Furthermore, it has emerged that the Scottish prosecuting authority, the Crown Office, refused bail to Megrahi only a year ago, for fear that he would try to gain access to the money.

The information casts still further doubt on the wisdom of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, in deciding to free the terrorist on compassionate grounds last August. 

It is to be hoped that Mr MacAskill, who put on a particularly pompous, grandstanding performance when announcing Megrahi’s release last summer, will break into his Christmas vacation and explain to the families of the 270 victims of the outrage why he did not make the existence of Mr Megrahi’s nest egg public a lot sooner.

William Hague, speaking for the opposition, made a hugely pertinent comment on the actions of the Scottish Executive in releasing al-Megrahi:

One of the most bizarre aspects of the decision to release al-Megrahi was the fact that the Scottish Executive, having concluded that they could not transfer him under the prisoner transfer agreement because it would breach assurances given to the United States, then concluded that it was appropriate to release him altogether. Would it not have been more sensible to conclude that if it was inappropriate to return him to Libya as a prisoner, it was even more inappropriate to release him as a free man?

It will be interesting to hear the Scottish justice minister’s response.

However, if there was any lingering doubt as to the damage that Brown’s inept handling of  the al-Megrahi affair has done to our relations with the United States, it is  now surely dispelled.

Can anyone believe that George Bush would have refused such a meeting with Tony Blair when both men were in power?

The transcript reveals that:

The President expressed his disappointment over the Scottish Executive’s decision to release convicted Pan Am 103 Bomber al-Megrahi back to Libya.

In other words, our glorious leader has, through his abject ineptitude, managed comprehensively to tee off our closest ally. 

Well done, Gordon.

The interview reveals that:

• Mr Straw travelled to Scotland in July, 2007, in order to discuss the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond;
• Mr Straw did discuss, “at some stage”, the issue of compassionate release with the Scottish administration;
• Trade, including the BP oil deal, was “a very big part” of the PTA negotiations;
• Government colleagues, including Gordon Brown, did not agree to drop the exclusion of al-Megrahi from the terms of the PTA: “I certainly didn’t talk to the PM. There is no paper trail to suggest he was involved at all.”

The above, however, is contrary to the following positions adopted by Government members over the last few days:

• Gordon Brown and David Miliband’s insistence that the decision to release al-Megrahi was one wholly for the Scottish Executive, with no input whatever from the British Government;
• Gordon Brown’s declaration that  there was “no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double-dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances by me to Colonel Gaddafi”;
• The briefing by “a source close to Jack Straw” that ““It wasn’t just Jack who decided this. It was a Government decision. Jack did not act unilaterally.”

The Government has now arrived at the point where almost anything said by one of its members will contradict statements made by others.   Surely even Gordon Brown must see by now that this cannot continue; enormous damage is being done to his personal reputation and, more importantly, to the international reputation of this country.

He must call an inquiry as a matter of urgency.

Opposition Members preparing for the debate could do worse than read this article in today’s Independent by the distinguished human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, which sets out amply and with devastating cogency why al-Megrahi should never have been released and the extent to which MacAskill mishandled the process.  Here is a flavour:

The decision has been supported by a few clerics, entranced by the idea that it reflects forgiveness. But Bishop Joseph Butler, whose sermons have shaped that particular Christian virtue, firmly warned against hasty and uncritical compassion, which he regarded as irresponsible because it compromised important Christian values such as self-respect and respect for the moral order. MacAskill’s “compassion” is irresponsible precisely for that reason: he has bestowed it on an unrepentant perpetrator of what Kant termed “radical evil,” at a time and in a way that enables him to be honoured as a national hero.

MacAskill repeatedly claims that Megrahi will soon be judged by “a higher power”. If he thinks that God re-tries cases in some cloud courtroom and sentences the guilty to hell fire, why bother with human justice at all?  The only “higher power”, to which Megrahi answers is Gaddafi, guilty for over thirty of his forty years in power of multiple crimes against humanity.

It is anticipated that the opposition parties will successfully combine today to defeat the SNP, but that this will fall short of a vote of no confidence in Alex Salmond’s administration.

Whether or not that is the case, it is to be hoped that in such circumstances Kenny MacAskill will do the decent thing and resign.

The Scottish documents relate that the Libyan minister for Europe, Abdulati Alobidi, said that he had been informed by the Foreign Office minister, Bill Rammell, that neither Gordon Brown nor David Miliband wanted al-Megrahi to die in prison.  That may be true; but we will not know until Bill Rammell makes a statement on the affair, or, even better, Gordon Brown and David Miliband do.

More interesting is Jack Straw’s letter to the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, in which he writes:

 “The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom I have agreed that in this instance the PTA [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”

The question must therefore be: what where the overwhelming UK interests that dictated, at that “critical stage”, that what was previously considered a matter of the highest principle (i.e. the non-inclusion of al-Megrahi in the terms of the PTA) should be abandoned?

We will never know, unless  and until  Mr Brown and Mr Straw break their silence and make a statement supported by the relevant documents.

This, of course, will have to happen.  Everyone knows that.  The sooner it does, the better for all concerned, including Messrs Brown and Straw.

The announcement appears disingenuous, given that:

(a)    the most damaging correspondence has probably already been leaked; and

(b)   the principal allegations against the Government relate not to its dealings with the devolved administration, but to its negotiations with the Libyans.

If Gordon Brown wishes to put an end to speculation over the al-Megrahi affair, he should make a statement covering the British Government’s dealings with Libya prior to and after the conclusion of the prisoner transfer agreement, which should be supported by copy correspondence and official notes of meetings.

I am sure, however, that he would resist doing any of those things.  In the circumstances, the release of the Scottish correspondence looks little more than diversionary chaff.

Gordon Brown is really going to have to make a statement about the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, because, despite his best efforts to ignore it, the story is not going to go away.

This morning’s Times leads with a report quoting “a source close to Jack Straw” (wonder who that might be?) who says that the 2007 decision to include al-Megrahi in the prisoner transfer agreement, after attempts had previously been made to exclude him, was not made at his sole discretion:

“It wasn’t just Jack who decided this. It was a Government decision. Jack did not act unilaterally.”

Mr Brown’s refusal to comment on the case, on the ground that the decision was one for a Scottish minister, looks increasingly laughable.  There is an obvious factual matrix to the al-Megrahi affair that was developed at national level.  Whilst the final decision to release al-Megrahi was indeed made by Kenny MacAskill in Edinburgh, the British Government was clearly heavily involved, from Tony Blair’s meeting with Gaddafi in the tent in the desert to the letter that Ivan Lewis wrote to MacAskill shortly before the release.

Mr Brown was a senior member of the Government at all relevant times and is its head now.  The longer he remains silent, the more the British people will conclude that he is treating them, once again, as fools.  And their conclusion will be entirely correct.

He says that it was made in order to improve British-Libyan relations generally.

I’m sure that was the case; and an easier trading relationship would, of course,  be the surest sign of that general improvement.

Mair put it to Salmond that none of the prostate cancer specialists consulted by Dr Andrew Fraser of the Prison Service would specify a likely time period for the remainder of al-Megrahi’s life.  Salmond was, frankly, somewhat evasive in his response, but did acknowledge that there had been some disagreement among specialists as to his life expectancy: “Some said less than three months, some said more than three months.”

Dr Richard Simpson, a Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament who specialised in prostate disease research, said last Tuesday that the medical reports disclosed by the Scottish justice ministry suggest that there is “significant doubt” that al-Megrahi will die within three months.  Simpson, indeed, takes the view that he could live far longer, and says that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, should have taken a second opinion from an expert in palliative care.

Simpson’s prognosis appears to be shared by no less than al-Megrahi’s own father, Ali, who has given an interview today to the pan-Arabic newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat:

Ali al-Megrahi also revealed that the disease which his son is suffering from is not as dangerous as some in the media are portraying it, saying “he was diagnosed with cancer less than a year ago, and we would bring him medicinal herbs from the Chinese herb market in Britain, he was also treated with other medicine in prison in Scotland.” Al-Megrahi senior added “a relative was diagnosed with a similar disease [prostate cancer] and he was treated and recovered completely. We hope that Abdul-Basset recovers his health as well.”

He said “I see that he is getting better day after day, and [his health] is much better than the first day that he returned to his homeland.”

Amid all the fog and confusion surrounding the release of al-Megrahi, it’s refreshing to see the former deputy Prime Minister,

“It’s clear that there are other issues … which the PM has been asked about, and he answered yesterday that governments always have difficult decisions to take.

“This was clearly one, without getting into the arguments of whether this man was guilty or innocent. The courts found him guilty, it’s on compassion grounds, under the legal system he is now being released.”

Says it all, really.

One particularly pertinent exchange was the following:

Put that Ministers had felt free to criticise all sorts of decisions made by the National administration in Scotland and what made this issue any different, the PMS replied that this was a unique set of circumstances and a uniquely difficult and sensitive subject. This rested with the Scottish Justice Secretary and we needed to make our position clear throughout which we had done…

Put that there was nothing stopping the Prime Minister from commenting, the PMS said that Justice was a devolved matter and that was the nature of the political arrangement between Scotland and Westminster. Put that it seemed odd that the Prime Minister was not commenting on a position taken by a country within the United Kingdom, the PMS said that he had set out the Government’s position on commenting on the decision taken by Kenny MacAskill.

Notwithstanding the PMS’s response, is, of course, true that ministers routinely criticise the SNP Scottish Executive; indeed, they do so regularly every month at Scottish Questions.  Take, for instance, the following random example from July, 2008:

Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South) (Lab): What recent representations he has received from the First Minister on cross-border policing.

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (David Cairns): There are regular and ongoing discussions at both ministerial and official level on a range of cross-border policing issues.

Nigel Griffiths: Are my hon. Friend’s efforts not hampered by the empty promise of 1,000 extra police? After 14 months, not one single extra police officer has been provided. Is that not the most cynical betrayal of our communities by the SNP Administration?

David Cairns: We all remember the clear promise that was made: 1,000 extra policemen. In the Strathclyde police area alone, there are 200 fewer policemen today than there were 12 months ago. Taken with the latest plan to let half of Scotland’s prisoners out on to the streets, that goes to show that the SNP is weak on crime.

Policing, like justice, is a devolved matter in Scotland, yet that constitutional nicety did not inhibit David Cairns from criticising the SNP executive.  Not for him the Trappist demeanour adopted by Gordon Brown.  No, Cairns gleefully seized the opportunity presented to him by Nigel Griffiths to give the SNP a good old kicking, and to hell with the constitutional settlement.

The more one examines it, the more ridiculous Brown’s position appears.  Everyone else can see that; why can’t he?

John is entirely right; it is simply unacceptable that the Prime Minister should continue to evade making any statement on a hugely important issue that threatens to cause potentially irreparable damage to our relations with our most closest ally.

The Scottish Parliament was today recalled to debate the affair, but Kenny MacAskill’s statement added nothing of significance to what we already knew.  Nor, indeed, could it.  We need to learn the truth about the discussions that took place between Britain and Libya prior to al-Megrahi’s release.  That can only be achieved by statements from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Business Secretary.

Crucially, also, we need to know what the Government proposes to do to restore good relations with the United States.  Again, Brown and Miliband must present themselves to the House, make their statements and answer what are likely to be extremely searching questions.

The Prime Minister, in short, must abandon the cowardly fiction that the al-Megrahi affair is a legal issue that is wholly a matter for the devolved body in Edinburgh and no concern of his.  It is not; it is an issue of the most critical national importance.

And for that reason, the national Parliament must be recalled.

The Sunday Times reports that, less than three weeks before al-Megrahi’s release, Lewis wrote to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Executive justice minister, to tell him that there was no reason not to accede to a request by Libya for the transfer of the terrorist to its custody under the terms of the 2007 agreement negotiated between Tony Blair and Gaddafi.

Lewis’s letter concluded:

“I hope on this basis you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application in accordance with the provisions of the prisoner transfer agreement.”

“Sources close to MacAskill” are now spinning that Lewis was effectively giving the nod to the Scottish authorities to release al-Megrahi, concerned by Libyan threats of adverse trade consequences if the bomber died in jail.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman, the Times reports, has denied that that is the case:

“Ivan’s letter was in response to a letter from Kenny MacAskill on July 16, which requested more information about the agreements in 1998-9 between the UK and Libyan governments. Having previously provided this, Ivan Lewis reiterated our understanding of the legal situation.

“He explicitly said in the letter that when his officials had given this advice to Scottish ministers, ‘They were not making representations on whether Megrahi ought to be transferred to Libya’.”

What is odd, however, is the very fact that the exchange of correspondence between MacAskill and Lewis took place at all.  MacAskill, given his role as Scottish justice minister, would have had ready access to specialist legal advice.  He would have had no need to seek Lewis’s “understanding of the legal situation”.  Had his advisers needed further factual information from Whitehall, they would have been able to obtain it on an official-to-official basis.  It is hard to see why the Scottish Executive should find any need whatever to correspond with the FCO at political level.

As time passes, the al-Megrahi affair looks increasingly murky.  It frankly beggars belief that, given its obviously huge international ramifications, Whitehall would look on quiescently as the process leading to the Libyan’s release evolved in Edinburgh; the Lewis-MacAskill correspondence is the first inkling we have had that such was not the case.

The issue will not go away; the longer the silence continues, the more the facts will slowly leak out.  Gordon Brown should make a statement on the affair as soon as possible; his continued silence will result in only greater damage to the national interest.