothing to do with the British government. That interpretation leaves open some of the questions explored here:
Alex Salmond has heaped pressure on Tony Blair over his alleged role in the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber by claiming that the former prime minister should be forced to testify before a US Senate committee investigating the affair.
Amid growing concerns over the potential impact of the forthcoming foreign relations committee hearings, the Scottish First Minister advised senators to question Mr Blair over the infamous "deal in the desert" in 2007, when Mr Blair and the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi agreed plans to open the country up to foreign trade.
The call came as the Daily Mail claimed Mr Blair was flown to Libya for secret talks with Col Gaddafi last month, days after denying he was an adviser to the dictator. So Hague says “talk to the Scots.” And Salmond says “talk to Tony Blair.”
Salmond’s accusations put Blair in the frame in January 2007. That’s roughly halfway between Blair’s agreeing to step down and his eventual departure. Now it could be argued that some kind of side deal meant to help Blair establish his post retirement mega consultancy had “nothing to do with the government” – ie, with government business. Using government for the furtherance of a retirement plan, perhaps with the aid of other members of the government, is another matter. It’s certainly well known that Blair was working on his post parliamentary career for a fair amount of time before he stepped down.
Still, for such a deal to go through the co-operation of the Scottish government would be essential. So the question then becomes: what was offered to the SNP, and by who, that would make it worth their while taking such an unpopular decision?
A similar speculative question: what deal has been made with Gordon Brown? What does he get out of being portrayed as bonkers? What will his reward be for acting as the scapegoat for the failures of New Labour?
Posted by: Guano | July 19, 2010 at 01:05 PM