Eddie Barnes - Megrahi latest

Sky News reported about an about ago that according to "sources", the Lockerbie bomber has died. But Tony Kelly, his lawyer is now saying that Megrahi is alive and that he has spoken to him since the Sky report went out. East Renfrewshire Council - which is in charge of monitoring Megrahi's health - is also saying they know nothing about his death, and are pointing out that they'd be the first to know.

So it appears, for now, that nothing has changed. Will update if the situation moves on.

Eddie Barnes - Brown still unclear on Megrahi

Gordon Brown has just issued another statement on the release of the Lockerbie bomber. He repeated his point that this was a matter for Scottish Ministers. He said he had told Colonel Gaddafi of this point when he met his recently. He pointed out that it was in the wider interests of the UK and the wider world to welcome Libya back into the international community. He insisted there was no double-dealing with regard to Mr Megrahi's release.

"There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double-dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to influence Scottish ministers."

But so far as I could tell, he still didn't say whether or not he believed freeing Mr Megrahi was a good thing or not. As a result, the statement will have failed to lay the issue to rest.

David Maddox: Back to the grind

Today marks the end of the summer recess, so obviously Holyrood is crawling with eager MSPs delighted to be back at the chalk face....
Well actually there's hardly an MSP to be seen this morning, because they have decided to extend their holiday a little by delaying all the committee meetings this afternoon.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, not that Scotland's short of them, I would think the committee meetings were deliberately timed to clash with the publication of the Megrahi papers, when obviously political hacks will be otherwise engaged.
So to the main event of the day, the publication of those papers by the Scottish and UK governments. Great anticipation and all that, which means they will inevitably contain virtually nothing of interest. If there was a staggering revelation in them then you can bet they would not see the light of day. What may be more interesting is what is not published.

David Maddox: Emergency item for the Knesset

On 8 January this year, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, with the support of all parties bar the Tories, led an emergency debate in Holyrood on the crisis in Gaza. This was followed by a letter of protest demanding a ceasefire from the Israeli government, whose citizens were also under bombardment from Hamas missiles. No message was sent to the Palestinian Authority or Hamas and it was the second such communication from the SNP government to Israel.

And this was despite Holyrood having almost no responsibility for foreign affairs.

I wonder, as he stood by Gordon Brown yesterday and watched the British PM field questions on the international consequences of Scotland sending home a notorious Libyan mass murderer and terrorist, whether Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu thought: "We really should have an emergency debate on this in the Knesset (Israeli parliament)." And further noted: "I must send Alex Salmond a letter outlining my government's deep concerns about his government's actions in this international crisis."

For some reason I would be surprised if he did.

Eddie Barnes - Brown butts in on Burma, so why not Scotland?

GORDON Brown is "both saddened and angry" at the decision. He believes that it showed that the authorities were "determined to act with total disregard for accepted standards of the rule of law and in defiance of international opinion".

Has the Prime Minister finally broken his silence over the fate of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi? No. That was the Prime Minister talking earlier this month about the sentencing of Burma's opposition leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi. It seems that when the Burmese judicial system acts, it's the PM's business to make his views known. But when the Scots system does, it isn't.

Amid all the conspiracies about why Brown is refusing to say what he thinks about the decision to release Al-Megrahi, could the truth be a little more mundane? What if, as with Aung Sang Suu Kyi, Brown agrees that Al-Megrahi should indeed be allowed home? Prezza thinks so. The Church of Scotland thinks so. So might the PM also believe in a "compassionte" decision? Not that he can say so, seeing as Scottish Labour has come out four-square against it.

All idle speculation, but until Brown makes his views known, that's all we're left with.

David Maddox: A lesson in Libyan compassion

Last night I attended an excellent concert at the Usher Hall organised by the Swiss Consulate in Edinburgh. Among the guests was Scotland's SNP Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the National Conversation Mike Russell.

It reminded me that while this summer will be forever remembered for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill sending the Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi home on the grounds of compassion (heroic scenes pictured), Switzerland has also had its difficulties regarding Libyan prisoner transfers.

On 15 July 2008 Colonel Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife were arrested by the Swiss authorities in a luxury hotel in Switzerland for allegedly beating up two servants.

The response by Libya was to first cut ties with the Alpine nation and then arrest two Swiss citizens in Libya four days later, essentially turning them into hostages.

The two employees of engineering company ABB Ltd - Max Goeldi and Rachid Hamdani - were locked up for alleged breaches of immigration rules.

Since Gaddafi jnr's arrest he and his wife have been released on bail and the servants have withdrawn their complaint after receiving compensation.

But the dispute between the two countries has dragged on for over a year, and on Thursday (20 August) just as Mr MacAskill was providing succour to Libya by releasing Megrahi, the Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz formally apologised to Libya and agreed to have the original arrest looked at by an independent arbitrator in London. This, he understandably said, was to get the two Swiss citizens home, although it has been suggested that he was under huge pressure from businesses.

So all in all Col Gaddafi had a very good day on Thursday and his own brand of international diplomacy and lack of compassion got him everything he wanted to mark the 40th anniversary of his dubious dictatorship. The one thing though that can be said is that the Swiss, it seems, had much less choice in the matter than Mr MacAskill.

Eddie Barnes: Al-Megrahi and Glasgow North-East

In my column in the Scotsman this morning, I look at how the release of the Lockerbie bomber is going to play out electorally ahead of the Holyrood vote. I forgot to mention the small matter of the Glasgow North-East by election, to be held in November, as well.

According to gleeful Labour canvassers on the streets, Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Mr Al-Megrahi is going down like the proverbial lead balloon - adding to the theory that while the decision will go down well in Glasgow's West End and Edinburgh's Morningside, it won't get quite such a tolerant response in Shettleston and Wester Hailes.

Then last night, the SNP apropos nothing released a statement from their Glasgow North-East candidate David Kerr.

Declares Kerr: "When I first heard of Kenny MacAskill's decision last week, I confess I was sceptical, and my initial thought was that he could perhaps be released into the care of a hospice in Scotland."

"However, like everyone else, I have now had the opportunity to hear the arguments. I watched the Justice Secretary's parliamentary statement on Monday very carefully, and it is obvious that this option would have been totally impractical on the basis of the unacceptable level of security required. In light of all the information and arguments that have come forward, it is now quite clear to me, and I believe a growing number of people in Scotland - of all parties and none - that the Justice Secretary took the right decision, and above all he took it for the right reasons."

What an odd statement. Why bother admitting that you initially disagreed with the idea? Why?

Let's imagine a scene from the Glasgow doorsteps.

Knock on the door. "Good morning. My name is David Kerr. I'm the SNP candidate. Can I count on your vote?"

"Whit? SNP? You tell that ****in' Kenny MacAskill and that ****in' Alex Salmond I'd vote fae ma' dug before I'd vote fae you ***tards. Letting oot criminals! Have ye' lost your mind?"

Kerr shuffles feet, looks over shoulder. "Well of course, between the two of us. I had my doubts as well. In fact, if you read my statement......"