The old adage ' never let party donations stand in the way of destroying an oil company' seems to run true in the US. (All right, it's not an old adage, but it should be.)
Campbell Gunn, the political editor of the Sunday Post, has come up trumps today. He's reporting both the US President and US Secretary of State have both accepted large donations from a BP employees committee. It gets even better - three out of the four senators who are upset because Kenny MacAskill refuses to attend their interrogation, have also accepted donations from a BP staff organisation.
The donations don't come from the company itself but from their Political Action Committee - a group of individuals within BP who wish to donate to a particular politician or party. There are a number of oil companies who have drilling interests in Libya and some of these have also made contributions to politicians or the Democrats.
In the donation period ending in 2008, Obama took $71,051 and Clinton $6,700 from BP staff in donations. Senator Menendez, who is chairing this week's senate investigation, received $2,000 out of the pot with Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer receiving $750 and $250 respectively.
The senators have been accused of hypocrisy. I think that's being kind to them.
Meanwhile, Alex Salmond gave a dignified interview to Adam Bolton on Sky News this morning. He spelt out the complete situation of the Scottish government (once again) and if people refuse to understand it's their problem. While I may not agree with Kenny MacAskill's decision, I'm completely convinced that he undertook the decision while adhering firmly to Scots law.
Kenny MacAskill has received a series of threats from the US over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. His personal security has been increased along with further security at his Edinburgh constituency office.
Since I wrote this I notice Tris has also posted on the subject of the 'blood money'. You can read his version here.
Posts
7 comments:
Has anyone actually claimed that MacAskill acted outside the law?
Some have claimed that he should not have visited the prisoner but, as far as I know, nobody has yet had the courage to say he acted outwith the law. Not quite, but many comments border on it.
a scoop from the Sunday Post...michty me!
Here's something that caught my eye in the Telegraph......political donations...MPs as "consultants"...Libya....oil....PLO.....Abu Graib
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/7908076/Palestinian-tycoons-with-Libya-links-behind-Tory-donations.html
Aye muddypaws, indeed. :) Actually old Campbell comes up trumps now and again.
Very interesting link. They're all at it. It's beginning to make the SNP government seem lily white isn't it.
I really don't get this at all.
Can someone explain ?
Megrahi has terminal cancer and McAskill released him on compassionate grounds as per Scottish law - the law the Americans (and the world) agreed he would be tried and sentanced under.
Now it seems having taken BP money , senators are baying for blood about the fact that BP is exploring for oil in Libya ?
Either the senators are spectacularly shooting themselves in the foot , or they are spectacularly stupid , or both ?
Do they not understand that although nominally called Scottish oil, it remains property of UK government in Westminster ? Oil companies have dealt almost entirely with Westminster, while Scottish Justice remains a devolved issue entirely separate.
The decision to release Megrahi was under Scottish law and as we have been repeatedly told, a result of medical reports and nothing more.
Trade deals and discussions with Libya were carried out by oil companies and Westminster.
Scottish involvement in anything outside the strictly laid down devolution agreement was typically slapped down by Westminster out of hand.
If there is any trail here it would lead to Westminster (and now the senate of the US ?) not Scotland.
The fact that Americans don't agree with Megrahis' release is merely a sideshow.
The law gave MacAskill the discretion to release Megrahi - it was not compulsory.
Perhaps the US Senators are sceptical that an experienced politician like Kenny MacAskill would be so credulous. They clearly do not know our man like we do.
Ah, but what a wonderful sideshow Sandy. They have the world press listening to their every word and the Americans, because any death is an emotional matter, are hanging on their every word.
Of course it would have nothing to do with Obama's unpopularity and senate elections would it?
Post a Comment