Re "No deal done with Libya over Megrahi" (Letters, February 14), Justice Secretary Jack Straw's office was kind enough to tell us that a letter to The Herald was forthcoming.
Re "No deal done with Libya over Megrahi" (Letters, February 14), Justice Secretary Jack Straw's office was kind enough to tell us that a letter to The Herald was forthcoming.
We appreciate that, and are not in a position to argue about most of the political implications of the "memorandum of understanding" which seems to bear so heavily on the provisions of devolution.
Personally, I strongly agree with Mr Straw that the "de-demonisation" of Libya was a courageous and appropriate move which can only have reduced the risk of further terrorism. We had always hoped that the bringing of the accused to trial would facilitate just such a benefit.
How much better it would have been, however, if Mr Straw's former boss, Tony Blair, had taken the trouble to let us know anything at all about what he was up to in Libya over this memorandum. Mr Blair chose not to do this, either before or after the event. We were left to find out later via the media.
Had we known of it, we would immediately have inquired what the relevance was for Megrahi's detention, and whether the BP oil deal was the real motive.
Perhaps that was why the insult of exclusion was again thrown at us.
No-one has a better right to knowledge of how the future of those alleged to have murdered their families is being manipulated, and the honest reasons for it, than the relatives of the dead.
When he was Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw took the trouble to set up a conference call with us at Camp Zeist from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after the first appeal failed. For that, we remain grateful. His tone then, naturally, was one of relief at the verdict.
My reply then was that I thought he (as a lawyer, as well as Foreign Secretary) should get his people to examine the quality and origins of the evidence led at Zeist, rather than relaxing in the glow of the verdict. That remains my opinion, though many years later we must all now await events in Scotland's High Court.
In that context, Mr Straw may be aware that the threat of public interest immunity (PII) certificates used against us during the Lockerbie fatal accident inquiry (under Margaret Thatcher) left huge resentment among those seeking the truth about the atrocity, and that PII certificates have again been mentioned in the High Court to "protect" a document from disclosure to the defence.
He will understand that draconian measures, in the name of "the public interest" would require very careful justification with the public north of the border, particularly if they appeared to interfere with the Scottish criminal process.
Dr Jim Swire, member of UK Families-Flight 103 and father of Flora, murdered at Lockerbie, Rowans Corner, Chipping Campden.
The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, claims that Libya's renunciation of WMD is a "hugely significant step" (Letters, February 14).
Indeed, it is. But why, then, does Mr Straw not support the principle that Britain also should renounce its own WMD, Trident? This criminal and illegal system has been condemned by political leaders in Scotland, by the Scottish Parliament, by the STUC, and by the leaders of all Christian denominations, as well as the representatives of other faiths in Scotland. It is indefensible.
Or, if I am wrong, and Trident is a legitimate means of defence for the UK, it must also be a legitimate means of defence for all other sovereign states, and every state should have it so-called "independent deterrent". This would be absurd: therefore, the original hypothesis is untenable. Ergo, Trident is illegal and criminal.
Mr Straw concludes that Libya is a safer neighbour for the rest of Europe because of this decision. So she is, and so would be the UK, were we to find the courage and morality to dismantle our WMD, Trident.
Brian M Quail, Glasgow.
