What the PM did and did not say
Gordon Brown's statement on the Lockerbie bomber was revealing both for what he did and did not say.
He said nothing about the fact that the Libyans were told that he did not want to see Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi die in jail. No-one now disputes that that is both what was said and what was meant by the foreign office minister, Bill Rammell when he went to Tripoli. It remains the case that Britain said something to the Libyans that they were not prepared to say to their own electorate.
The prime minister implied that his public reticence had been diplomatic. He was, he said, privately seeking to persuade the Libyans not to turn last night's Independence Day party into a celebration of Megrahi's return. He claimed credit for the fact that the Lockerbie bomber was not visible in Tripoli last night.
Gordon Brown did then seek to defend his government's detailed involvement in the question of Megrahi's possible release by saying that it was in the British national interest to bring Libya out of the cold. This was not, he stressed, a matter of oil but was because of the value of Libya turning her back on terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons. This is the realpolitik argument I talked about in my earlier post.
There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Er... Is Gordon Brown being economical with the truth?
Oh! What a surprise?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
Instinct. Fast Tony's instinct was "Smile and smarm". The Golem's instinct is dive under the nearest rock and hope Mandelsnake makes it all go away.
Complain about this comment
Brown is a master at saying nothing or keeping his head down while the flak is flying. Despite being practically Blairs second in command for all these years he was extremely quiet on the Iraq war and any other event that looked politically 'sticky'.
When he does finally pipe up it is because events have either forced him to, or he has had time to formulate weasel words that mean nothing but are smoke and mirrors. I don't think I have ever heard him say a direct yes or no to a question, ever.
I think his political coffin will have more nails than wood by the time the electorate get the chance to bury him for good.
Complain about this comment
Nothing Brown say's is the truth, election NOW!!
Complain about this comment
Yet again our un-elected PM shows he is unsuited for his role. He's misjudged the Americans and the electorate.
But it's OK, because it was all about the "war against terror".
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown - you can't have it both ways: Either say that it was in the interests of this country to release the bomber (and have done with it) or say that you feel it was, in hindsight, a mistake. By this half-in, half-out, "nothing to do with me, what could I do Gov?", you're making your whole administration a laughing-stock.
The French wouldn't act like this. They are usually single-minded and unapologetic and they get respect for that - even from those who think they're wrong.
Complain about this comment
Are we expected to believe the reason Megrahi (or McGravie as PM Brown called him) was not at the Libyan 40th celebrations was because of Brown and not the fact the man is in a hospital? This man does take us for fools indeed.
This delay in giving his opinion on the man's release is needless. When Tony Blair was releasing IRA/Loyalist terrorists from prison for the sake of progress and peace, at least he had the decency to tell us so. We might not have liked it but at least he was upfront about it. The same would have applied here had PM Brown the gumption and leadership to say it.
TOO
MUCH
SPIN.
Complain about this comment
He didn't say it before because he's only just thought of it. Another back-track from the back-track master. He is an inept laughing stock and so are we for not more vehemently demanding an election.
Getting rid of Gordon Brown & new Labour is of the utmost significance to the well being of the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
Good old Brown "He claimed credit for the fact that the Lockerbie bomber was not visible in Tripoli last night."
Yet Megrahi did appear appear in an official video shown during the celibrations.....
So yet another Brown claim not backed by facts!
Complain about this comment
Are both of Mr Alex Salmond and Mr K. MacAskill now going to resign?
There come's a point... when ... well, you know what I mean...
Complain about this comment
Labour is guilty of both hypocrisy and of not telling the truth. Hypocrisy because the party in Scotland has been opposing the release for pure political advantage when the national Govt has supported it. And still they refuse to reveal the truth about how and why the release came about.
I happen to support the decision to release him. But I wish the lies would stop.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you need to follow the money. Journos should ask British Govt to publish correspondence and minutes of meeting in desert when original PTA agreement was done. Find out what what made Jack Straw change his mind on excluding Megrahi from the PTA - what was said, and what was agreed. Brown is hoping it stops at communications with Scottish Govt, but what happened before then is important.
Complain about this comment
I am not quite sure where people are getting this idea that Labour and the SNP could never do a deal on anything. They are politicians who would sell their own mothers to Libya if they thought the return was good enough. The only question should be around what the return could be.
Complain about this comment
"This was not, he stressed, a matter of oil but was because of the value of Libya turning her back on terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons. This is the realpolitik argument I talked about in my earlier post."
==================
Nothing to with Libya seeing George Bush's war on terror -invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein - and thinking "Gosh we're likely to be next !"
Gordon Brown and Colonel Kadaffi have a lot in common, both are unelected leaders and their own self interests and survival are their only objectives.
"There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
Because he is incapable of doing anything in a simple and straightforward manner, and his every decision and action is cloaked in deceit.
Complain about this comment
"It remains the case that Britain said something to the Libyans that they were not prepared to say to their own electorate."
Thats not new for us as they do that on many issues - there are the real causes of the Iraq War, the regulatory failures over the financial crash and so on.
Who are we, citizens in a democracy, to interfere with the sofa politics and the fiefdom of the Labour Party?
Complain about this comment
I forgot to ask when is Mr Gordon Brown going to resign? I must admit I've missed his superb gurning?
I wonder what would happen if the Scots Nationalist win independence for Scotland from the UK and assuming Gurning Gordon would still be in power - How much of the army, navy and air force equipment would Brown simply give away to Scotland as including a couple of trident submarines - or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?
Complain about this comment
"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
he was trying to work out what lie he could get away with.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Why on earth didn't he say any of this before?" Exactly. But that's not the Macavity Brown style and it does again question his leadership or rather lack of it.
The Times today thundered: all roads lead back to Brown. It now boils down to a question of trust and for government that's like the kiss of death.
Are we now really expected to believe a "double dealing" prime minister and wretched government which has wriggled over Lockerbie at every twist and turn?
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/can-brown-survive-lockerbie-storm.html
Complain about this comment
#18 sportingpunter
"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
he was trying to work out what lie he could get away with.
---------------------
Nail on head!
Any news on how the shipment of Scottish flags found their way to Libya too, whilst we're at it?
8 months to go...
Complain about this comment
Normally what Brown thinks makes us laugh - but on this t is important as it impacts the UK's relations with other countries (e.g. with Libya and their Oil and with the US and our relationship with them).
The fact that it has now emerged that he expressed an opinion to Libya that conflicted with the US is something he did yet seems to want to deny or just pretend did not happen. The difficulty is that he is the representative of the UK and as such represents us. He is our representative and is accountable to us (the UK electorate) and we have a right to know what opinions he has been expressing on our behalf to other countries.
He (Brown) is our representative and accountable to us (the UK people) and it is time he was reminded of this. He is not a dictator though he seems to be acting like one. There are no "National Security" issues to keep what he has been saying on our behalf secret (the normal excuse this government uses).
He needs to stop offering inadequate partial information trying to get away with telling us what he has been saying on our behalf. If he cannot be straight with those he represents then he is no more than a dictator and in a democracy should go immediately.
Complain about this comment
If UK Labour did not want Megrahi to die in prison, and since Scottish Labour are taking the SNP Government to task for ensuring that UK Labour's wishes were fulfilled, is it not reasonable to assume that since there is clearly a gulf between the Scottish and UK Labour parties, that the best interests of all would be served by creating an independent Scottish Nation..........oh, and how, therefore, do Scottish Labour propose that the wishes of their UK counterparts could have been fullfilled in this instance. If it is clearly the case that they disagree with the procedure followed by MacAskill rather than the decision, then they need to censure MacAskill (and risk an early election) or publicly disagree with the decision and with UK Labour - talk about sitting on the fence playing politics....
Complain about this comment
Several questions remain unanswered.
1. Why did the USS Vincennes mistake the Airbus A300B2, Iran Air Flight 655, for a F14 Tomcat fighter?
2. Who funded, planned and carried out the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie?
3. Why did the American authorities switch their focus on the Lockerbie investigation from Iran/Syria to Libya?
4. Why did the US government not criticise Tony Blair's visit to Libya in 2004?
5. What was the personal message sent by Gordon Brown to Gadhafi over the release of Megrahi?
6. Why are the UK media hopeless at posing such questions above?
Complain about this comment
There's the SNP government fighting back with nothing more than the truth and thier wits today - meanwhile Brown and his camp are only answering questions once they are cornered by the media.
Can anyone say for certain which brand of politics they prefer?
The SNP made an unpopular decison - for what now seems to be the right reasons. They are facing the music and have been open and honest about it.
The Labour party have decieved the nation and continue to deny that they have done anything wrong. Wasn't there a proverb about an innocent man having nothing to fear from the truth?
Oh I remember now - it was nu-labs justification for rolling out ID cards and Lojacking anyone and everyone.
Truly pathetic
Complain about this comment
Och - Brown is nothing more than a coward
Complain about this comment
I think Mr Megrahi should have died in prison or released as a result of the (abandoned) appeal. But like it or not, the man has gone back to Libya to die. The political posturing is nauseous! There are more important matters that the Press and MP's should be concerned with!
Complain about this comment
I think we are now so accustomed to Brown's appalling leadership and judgement on most things, and the ineptness of his whole cabinet in dealing with anything in a fair and sensible way, nothing really registers from him or them any more on the 'emotion meter'. Other than cynicism. Has there ever been such a poor era of UK leadership? I think back to Heath and Blair as the most over rated leaders but this fellow Brown doesn't even get over-rated.
Complain about this comment
nautinier wrote :-
or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?
I think you will find that we have most of them up here already !!
Complain about this comment
At least he was eventually forced out into the open. Good job done by the media.
What he eventually said from a pre-prepared statement was neither here nor there and was totally to be expected.
Diplomatic response he thinks others think him cowardly.
The longer he remains the more despicable he and his cohorts appear and the more damaging they become to the country as a whole.
When someone has such a flaw in their character that they are unable to admit to making mistakes and carry on making them it is usually up to others to find a way of getting rid of them. Where are they?
Complain about this comment
Why is the BBC pursuing this ridiculous vendetta, or giving credence to what the Americans have to say about it? Thanks to America's own vendetta with Libya, the victims' families didn't get justice. Nobody believes Megrahi had anything to do with PanAm 103. His release from jail was part of due process in the penal system. We release prisoners on compassionate grounds every day, and the Scots were ABSOLUTELY RIGHT not to change the process to suit the Americans. Listen to Dr Jim Swire, not the FBI
Complain about this comment
If I say, as a moderately random example, that I don't want Peter Andre's severed head to be mounted on a spike on top of the BT Tower, I don't mean that I am -against- Peter Andre's head being mounted on the BT Tower or would exert myself to prevent it whether he deserves it or not (and I don't think he does), I mean something more like that I myself am not determined to have Peter Andre's head cut off and put up there. Maybe that isn't the best example, but I hope it expresses the distinction.
Generally a law or decree that names someone in particular is a bad and unjust law. If the prisoner exchange treaty with Libya had said, "We are, however, determined that the Lockerbie guy shall stay in prison until he is dead", that would be a bad provision. Such a matter should be put in the hands of an appropriate authority, and it nearly was. Unfortunately decisions like this still get to be made by politicans.
On the other hand, if our so-called leaders did exchange the liberty of an enemy for greatly profitable access for British businesses to the resources and markets of Libya, shouldn't we be saying Well Done, and can you see what will they give us in return for Peaches Geldof?
Complain about this comment
Nick (or anybody on this board),
I have to admit I'm not totally clued up on the rules of the devolved Scottish government, but am I correct in thinking that the UK's PM would have the power to overrule a decision made by the Scottish government if it was in the national interests of the UK as a whole?
If that is the case then a number of questions spring to mind:
1) If the PM had nothing to do with this decision then surely there he has virtually no power over Scotland at all because this clearly is a decision that affects our national interests - not least our relationship with our closest and most powerful ally.
2) Is ours therefore, a government of England alone - do the devolved Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies have the same rights?
3) Can we get 3/4 of Brown's salary back do you think?
Finally, a legal question. Could the Megrahi case have set a legal precedent? For example, if Peter Sutcliffe was severely ill could his legal team move for release on the same grounds?
Complain about this comment
"There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
Blair was a barrister. I wouldn't have wanted him to represent me, as he seemed to operate more on how to deliver a performance than bothering about factual detail. He floated like a butterfly (who's a pretty boy?) and stung like a bee (shame it was tax-payers he stung!)...
Brown just can't perform. He trundles. He needs a workforce with lorries full of "facts" he can churn through his mill, until he makes up his mind about anything. Once his mind is made up, it must be the "right thing" to do. Then he delivers a "spun" version, sometimes concealing significant points that emerge from the background deep-background later.
(Hence his difficulty in realising that cancelling the 10p tax band was a disastrous decision that has still NOT been resolved.)
I'm still waiting for disclosure of exactly what "commitments" were made to the US government about anyone convicted of the Lockerbie disaster being held for a full term in a UK jail. (Surely the papers from Blair's reign can't all be under lock and key?)
And why those "commitments" are no longer binding...
Any news on that, Nick?
(BTW. I'm totally unconvinced that Megrahi was a sole perpetrator of a crime. Not even sure he was a central figure. I have personal reason to mistrust security people associated with Libyan Arab Airlines. But the guy was convicted by a Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands. The prosecution case was fairly flakey and certainly more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
The Americans wanted to try him. It was a US "asset" and mostly US citizens involved. He'd have been really stitched up there!
I wonder how Brown and Straw would have handled the problem if the aircraft had come down to earth 15 minutes earlier? On English soil...)
Complain about this comment
Nick,
1. The Scottish Executive asked the UK government if there was any legal obstacle to releasing Megrahi: e.g. no binding agreement with the US. The UK government confirmed there was no obstacle.
2. Kenny MacAskill then followed Scottish law and released Megrahi.
3. The UK government said the release was a decision for the Scots alone.
#1 and #3 cannot both be true. Since #1 seems to be a fact, then #3 is false. Gordon Brown & co. have now said that Megrahi's release was in the UK's overwhelming interests: i.e. keeping Libya on-side in the war on terror. This reasoning is at least comprehensible as realpolitik, even if it is morally flawed.
What we have learned (again) about Gordon Brown and his ministers is:
a. Their first instinct is to put up a smokescreen, not to tell us the truth.
b. They are very poor at diplomacy. How could they not realise how upset the Americans would be? Why did they not at least make the realpolitik argument in private to the US?
Complain about this comment
Nick
Please congratulate Evan Davies on his magnificent interview this morning with one of the Milibands. He was so patient, listening to the interviewee ignoring his question and instead answering two or three that he hadn't asked. Then he asked it again, and again,...
Wonderful.
And I must congratulate you on your jorunalism and productivity. The holiday has done you a lot of good.
Complain about this comment
Yet again he's just shown that he can't take any kind of responsibility or have a say in anything untill someone has him against the wall, and then he just kinda ums an ahs his way around it.
Disgrace to the name of prime minister and to the country.
@33
It wouldnt surprise me if in the future some murderers team did try and push for that. Sincerly doubt that they'd be released, you just know that there'd be a little loophole somewhere about why he didn't quite qualify for release.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown has his place in history all right.
Gordon Brown will be remembered for his ten year tenure at the chancellor of the exchequer where he repeatedly raised taxes; wasted money; showered interest groups with cash; ruined the pension system; spoiled the NHS rotten without reform; bullied his neighbour at number ten; sold all our gold at the bottom; ruined the financial services industry with a fatally creaky regulatory framework; ignored the pleas of the former governor of the Bank of England with disasterous consequences; showered his talentless friends with peerages and promotions and finally scrambled his way into number ten with one of the most public acts of bullying in history.
His tenure in number ten will be widely reprted as the most disasterous in the past three hundred years; perpetuating a culture of innuendo and smear; rising to new heights of hubris; clutching desperately at his soundbite dividing lines; launching inumerable dog whistle initiatives; grabbing the headlines from Jade Goody to Susan Boyle but disappearing the moment any issue if substance hit his in-box.
Yet Nick has the temerity to begin an article with this headline about what Gordon Brown did or did not say - the public have grown weary of everything he does or doesn't have an opinion on and are just desperate to be rid of this self serving, self righteous, posturing buffoon of a man.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has made much of the so called admission, but I still think it is fair to point out that having no interest in seeing him die in jail and not wanting him to die in jail are too different things.
The second implies that the UK government actively sought to release him for whatever reasons, the first simply states that if due process is followed they will not seek to keep him in prison for ideological reasons.
It is pretty poor for the media to specifically ignore this distinction between the two positions.
Complain about this comment
I think the shot, before he spoke, of Gordon sitting down, with his head obscured by the podium about sums it all up. Headless chicken comes to mind. Chop off a chicken`s head and they will flap about all over the place before they finally expire. Gordon to a tee. Can`t wait to see the cartoons in tomorrows newspapers. Hardly went unnoticed.
Complain about this comment
When this irrelevant furore of who said what to whom is over, are we going to be any closer to finding out who actually blew up the aeroplane?
Megrahi says he didn’t do it. Many others and I believe him.
Our media and politicians are failing us in not perusing this important issue.
If the real perpetrators are not caught and brought to justice, who is to say they won’t carry out another atrocity?
Complain about this comment
"There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
Simple, he wanted his cake and eat it. He never expected any of the media furore to be directed at him but solely at the SNP his erstwhile opponents.
#11 nautonier
"Are both of Mr Alex Salmond and Mr K. MacAskill now going to resign?
There come's a point... when ... well, you know what I mean..."
For what exactly?
#14 Freeman
"I am not quite sure where people are getting this idea that Labour and the SNP could never do a deal on anything. They are politicians who would sell their own mothers to Libya if they thought the return was good enough. The only question should be a
round what the return could be."
A view expressed by a small confused group on previous threads. 'The only question should be around what the return could be.', that is precisely why there is no credence to this theory at all.
Please enlighten me, what could Westminster offer the SNP and the SNP trust them to deliver in order to risk all in a lose lose situation such as this? That's right, absolutely nothing.
#17 nautonier
"How much of the army, navy and air force equipment would Brown simply give away to Scotland as including a couple of trident submarines - or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?"
Scotland doesn't want anything to do with nuclear, power stations or weapons. In fact we're trying to get you to take back the nuclear subs Westminster 're-deployed', more like relocated to be decommissioned in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
@38
Imagine putting that on your C.V. while appyling for a new job. May Brown roll into the gutter as soon as possible.
Complain about this comment
This whole UK/devolved administrations business does get quite intriguing.
Suppose that some ethic group in Scotland bought anti-aircraft missiles from a sympathetic supplier. (Cold still happen.) Suppose they shot down a Russian aircraft over Scotland (or continguous waters).
Since the crime was organised and executed from within the Scottish judicial territory, could Russia declare war just on Scotland?
It seems the UK government can't interfere with a Scottish judicial process, so it would appear odd if any UK defence were mounted.
I somehow think that the USA has a rather better arrangement. I'm sure that Texas would not be able to authorise something against the nation's interests, even though each state in the US has a set of laws that can differ significantly. (That's why so many law cases are heard in Philidelphia...)
What the Lockerbie nonsense illustrates is the lack of intellectual rigour applied to devolution.
After all, the UK government is still responsible for border controls. If they had wanted to, they could have blocked the movement of a person considered as (at least convicted as) a mass-murderer.
Complain about this comment
How much more of this Brown nonsense do we have to put up with? I am suprised he even released a statement. Bet his aides had to force him to do that too. I see that Mandy is in hiding. Wonder why?
Think we all know.
Complain about this comment
"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
Because he's a useless clod?
Because he hoped it would go away?
Because he was trying to work out what lies he could get away with?
Trying to fathom the thinking of our glorious leader is not something mortal man can achieve.
Complain about this comment
Nick
This story has legs and will ramble on. Now Jacqui Smith questions the release of the Libyan. In 3 weeks time Brown (if invited and if brave enough) will attend the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh.
What is he going to say to Obama and the other world leaders? It might be a good idea if he started practicing now, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
#33 gogoginger
To answer your questions:
1)There are devolved (Holyrood) and reserved powers (Westminster). Foreign office matters are a reserved matter at Westminster, Scots law is a devolved matter and therefore Holyrood has control. As this was a legal decision Holyrood alone could make the decision, Westminster could only advise if they so wished but could not alter the decision. The foreign office could only deal with the ramifications of such a legal decision. Welcome to the murky world of UK constitutional bodies, a pigs breakfast at the moment which satisifies no-one.
2) Unfortunately England is the only nation within the UK not to have it's own legislature, so no, Westminster is the UK legislature and not solely Englands (hence the West Lothian questions. Again, pigs breakfast, the solution, independence for both countries or a federalised UK.
3) You could try but I doubt it :-)
Finally the case would not affect English law precedents (separate system and always has been, no such thing as UK law), in the case of Peter Sutcliffe.
Complain about this comment
The concepts of individual accountability for criminal acts and laws above politics have been presented as no long relevent in the world today. Everything can be rationalized and any act of national self-interest (business interest) trumps acts of murder or state-sponsored terrorism. Business and markets like cheap oil.......those people on the plane would have died eventually, anyway.....it's a crime to miss out on cheaper oil. Terrorism seems to be good for business and as we all know, anything that is good for business, even if it causes a world financial crisis, is OK with the governments. With such impeccable character and track record for wisdom of decisions, why would there be concern?
Complain about this comment
Just looked and listened to GB's statement. A classic total 'nothing to do with me' comment. It almost says 'not interested' either. I want him to be interested. I want him to care. I want him to say what he thinks. I want him to speak without notes. I want him to tell us how it is. I just know he is not telling the full truth.
Not that he has any respect from the UK population, but by this type of weak gesture politicking destroys any future hope for him and his party. Election now please.
Complain about this comment
Finally, a legal question. Could the Megrahi case have set a legal precedent? For example, if Peter Sutcliffe was severely ill could his legal team move for release on the
No. According to the Scottish Minister for Compassion this only applies to a minimum of 250 innocent lives taken!
By the way did any of the actors involved in this play realise that our hero was being released days before the big Lybian celebrations or was it just a coincidence? Has anybody told Gordon that although Megrahi couldn't be present at the celebrations a video was shown?
Has Gordon heard that after all this farce to bring Lybia in the civilised world his Lybian counterpart (meaning unelected PM :-))only a couple of days ago called for Israel to be wiped out of Africa.
Poor Mandy must be working overtime trying to mend Gordon's mistakes.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is finished.
This episode will become a metaphor for his towering incompetence and hubris.
Look at the transcript of the video and watch Yvette Cooper to his left. Eben she is frozen still at the man's incompetence when she has historically played the role of nodding dog next to him.
No British prime minister can survive having to stand up and interupt a conference about jobs and issue a speech littered with half truths about a terrorist issue that has sinlge handedly destroyed his relationship with the president of the United States.
This is a disgraceful period in British history characterised by shameless buck passing and double dealing.
Only a man without a shred of integrity and with a towering arrogance could deliver suich a speech and hope to get away with it.
This is Gordon Brown's final hour whether he leaves now or later.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
This is the man who can tell us everything: Mark Allen, the MI6 counter-terrorism chief at the centre of the secret talks between Libya and Britain, who now works for BP.
BP is not the first company to employ agents involved in a case. Bristol-Myers Squibb did it when they recruited Louis J Freeh and Thomas J Pickard, director and deputy director of the FBI.
Complain about this comment
Mr Robinson,
Last night (1st September) on the 10 o'clock news you said that neither government in London or Edinburgh had ever said 'no' to the question of al Megrahi's release.
This is not true: the SNP Government is on record as being unwaveringly opposed to prisoner transfer, despite the UK Government being in favour of it - as revealed by Jack Straw's letter.
This is, unfortunately, yet another case of a journalist in London assuming they have got all the Scottish facts (and opinions) on an issue from a cursory glance.
Complain about this comment
Jacqui Smith is the PERFECT person to know right from wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#48 ScotInNotts
Thanks very much for explaining! Your clear and concise answers have helped me understand the issues - have you thought about going into politics?!?!
Complain about this comment
For those south of the border.
Scotland has always had a
1. Independent legal system.
2. Independent health system.
3. Independent education system.
4. Independent church.
The above pre-date the Union of the Crowns, the Union of the parliaments and Devolution and are guarranteed under the constitution.
As a result no UK government, no English justice minister, nor English court, can undermine, interfere, over-rule the Scottish judicial process.
Complain about this comment
#38 RobinJD:
"Gordon Brown has his place in history all right.
Gordon Brown will be remembered for his ten year tenure at the chancellor of the exchequer where he repeatedly raised taxes; wasted money; showered interest groups with cash; ruined the pension system; spoiled the NHS rotten without reform; bullied his neighbour at number ten; sold all our gold at the bottom; ruined the financial services industry with a fatally creaky regulatory framework; ignored the pleas of the former governor of the Bank of England with disasterous consequences; showered his talentless friends with peerages and promotions and finally scrambled his way into number ten with one of the most public acts of bullying in history.
His tenure in number ten will be widely reprted as the most disasterous in the past three hundred years; perpetuating a culture of innuendo and smear; rising to new heights of hubris; clutching desperately at his soundbite dividing lines; launching inumerable dog whistle initiatives; grabbing the headlines from Jade Goody to Susan Boyle but disappearing the moment any issue if substance hit his in-box.
Yet Nick has the temerity to begin an article with this headline about what Gordon Brown did or did not say - the public have grown weary of everything he does or doesn't have an opinion on and are just desperate to be rid of this self serving, self righteous, posturing buffoon of a man.
Call an election."
--------------------------------
So good I thought this ought to be posted twice!
If nothing else though, I suppose this latest fiasco has taken the spotlight off whatever might have happened between Mandleson and Gadaffi-Jnr in Corfu.
Plus, it seems, seven years is about the norm for murder in this day and age...
Complain about this comment
Perhaps with Scotland being involved perhaps there was no one in Downing Street could advise him what to say... seriously, he gives the impression his left foot doesn't know what his right foot is doing he plainly isn't a leader, a ruler maybe but not a leader!
The poor guy might have claimed he was an iron fist Chancellor, one thing for sure he is entirely the opposite as a Prime Minister, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was set in stone by Blair.
There has been too many Libyan meetings for my liking, and there is only one common denominator... and thats oil, they have and we don't.
If these lot told me it's raining I'd look outside for myself
Complain about this comment
So to summarise:
1. The BBC leap to Gordon's defence with slight criticism 'Why didn't he just say that before' to try to draw a line under this whole thing.
2. Alex Salmond looks really foolish on Sky News et al but you will not focus properly on the fact that the Scottish Executive, whilst now devolved to a degree from Westminister would not have done anything of this kind truly autonomously and has been set up. This is perfect for Neu Arbeit as the SNP has fragile control and Scotland has been a loathsome (or West Loathsome) thorn in the side of Labour.
Complain about this comment
Admiral Brown lifts the telescope and peers at the TV, I see no Megrahis he triumphantly proclaims...
Well done PM, can you turn your amazing problem solving talents to the ecomony, hospitals, crime and schools if you've the time.
Personally I'd rather be watching something a little more in the light entertainment department but another man's choice of evening veiwing is nothing to do with me.
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson:
I am glad, with the partial truth that the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has remarked; but, as always, there is more to the story; But, I am not making any accusations against anyone...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
#56 gogoginger
Your welcome. What minuend has also stated in #57 is quite correct, such institutions were enshrined pre and post union of the crowns.
I'm interested in politics but I don't know if I'd like it to be my career, and if I did it'd be at Holyrood and not Westminster. However I think I'll stick with the direction I'm headed for the moment.
Complain about this comment
"The prime minister implied that his public reticence had been diplomatic. He was, he said, privately seeking to persuade the Libyans not to turn last night's Independence Day party into a celebration of Megrahi's return. He claimed credit for the fact that the Lockerbie bomber was not visible in Tripoli last night"
Was that the same Megrahi I saw on the television this morning bedridden and with an Oxygen mask on? And Brown takes credit for this.
Complain about this comment
"[Gordon Brown] claimed credit for the fact that the Lockerbie bomber was not visible in Tripoli last night"
He would, wouldn't he.
If something happens and he feels it's good, he claims credit, if bad he denies responsibility. Booming economy, all down to him ,realisation that booming economy was mirage, nothing to do with him.
It's pathetic really.
Complain about this comment
Nick suggests that many of his (Browns) own colleagues will ask on earth he did not say any of this before.
I would suggest his reticence could be because Brown needed to clear it with Prime Minister Mandelson first.
Brown does not display much, if any, of the sure-footedness that a true leader must have.
Complain about this comment
After all the huffing and puffing about Magrahi's release it seems to come down to only one thing.
As far as the Libyans were concerned all deals would be off if Magrahi died in prison in Scotland.
A hot potato indeed for Brown & Co and even more for the Scottish Government if they were to insist on keeping him there.
So a way had to be found that seemed acceptable to all.
It has backfired but that's what happens when you think you can deal with someone like Ghadaffi. Are we really so desperate?
Complain about this comment
Yet again it's clear that Brown has misled us, saying (or not saying) one thing in private and another in public.
Why can't he be honest for once in his life rather than treat us like fools? Everyone knows trade and economic interests were behind the scheming of his government and the 'advice' that would have gone to Edinburgh. And now he tries to hide behind Alex & Co.....
Brown is a dreadful Prime Minister and isn't even a good politician. I don't see how anyone can trust a word that comes out of his mouth.
Complain about this comment
#48 "a pigs breakfast at the moment which satisifies no-one"
Don't you mean a Dog's Breakfast?
Personally I have pig FOR breakfast at every opportunity and find bacon very satisfying :-)
Complain about this comment
With so much money at stake in Libya, understand that the US Gov knew all along that the man would be released and approved in private, and then looked peeved in public. Do not beleive that the SNP would have acted without approval from Westminster on this issue. The truth here is that all these politicians are lieing.
Does this matter, no because we must have the gas and oil, and not lose out to China and Russia. Unfortunate but so true.
Complain about this comment
Robert Carnegie has a point, which either deliberately or through obtuseness you are ignoring, Nick. 'We do not want to see him die in prison' can mean two things: 'We want him not to die in prison', or 'We have no particular wish to see him die in prison'. You are assuming that Rammell meant the first of these, when it seems to me pretty obvious that he meant the second - because the issue was whether or not the UK government would stand in the way of his release. If he meant the first meaning, he would surely have addressed his remarks to the Scots, as they, not the Libyans, were in a position to release the prisoner. Both Rammell and Miliband explained this pretty clearly on Today this morning, despite Evan Davis's shameful attempts to stop Miliband from answering his question and thereby, as they say, shooting his fox. Jim Naughtie clearly did understand the point, because he put this to Cameron later on, but, shamefully again, when Cameron wittered on instead of addressing the point Naughtie failed to interrupt him. Perhaps when you're looking for protection from the Murdochs, you avoid interrupting PMs-in-waiting, but I've just listened to it again, and there's really no excuse for Naughties's feebleness.
Complain about this comment
A very carefully crafted speech that was read...
On our part there was no conspiracy, no cover up.... no private assurances by me to Colonel Gadaffi...
Why was there a change of emphasis during that list of what had not apparently happened, from the wider and more collective "our part", to the very narrow "no private assurances from me to Colonel Gadaffi".
Does this not leave open the prospect that others gave private assurances to Gadaffi, either prior to Browns Prime Ministership (we know the documents relating to Blairs discussions are not to be revealed), or by other members of Browns government?
Complain about this comment
It would appear that UK media are now turning on themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/02/megrahi-conspiracy-scottish-jurisdiction
Complain about this comment
Is it not the case that Scotland does not have a Foreign Minister because it does not need one? And the reason for this is that the Government of the United Kingdom (currently under the alleged leadership of the almost invisible Gordon Brown)is responsible for foreign affairs.
Is this not just another illustration of Gordon Brown's complete abdication of leadership on any issue which might be vaguely contentious? Surely we should be able to expect more than this.
The conclusion I draw is that he has clearly been out of his depth for a considerable time.
Complain about this comment
ScotInNotts
Not sure if devolution is quite so cut and dried as you think. Although in this case the British parliament couldn't intervene it is quite clear from the Scotland Act 1998 that they Westminster has the last world.
To quote the Scotland Act. Section 35:
"35 Power to intervene in certain cases
(1) If a Bill contains provisions—
(a) which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
(b) which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent."
There is clearly only one government in the UK and it isn't at Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
It is reassuring to read from the Scots who post that your government is independently corrupt and not dependent of the larger political corruption. New adverts for tourist should read: Scotland, the land of compassion. Should play well in the Arab world.
Complain about this comment
#24 1. Why did the USS Vincennes mistake the Airbus A300B2, Iran Air Flight 655, for a F14 Tomcat fighter?
Not sure that the Irainian Air force had any F14 tomcats, maybe Russian Migs etc.
I understand that the reason was partly to do with the way that the "Command system" on the USS Vincennes reported information to the controllers. They would not been able to make a design that would have avoided shoting it down. There was no indication that it was a civil aircraft present to them.
Although given that Fast Jets and Civil Aircraft had different handling qualities for turning speed etc. They might have been able hold of any action but that might have put the USS Vincennes in danger if it was found out to be "hostile" and too late to tack avoidance actions.
Complain about this comment
I have found the news media like poison pen letter writers over this Lockabie bomber it is done the Scots have held their hands up and Brown stays in place. Calling the head of State a mad dog after we took up with Bush and Cheney is a the pot calling the kettle moment of course they made deals like that man being in prison did he really do it? How? There was no screams or reporting about what the Israelis are doing to this day in Gaza from the BBC or Brown or Miliban or Peter Mandleson Lord of Spin nothing yet this man was with Nathan Rothschild on holiday doing deeds and you can better they are up to no good.
When we have an open enquiry about what really happened and how involved was this man then we have nothing to say he will be dead soon and will have to meet those he killed if he killed them. But money and greed = POWER and that is what it is about and yes Governments will sell its people for this.
Complain about this comment
How do you know when Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson are lying.....just watch their mouths, they'll be moving. Does anybody believe them anymore? If not why are they still here?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
42. At 3:00pm on 02 Sep 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:
#11 nautonier
"Are both of Mr Alex Salmond and Mr K. MacAskill now going to resign?
There come's a point... when ... well, you know what I mean..."
For what exactly?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Being influenced by a New Labour stitch up with a non-independent legal decision
2) Inappropriate statement about an undeclared higher authority?
3) Bringing Scottish and UK legal systems into disrepute?
4) Likely effect on early release decisions for other prisoners/terrorsist now that the precedent is set?
5) Poor process - e.g. single medical opinion?
6) Sheer naivety of thinking he would not be paraded as a national hero upon his return?
7) Pandering to dictatorships in e.g. Libya - it's no use preaching compassion and human rights and then being intimidated by a country like Libya which has no such scruples or values?
8) Compassion for the victims and their families?
9) Come and bomb us message to any/all terrorists?
#17 nautonier
"How much of the army, navy and air force equipment would Brown simply give away to Scotland as including a couple of trident submarines - or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?"
Scotland doesn't want anything to do with nuclear, power stations or weapons. In fact we're trying to get you to take back the nuclear subs Westminster 're-deployed', more like relocated to be decommissioned in Scotland.
>>>>>>>>>
Despite the declared animosity between SNP and New Labour, I think there is growing alarm particularly south of the border as to how damaging Scottish Independence could be to 'Britain' with Gordon Brown/ New Labour in control in terms of e.g. re-organisation of national defence.
Although, I must admit that when the Scottish coastal waters are full of foreign fishing and other vessels after 'independence day' it will be interesting to see what if anything the Scottish government would do about that?
You may think that you speak for Scotland but I'm not so sure especially if the political landscape changes through Independence?
Perhaps the real motive for Independence is to maintain the English subsidy for Scotland via the EU, as a newly formed bankrupt/indebted state?
Complain about this comment
#75 skynine
Well given those provisions of the Scotland act which of those do you think applies in this case? 1b clearly doesn't apply, and if you think 1a applies, then they would have a hell of a job proving such grounds existed, something even in the documentation released they were unable to show.
How do you think it would play if Westminster meddled in any Scottish judicial preceding? Again, your disdain for Holyrood shines through. I'm afraid that whilst those provisions are in the Scotland act can you imagine the furore if they were ever enforced without reasonable cause? There are two powers in Scotland, only one of which is Westminster, that's a fact whether you like it or not.
Complain about this comment
Supporting comment number 41 - yesterday I watched (on Sky News) a fascinating interview with Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the plane crash. He supports the release and believes that there is significant doubt about the original conviction and that we still are far from having the facts. The media seems to be almost entirely ignoring this aspect, which in my mind is far more important than the current overblown controversy about who said what to whom.
Complain about this comment
Suprise suprise Gordon Clown and the Liebour Party at it again
Complain about this comment
We are told that our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, confirmed that the government [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]did not want to see Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi die in a Scottish prison.
So let's get this straight... the ONLY interpretation of this breathtaking comment is that the government wanted al-Megrahi to go back to Libya. This was the official will of the Her Majesty's Government - not some petty official, or an out-of depth local politician.
Why the government was so keen to avoid al-Magrahi dying in prison is unknown. But there are a number of pressing questions:
Why was the Labour Government so keen to get rid of this prisoner?
Did our Scottish-dominated Labour government want to use this opportunity to 'persuade' al-Megrahi to drop his appeal? Were they afraid that his conviction would be declared unsafe, thereby showing the Scottish judiciary in a poor light?
Why was Brown so keen to suggest it was up to Scottish 'Justice' Secretary Kenny MacAskill to decide when the British Government clearly wanted to get rid of al-Magrahi - and had specifically made this clear to Gaddafi?
What role did Mandelson play in all this when he had his "fleeting conversation about the prisoner" with Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi whilst on holiday?
Why would Gaddafi's son say the deal was linked to trade if it were not true? As reported by the BBC, he told Libya TV that "In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table
Why is it claimed that "the issue had been raised repeatedly by Britain's former prime minister Tony Blair"?
Why would Colonel Gaddafi say (as reported) the UK prime minister had "encouraged" the Scottish Government to take what he called a "courageous" decision, if that were not the case.
Why did this spineless and incompetent government not make the prisoner return contingent on the extradition of the person who murdered WPC Yvonne Fletcher?
Is this the end of the road for the discredited SNP and the failed devolution experiment?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#80, sagamix wrote:
"rjd @ 38/52
good to see you still rockin' Robin - and I do like "self serving, self righteous, posturing buffoon of a man" - yes, like that a lot - you're rather like an old fashioned Head of House, aren't you? - spare the rod, spoil the child, right? - Harsh but Fair - and I think you're one of many whose hatred/contempt for Brown (with which I empathise, btw) gets in the way of rational analysis of Labour's record over the piece - "
Saga,
I realise that was a private comment to rjd. But it's so tempting...
A "rational analysis" of Labour's record over the piece proves that we are effectively bankrupt.
(OK. We pretend that quantative easing doesn't really mean "making up money"... All it means is that we are printing our children's money today and hope like heck that enough of them live long enough to create enough to cover the gap.)
Over the piece, I've forgotten just how many conflicts "we" signed up to. While trying to reduce the cost of defence. And assuming that 10 or 12 billion would be better spent on ID cards (which were justified in so many ways that they just can't make sense) than on providing a truly professional army with the best kit available.
We have children with great exam results, but rather doubtful depths of learning or understanding.
(And proposals that a hair dressing and beauty diploma should equate to 3 A levels... So children who'll probably think that "hair follicle" was named after a German inventor - Herr Follickle.)
Also children who rank really high on the list of drunkeness and teenage pregancy, but don't feature too highly elsewhere.
We have a QANGO responsible for spending "Our" money on buildings for tertiary education, but couldn't work out that what they promised as cash was rather higher than the "real" money available.
Meanwhile, PFI (meaning private investment) deals to build hospitals were so badly contracted that NHS Trusts are told to reduce real health-care spending to meet the costs of new buildings.
And a mass of "indirect taxes" that actually impact far worse on the poorest paid / lowest income groups than on the richer segments of society.
And a new 10p tax-band (good!) then withdrawal (bad!!!) with no proper corrective action.
And promises to create several hundred thousand apprenticeships over the years. (My estimate is that we are already 100,000 places BEHIND the promises, forgetting any upcoming promises of a job/training/whatever for the under 24s.)
The REAL topic is the Libyan stuff. (Please note MODS!)
It smells. I'd still like to know exactly what commitment was given to the USA when al-Megrahi was brought to trial. The Americans obviously believed that this guy (if convicted) would remain in a Scottish jail.
For the trial (during which the prosecution made a fairly limited case) to take place, a part of the Netherlands had to be declared "Scottish", so that the Scottish judiciary could be deemed to be valid.
I don't really care if Magrahi was released on compassionate grounds. I have no illusion that he was an independent agent who blew up an airplane.
I'd rather have liked the killer of WPC Fletcher to be handed over in exchange but that's long gone...
Saga, I'd rather like to know exactly which piece of "the piece" concerning future energy supply you think New Labour has addressed. Even the recent documents admit that electricity supply could require rationing within 8 years.
Remind me. Just how many new generating stations have been built in the last decade? (Don't talk about windmills. We subsidise them to be built and subsidise the output. And just how many UK companies has Brown invested in to deliver a highly variable energy supply anyway???)
Complain about this comment
#81 nautonier
"1. Being influenced by a New Labour stitch up with a non-independent legal decision
2) Inappropriate statement about an undeclared higher authority?
3) Bringing Scottish and UK legal systems into disrepute?
4) Likely effect on early release decisions for other prisoners/terrorsist now that the precedent is set?
5) Poor process - e.g. single medical opinion?
6) Sheer naivety of thinking he would not be paraded as a national hero upon his return?
7) Pandering to dictatorships in e.g. Libya - it's no use preaching compassion and human rights and then being intimidated by a country like Libya which has no such scruples or values?
8) Compassion for the victims and their families?
9) Come and bomb us message to any/all terrorists?"
In response to you list of points:
1) Nonesense, there was no influence on the SNP from NuLab, and if there had been the SNP would have screamed from the rafters about it.
2) Is that your only bone of contention regarding the statement and decision?
3) The Scottish legal system has been upheld in the face of international scrutiny, there's no such thing as a UK legal system.
4) The principles are already enshrined within Scots law, it sets no precedent for any other legal system
5) Due process was observed, and if recent reports from Lybia are accurate then they were also correct.
6) A request was made to the Lybian government regarding their conduct on his return, what other control would you like to have seen exercised? Could Westminster have ensured something other happened? Doubt it,
7) Intimidated by Lybia? The decision was made on the basis of Scots law, why is this difficult to grasp
8) Their views were taken into account within the bounds of the legal process
9) What part exactly sent that message? A ridiculous notion.
In response to your second tirade:
"Despite the declared animosity between SNP and New Labour, I think there is growing alarm particularly south of the border as to how damaging Scottish Independence could be to 'Britain' with Gordon Brown/ New Labour in control in terms of e.g. re-organisation of national defence.
Although, I must admit that when the Scottish coastal waters are full of foreign fishing and other vessels after 'independence day' it will be interesting to see what if anything the Scottish government would do about that?
You may think that you speak for Scotland but I'm not so sure especially if the political landscape changes through Independence?
Perhaps the real motive for Independence is to maintain the English subsidy for Scotland via the EU, as a newly formed bankrupt/indebted state?"
I'm not entirely sure what point your trying to make.
Defence is an old issue with regards to independence. Rest assured Scotland would have it's own military forces, and enough fisheries patrol vessels to see off encroaching fishing vessels. Clearly Scotland would not require or be able to sustain as large a force as the UK currently has, however do you think it would be good policy for an independent Scotland and England not to co-operate in defence of the same Island land mass if the need arose?
I wondered when we would get to your real bone of contention which is the funding of Scotland, which I won't get into here in any detail. Suffice to say your comment regarding Scotlands's motive for independence and EU membership is fanciful.
Complain about this comment
# 85 me
Not sure why a link (above) was unsuitable or broken - possibly I made a typo. It was intended to link to a BBC report about Miliband confirming "that government did not want to see Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi die in a Scottish prison"
The correct link is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8233009.stm
Complain about this comment
#85 DistanTraveller
"Is this the end of the road for the discredited SNP and the failed devolution experiment?"
Surely you understand the political realities in Scotland better than that. Firstly, the SNP are far from discredited on this single issue. Secondly, devolution was never an experiment and is not seen as a failure in Scotland, rather as a stepping stone to furhter autonomy in it's affairs.
The only way devolution ceases to be is when independence or a federalised UK takes its place, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle on this one.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I suppose that one of the gruesome fascinations for professional journalists reporting politics is 'where will be story lead us?' ala Watergate as an ultimate sort of example.
Todays Times leader states that politicians must have skills ranging from intellectual rigour right through to rat-like cunning.
So, in some sense, we the people, as passive bystanders, watch the game being played out between the two camps, politicians slipping and sliding their way through their business whilst some members of the fourth estate sniff around for a possible kill.
You might think that this particular story could result in a few politicians heads rolling but I very much doubt it because 'they' have realised that they can brass it out now in just about any set of circumstances, provided the story does not run for more than a couple of weeks.
I think that nobody has resigned as a point of honour since Carrington around the time of the Falklands War and I do not expect to see any other politician doing that in this country during the rest of my lifetime.
Complain about this comment
Nautonier, your "facts" are skewed and your opinions are mis-informed.
MacAskill acted on advice that included several medical opinions.
He followed Scottish law in releasing him, he is the justice minister, did you expect him to ignore the laws he presides over?
Scotland is rich in renewables and doesn't need, require or desire nuclear power or weapons.
You convienently ignore the billions of pounds of oil revenue that flow into the U.K. coffers and eclipse the "subsidy" from your "generous" country.
Recent figures project a minimum of 30 yrs of full oil production before our existing, exploited fields run dry. We have vast unexploited oil reserves. That should stop us knocking on your door with our begging bowls.
If you feel you have to comment on this tawdry affair, at least try and read up on the facts from an unbiased point of view before you post.
Your sort of bigotry and Daily Mailish hysteria is exactly the reason so many Scots are tired of this unholy alliance.
Complain about this comment
ScotInNotts,
If you are going to criticize me at least don't put words into my mouth, I wrote:
"Although in this case the British parliament couldn't intervene it is quite clear from the Scotland Act 1998 that they Westminster has the last world."
You replied:
"Well given those provisions of the Scotland act which of those do you think applies in this case?"
Westminster doesn't interfere in Scottish judicial proceeding the same as it doesn't do the same in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I'm not anti Scottish, I am however against the lop sided devolution that allows the Scots to interfere in English matters all the time while maintaining their "independence".
Complain about this comment
fairly @ 87
but on the other hand one can point (inter alia) to ...
- calm (and reasonably sensible) handling of this latest Libya "crisis"
- statutory minimum wage
- liberal immigration policy
- raft of forward thinking equal opportunities and diversity legislation
- major investment in public services
- prudent refusal to cut the overall tax burden
- widespread acceptance of decent "PC" values
- devolved control of monetary policy
- radical constitutional reform
- expansion of the tertiary education sector
(starter for ten)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ScotsInNotts @ 90
The current UK political system has become wildly dysfunctional, inadvertently exacerbated by the devolutionary process.
All sorts of anomalies are being revealed and it is unfortunate that most English people are so disinterested in politics that they generally fail to see it.
So due to our political apathy, we English end up relying on the Scots to the right thing in November 2010 and force politics on this island to be recast into a less contradictory, more equitable system.
Complain about this comment
"...the value of Libya turning her back on terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons..."
This statement from yourself which as you rightly say is the 'realpolitik' of this issue and not BP/oil etc etc and all the other conspiracy nonsense - can you explain to me why the BBC for instance never once presented these issues for consideration at any time in any debate or reporting but simply ground the oil conspiracy in to the dust? people can rightly question the handling of this by the PM but your own words beg questions of the competence in reporting by media such as the BBC itself.
In Scotland this entire episode has become a debate over ministerial competence and decision making (even though Magrahi is clearly edging closer and closer to death by the day - BBC Scotland news reckoned he would be dead before all the British in-fighting is over) with not a word of oil conspiracies whilst over the border the conspiracy freaks make hay.
Complain about this comment
#97 oldbaldy
Clearly you haven't been reading Brian Taylors blogs.
Complain about this comment
88. At 7:11pm on 02 Sep 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:
#81 nautonier
93. At 7:41pm on 02 Sep 2009, gentlemanheelander wrote:
Nautonier, your "facts" are skewed and your opinions are mis-informed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
You guys seem to be following in the footsteps of Gurning Gordon and his denial of reality.
This is the BBC's latest headline:
'The Scottish Government has suffered a defeat in parliament over its handling of the Lockerbie case.
Opposition parties united in a vote to condemn the decision to free terminally-ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
The move fell short of a vote of no-confidence in the SNP government.'
>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you please stop peddling your poisonous insipid twaddle and take your Gurning Gordon back to where he belongs?
The prospect of Gurning Gordo/ Labour Government breaking up Britain's public and private infrastructure to appease a discredited Scottish Looney party, with Scottish independence, is extremely worrying indeed, for any number of reasons.
Please don't take my word for it - Why don't you ask the BBC to run another public opinion survey north and south of the border!
Also, Scotland is heaviliy subsidised - according to that distinguished Scottish MP, Gordon Brown - irrespective of oil revenues on a short, medium or long term basis - whether its the Post Office, Health Education, Defence etc.
Complain about this comment
just a thought...how many other prisoners has kenny mcgaskill visited in their cells...how many other prisoners have been released on compassionate grounds in the past year? oh and anyone noticed that UK oil imports from Libya have increased 400% in the past four years......
Complain about this comment
Re NR 10.43 am
47/53/72
Thank you for your comments.
My intention was to encourage you to test your assumptions about Lockerbie,think politically and not to give specific answers.
Instigator? Who were the main actors and events preceding the destruction of the airliner?.What were the significant incidents and motives which could have led to the planting of a bomb?
Conduits? This information requires local knowledge of Libya,of its neighbours, and of politics at the Ghaddafi court at that time.
Means: Mr Al megrahi was a low level operative in a web of conspiracy.
Specific information is known by intelligence officers,diplomats,senior military personnel and some intelligent journalists.
Oil for Megrahi is the back story and has the advantage of distracting less knowledgeable people from the real events.
Complain about this comment
Nautonier,
You've just confirmed my original statement.
I certainly won't take your word for it as you obviously can't defend your argument with any concrete facts or figures, just your misinformed, blinkered opinion.
"Gurning Gordo"? He won't break up the union, the revulsion that is rising in Scotland over the unbelievable attacks on our nation over something we may not like or agree with but is entrenched in our legal system, will surely hasten this break up, which once you vote in the Tories next year is a certainty.
When we are divorced and you suddenly see your GDP dropping through the floor from the absence of OUR oil revenues even though you've been freed from "supporting" our country, I'll look forward to your grovelling retraction.
Also, once we stop this bickering over who supports who and we are resposible for our own affairs, I look forward to improved relations with our southern neighbours. Especialy when you realise that you have almost no renewable energy potential, your previous Tory government sold all your gas reserves, and you'll have a few pints of oil.
Complain about this comment
Why is Robinson wasting so much of our licence fee on this totally non story which with the aid of the Cameron Cleggs the media are trying to give legs to ...we have an ill man who in the first place was not guilty ...and now he has gone home to die..end of story....the real story is when will something be done to find the real guilty state that arranged all this .. one man just could not have done it...so please stop raking over who said what and when and must we have yet another of Camerons inquiries ..if he ever gets to power heaven forbid we will sink under the weight of inquiries the first of which should be why did we let this man be PM
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
the most disturbing aspect of the whole Megrahi affair is the intervention of the US and some govt departments there.
This is the same America that bombs, tortures, blockades,assassinates and executes its enemies, real or made up, often with Britain's help.
Scotland's devolved government made a decision based on Scottish law. We don't need another lecture from a bunch of murdering hypocrites whose contempt for human life is all too obvious, all too often
Complain about this comment
#102 jolo13
I assume your hint about cases of compassionate release means there has been hardly any. Actually, in the last 10 years under Scots Law 31 cases were presented and 24 allowed. The 7 rejected were because there was insufficient medical evidence presented to support the appeal.
As far as I am aware jolo13 none of these 24 successful appeal cases were related to the growth in Libyan oil output. Sorry if that blows another conspiracy out of the water.
Complain about this comment
"There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he (Brown) said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
----------
Because apart from the Iraq War (which was illegal) the Labour Party of Blair and Brown have never declared a personal opinion or taken a tough decision before they knew the answer the public wanted to hear; the opinion and decision have always come after the event depending on public reaction.
This is not leadership; it is lurch politics (e.g. Ghurkas, 10p tax, sale of Post Office, endless enquiries with no end date, and booze ASBOs etc).
What we saw today in GB's Birmingham performance was perhaps the way he wishes to see Question Time and all interviews conducted in future: you don't just ask a question, you get to answer it too with a statement you (sorry Mandelson) prepared beforehand.
We need a steady ship, a skipper with firm resolve and a sense of direction no matter what tough times and decisions lie ahead.
Complain about this comment
104. At 9:23pm on 02 Sep 2009, gentlemanheelander wrote:
Nautonier,
You've just confirmed my original statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here we go again - denial of reality. I don't need to defend my statements because based on my previous statements on a previous blog last week, the BBC appear to have not only raised many of my points but confirmed these as accurate by opinion polls and if they have not done this on e.g. 'wholesale naivety' then its a heck of a coincidence.
You don't know my voting intentions if indeed I have any and your own recently formed Parliament says that MacAskill got it wrong! I've got nothing against the Scots and I agree with most of Scotland on what it says about the Megrahi and Lockerbie Scottish National fiasco - I'm afraid its the likes of you who are in denial of reality and there will never be any kind of retraction on my part.
Never to lies, spin and parliamentary corruption - if Scotland goes its own way so be it - hopefully the SNP will try to bring any more discredit or expense for merry old England/Britain - on your road to independence!
Just remember - that Gordo says that 'you' are all subsidised!
All that appears to be needed now is e.g. for MacAskill, Salmond and a few others to resign and for a very small SNP delegation to go to the USA and elsewhere and personally meet with the victims families and apologise unreservedly for the offence caused by their mishandling of the affair and then perhaps everyone can move on to the next phase of Scottish history.
Compassion sometimes requires apologies when offence has been needlessly and incompetently created.
Complain about this comment
#108 it is you who is inferring the conspiracy theory.. and you didn't answer the questions.. how many people released in the past YEAR and how many other prisoners visited...
Complain about this comment
When I have the misfortune to accidentally catch Gordon Brown speaking on the news, I now tend to do the same thing that Brown does whenever anyone asks him a question. ie stick my fingers in my ears and go "la la la I can't hear you", because I know that every word he utters is either a blatent lie, or massively misleading to the point that it may as well be a blatent lie, or that it's completely irrelevant to what was being asked.
Most people in the UK have learned to ignore him (ie the "are his lips moving? well, he must be lying then so I'm not listening" argument holds true for most people regarding Brown), but the Americans haven't learnt that yet as they haven't had the full 12 years of constant spin/lies/obfuscation from him/labour that we've had, hence the massive damage this is doing to us as a country.
Nick; pay attention to "35. SocratestheGooner" - because what they wrote about Brown's logic not making any sense will help point you in the right direction, as will the various "follow the money" pointers that people have suggested that you look at. SocratestheGooner's point is a very good one, and it's one which all journalists should be asking Brown about.
Complain about this comment
Nautonier,
What is reality? The opinion of "Gordo" who has a vested interest in keeping the union? The BBC, who for the first time commissioned a poll because they couldn't find one with the opinions they wanted?
The opposition parties in Edinburgh are all unionist and would vote against the SNP even if they'd solved world hunger!
Please remember that although the SNP are a minority government, they are still the largest party in Scotland and a majority of Scots support them. When you call them the "loony" party you insult us all.
Just a wee suggestion Nautonier, why don't you travel to Scotland and ask the first person you meet? Just stick to one question though and get back over the border quick, I wouldn't put money on you surviving if you voice any of your twisted opinions.
Sleep well :)
Complain about this comment
This was always going to be a lose lose situation for the PM. If he said he favoured release then he would be in hot water with the Americans and if he oppossed it he would be seen to be interfering in devolved affairs. Instead he did the right thing and stayed neutral but then gets blasted by the media for it. Poor Gordon!!!
Complain about this comment
Come, come jolo13 dont be embarassed about your conspiracy linking it all to Libyan oil output then get embarassed and dissolve in to double speak. Tut tut! have some faith in yourself.
Believe it or not its not mandatory that 3 or more dying prisoners have to turn up every year!! on average using those figures it is 3 every year - this year? dont know..... the year before? or indeed the year before that? I assume you have the figures year by year, if so please publish them here? or do you think they all occured in one year ten years ago and not one since then? as ever with conspiracy theorists you MUST focus on one number and grind it and grind it because you desperately need it for your made up theory. The 31 cases over ten years means nothing to you if it turns out that one of those years had no cases hmm? isnt that the situation for you here? no cases?!! in that year?!!! Conspiracy! so, you are proved correct. What a brilliant piece of analysis. Get yourself on a statistics course, they will enoy having a laugh at your use of numbers.
The prison visit - everyone knows he shouldnt have done that, its been debated openly for weeks and as I mentioned before this is becoming in Scotland a debate on ministerial competence not how much Libyan oil production has soared in the last 4 years.
Yer a sad wee man jolo13, but you have your conspiracy and THAT number you so desperately need (like Golum with his ring, his birthday present), always remember to ignore the other figures of course, just that one, that one, nothing else, always. A sad wee man.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
113. At 10:45pm on 02 Sep 2009, gentlemanheelander wrote:
Nautonier,
>>>>>>>>>
Your comments discredit yourself as well as your party.
I can see that your veiled threats show the kind of Scotland that you wish to re-create - isolated, backward and adrift where free speech is discredited and unwelcome, with the country to be in the hands of your new political elite which takes you back/down at least to level of the Labour government/leadership under M. Foot and N. Kinnock, if not worse.
Apologies are now in order for the victims families - it takes real stature/substance to apologise unreservedly and say 'we got it wrong'. Is the SNP up to the task in hand?
Complain about this comment
75. skynine
The Scotland Act is detailing how the devolved Scottish parliament is allowed to pass Bills, it is defining its legislative nature not its legal system. As has been pointed out already, the Scottish legal system predates devolution (not to mention the unions of crowns and parliaments).
The section you quoted is referring to the prevention of Bills being passed in the Scottish Parliament which are covered by the clauses contained in your quote.
It is not directly relevent to the independece of the Scottish judicial system.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
111. jolo13
"it is you who is inferring the conspiracy theory.. and you didn't answer the questions.. how many people released in the past YEAR and how many other prisoners visited..."
There were no other prisoners invloved in a Prisoner Transfer Agreement appeal, which is the context in which MacAskill's visit was made.
So the answer would be none, which might look good for your point, if the answer wasn't arrived at by displaying your ignorance about the subject that you're seeking to make a point of.
Complain about this comment
We now have a sham in British Politics in what is being said by the Labour Leader in the Scottish Parliament, and the view given by the Labour Party's David Milliband at Westminster whereby he is accepting that it would be wrong to keep Megrahi imprisoned.
So, what doe's Gordon Brown do, for doe's he i.e.:
[1]. Agree with the Leader of The Labour Party at Hollyrood, where the Scottish Labour Party have just voted against the SNP Government, to voice their opinion by objecting in terms that Megrahi should not have been released. or: doe's Brown;
[2]. Continue to pro-claim that this was only a decision that was at best left in the hands of the Scottish Government to decide upon "only".
Effectively, pulling the rug out from under the feet of any Labour Party objections at Hollyrood whereby Brown is accepting that the Scottish Justice Minister did have the legal right to have the final say, and arrive at his own decisions about whether or not to release Megrahi?
[3]. Agree with David Milliband that the release of Megrahi was indeed the correct decision? And if so;
Then, why is it that now after 12 day's Brown has not fully endorced the decision taken by the Scottish Government, by giving an offical Westminster Government opinion as to whether, or not they agree with the Scottish Government's decision to release Megrahi?
For we already know what the American Government thinks about the Scottish Government's decision to release Megrahi, even thought it is of no legal concern of their's as to what action's is taken under another Country's Law's,[ in the Case: Scotland ], as America would never let any other out-side Countries interfer in any of their U.S. Government legal decision making under any circumstances.
Complain about this comment
33. gogoginger
There is an excellent piece on the actual policy and law on compassionate release in Scotland, on reading it you'll get a sense of the weight of obligation to grant compassionate release. It came up in the comments on Brian Taylor's blog, but I post here in response to your comment as it also highlights, and links to the English policy (very similar to the Scottish).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
FOM @ 116
in ten pin bowling terms, not an alley ball but no way a strike! - here's a hasty and superficial response from me
(1) Libya - possible scapegoat (but in any case dying man) released in accordance with Scottish law - better relations with Libya - possible trade benefits - no grandstanding - not sure how they could have handled it any better, to be honest
(2) minimum wage - yes, flouted, but what law isn't? - certainly would be more exploitation without it - just like there'd be more road deaths without speed limits
(3) immigration - we need people in, and we should (within reason) let them in
(4) diversity - a good thing - changing the face of the country for the better - preference for no legislation, but sometimes it's required
(5) public services - plenty of money wasted, damn right about that, but there HAVE been substantial improvements - the inferior alternative was "private affluence and public squalor" - fact we've had the private affluence anyway, come to think of it, haven't we?
(6) tax - I agree with you direct taxes are better than indirect - but the public wouldn't wear rises to the headline rate and the money had to be found somewhere, otherwise borrowing would have gone out of control even before the bank bailout
(7) political correctness - I believe that this is one of the great forces for good in our time - the Labour government has done more to promote it than any other
(8) monetary policy etc - agree we fell down on Regulation - the reason, however, was the Get Rich Quick culture in the City (and elsewhere) rather than the minutae of who was Lead Regulator - wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if it'd been, say, the BoE - don't even think different rules would have stopped what's happened from happening
(9) constitution - I wouldn't call it a "botch job" - I'd more say it's a work in progress - takes a long time, this sort of thing
(10) universities - I know some of what goes on sounds absurd but with longer life expectancy (and probably the need to work till you drop) and with people not wanting to grow up too soon, then the idea of spending 18 to 21 learning something (anything!) ... not least about themselves ... before the fun stops for good, has a lot to be said for it
Complain about this comment
81. nautonier
"1. Being influenced by a New Labour stitch up with a non-independent legal decision"
The legal decision was independent in Scottish Law, neither of Megrahi's two lines of appeal (which initiate the relevent due process) were initiated by New Labour. Opportunism by New Labour isn't the same as them having stitched up the Scottish Government, they may seek to profit through their knowledge of the process, but they aren't controlling it.
"2) Inappropriate statement about an undeclared higher authority?"
Wow! hardly a resigning offence, worthy of a grimace at best. Seriously, read it back to yourself.
"3) Bringing Scottish and UK legal systems into disrepute?"
The Scottish Government is responsibe for upholding Scottish Law, due process was followed and a decision made by the person legally charged with making it. Kenny MacAskill upheld Scottish Law, look to the polls of the Scottish legal profession if you are in doubt.
"4) Likely effect on early release decisions for other prisoners/terrorsist now that the precedent is set?"
Precedent has been set for a long time, and has been followed in the same way by every Justice Secretary. 23 out of 30 cases put forward for compassionate release, the ones which were refused were refused because they failed to meet the criteria - unlike Megrahi.
"5) Poor process - e.g. single medical opinion?"
Untrue, due process was followed. To your medical opiion example - several consultants; oncologists, urologist, palliative care team, consultant tasked with second opinion, were used. You'll find the document on the Scottish Government website.
"6) Sheer naivety of thinking he would not be paraded as a national hero upon his return?"
It's not in his power to guarantee the welcome Megrahi receives, and can't legally take it into consideration re compassionate release. Plus, if that's a hero's welcome, Libya needs to go back to the drawing board. Also if you can bear an alternative viewpoint read Saif Gaddafi's article in the New York Times.
"7) Pandering to dictatorships in e.g. Libya - it's no use preaching compassion and human rights and then being intimidated by a country like Libya which has no such scruples or values?"
Which is it then - wishy-washy compassion, or being intimidated. I'd like to know what intimidation by Libya you know of. If Libya have no sense of compassion, you believe that means we should abandon our principles?
"8) Compassion for the victims and their families?"
If compassion for the families of the victims and their families were a bar to showing compassion to a prisoner, then compassionate release would be impossible to from in law. Is that your position, that there should be no compassionate release?
"9) Come and bomb us message to any/all terrorists?"
Just facile.
Complain about this comment
Instead of the world thinking of Scotland as a compassionate country the actions of the Labour, Conservative and LibDem opposition in the Scottish Parliament will now cause the world to think that Scotland is a country full of blood thirsty rednecks. The naivety of the opposition has blighted Scotland's reputation and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Complain about this comment
Whether Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was complicit in the Lockerbie bombing or not I do not know.
A prisoner transfer agreement between Libya and the UK had been reached after al-Megrahi had been convicted and that the Libyan government knew that al-Megrahi was excluded from the PTA due to a previous agreement between the UK and US governments that he would serve his term in a Scottish jail and not be re-patriated to a Libyan jail.
If al-Megrahi was not dying then he would still be in a Scottish jail and would serve the remainder of his term (barring successful appeal) in a Scottish Jail (oil or no oil)
al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds to spend his remaining short time with his family. (who happen to live in Libya, if they lived on the Clyde then that is where he would be spending his remaining days)
We do not have captital punishment in any part of the UK.
Keeping someone in jail when you know that they have a terminal illness and a prognosis of 3 or less months to live is capital punishment by default.
Gordon Brown asked the Libyan government to be low key in al-Megrahis return so as not to offend US sensibilities who do not understand compassionate release.
The US does have capital punishment and therefore no compassion. (and they are the lessor for it)
The Arab world does not see this release as a weakness of a western government but they see it for what it is, a compassionate act by a civilised nation.
Complain about this comment
72. egrid1 wrote:
A very carefully crafted speech that was read...
On our part there was no conspiracy, no cover up.... no private assurances by me to Colonel Gadaffi...
Why was there a change of emphasis during that list of what had not apparently happened, from the wider and more collective "our part", to the very narrow "no private assurances from me to Colonel Gadaffi".
Does this not leave open the prospect that others gave private assurances to Gadaffi, either prior to Browns Prime Ministership (we know the documents relating to Blairs discussions are not to be revealed), or by other members of Browns government?
Got it in one... my thoughts entirely. A lawyer's lying speech, only instead of Blair, I'd put our enobled Lord Mandleson firmly in the frame on this.
Complain about this comment
#90 ScotInNots
"Firstly, the SNP are far from discredited on this single issue. Secondly, devolution was never an experiment and is not seen as a failure in Scotland, rather as a stepping stone to furhter autonomy in it's affairs."
Well, I suppose whether the SNP are discredited or not must be in the eye of the beholder! SNP votrs no doubt still support them, but I'm afraid World Opinion is against you here.
Devolution was never intended to be a 'stepping stone' to further autonomy - is was a misguided attempt by New Labour to bribe Scottish voters to remain faithful to Labour! Labour knows it is very unlikely to command a majority at Westminster without Scottish voters, who were traditionally Labour. But as we now know, this plan didn't work and disgruntled Scottish Labour voters have turned to the SNP. This ingratitude has no doubt come as a nasty shock to Labour strategists who are now running around like headless chickens.
You say "there is no putting the genie back in the bottle on this one".
You're probably right. Unfortunately, unlike Scotland, England doesn't have a genie, and our Prime Minister doesn't have any bottle....
English folk are rightfully very weary of hearing how Scotland deserves special treatment because historically it is a separate country and therefore entitled to more autonomy. England is also a separate country, and has a far greater population (there are more people in London alone than the whole of Scotland). Yet England not only has NO autonomy from Scotland, it is actually ruled by a Government that owes its majority in part to Scottish voters. To add insult to injury, Scottish MPs in Westminster no longer represent their own constituents, because most Scottish issues have been devolved to Holyrood.
It's the tail wagging the dog, courtesy of New Labour's one-sided devolution! Still, looking on the bright side, if full independence becomes a reality, at least we will be rid of Brown and Darling.
It's ironic that English Autonomy will only happen if the Scots say so!
Complain about this comment
I bet this whole thing revolves around money!
We need it, they've got it, and Gordon Brown waited until the ink was dry on some agreement or other before putting his head above the parapet!
Yes, I know, it's a conspiracy theory-but with on the ground public services already cut back to bare bones, fat cats in education, local government, parliament etc not willing to give up their salaries, bonuses, etc, and unemployment rising, ANYTHING that brings money into the country will be welcome by our beleaguered prime minister.
I'll leave the moral debate for others far more qualified than I, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that money is at the root of this whole furore. Oil is like gold in the gold rush-it produces totally irrational behaviour and anything is acceptable to satisfy greed.
We don't have enough alternatives to cope without oil-it's an increasingly finite resource (even though BP has found loads off the coast of Mexico apparently). There's a distinct whiff of panic and stockpiling in the air-bottom line, we can live without oil, but not water. It seems someone, somewhere hasn't quite grasped this yet, and would rather have money in the national coffers.
Barking and wrong tree I think!
Complain about this comment
#102 jolo13
"just a thought...how many other prisoners has kenny mcgaskill visited in their cells...how many other prisoners have been released on compassionate grounds in the past year?"
Let's imagine that you are posing this thought out of ignorance and not trying to make a political point.
The answer is very simple.
MacAskill visited every single prisoner in a Scottish jail, whose Government made an application for prisoner transfer, but who chose to make their appeal personally, and not in writing.
If this is too complicated for yoy, then you needd to realise two simple points -
1. As Jack Straw made clear on behalf of the UK Government, a foreign Government may wish a prisoner to be repatriated - although that is the last thing the prisonwer actually wants! Consequently, all Uk justice administrations agreed that the prisonwer has the right to make his/her opinions on the transfer proposal known.
2. In Scots Law (I don't know the rules in England) all persons subject to legal process have the right to make representations personally, rather in writing. MacAskill did have a choice as to how he received al_Megrahi's submission. He could do as he did, and visit al-Megrahi in prison, or he could have had him transported to his office. Personally, I think his choice was better.
Of course, if you were simpoly making a partisan point, you won't let anything like the facts get in your way.
Complain about this comment
#111 jolo13
Working my way through the posts. What has the last year got to do with anything? Appeals for compassionate release are made by, or on behalf of, prisoners. In some years there may be a number. In other years none at all.
If you want to see the numbers for Enmgland you can look up Jack Straw's answer in Hansard, when he was questioned about the Biggs release.
Complain about this comment
#129 DistantTraveller
"World Opinion is against you here."
Interesting statement. Just how do you substantiate it? The UK media have been inevitably poor at sampling this, but the European media are at worst mixed, with a significant proportion saying that this is mainstream European Law. I haven't sampled South American, Asian, African, Australasian etc media, but if you can demonstrate that they condemn MacAskill's decisions, of course I'll believe you.
On the other hand, by "world", you might have meant "US". You might also want to ber part of a judicial system which incarcerates more of its population than China, and executes a higher proportion than Saudi Arabia. It's a free world (not necessarily here in the US!), and you are entitled to express your opinion.
Complain about this comment
#129 DistantTraveller
No matter how many times we say it, you whinging POMs never listen!
The Scots don't want their MPs voting on English only issues. That's something that only is done by the Brits representing Scottish constituencies. Why should we care how you want to run your domestic affairs? It doesn't affect us.
You don't like having a Labour Government. Fair enough, but the English voted in a majority of Labour MPs all on their own 1997 - 2005!
"It's ironic that English Autonomy will only happen if the Scots say so!"
You are by far and away the largest nation in the UK. If you want English autonomy, you can have it. Just vote for it. Of course if you simply want to be a castrated whining nation, that's also up to you.
Complain about this comment
who cares about brown, hes a shambles of a prime minister , as he was a shambles at number 11 .brownwatch 270 days(max)
Complain about this comment
Yet more Clown facts emerge today:-
The NHS is safe in NuLabour Hands but the Tories will slash and Cut 10%.
The tory 10% figure was taken directly from his pre-budget report, and today we discover that HIS goverment has comisioned consultants to CUT the NHS budget not by 10% but 20% over the next 5 years!
Can we beleive a word he says any more!
Complain about this comment
"135. At 06:48am on 03 Sep 2009, rvpisneverinjureds wrote:
who cares about brown, hes a shambles of a prime minister , as he was a shambles at number 11 .brownwatch 270 days(max)"
I care because thats 270 days where we have to see his smugg face (that is if he comes out of the bunker).
270 days NuLabour will create another 400 laws (they have averaged 1.5 per day since 1997)
270 days where he can increase goverment debt.
270 days where he can issue half truth anouncements (like yesterdays 85,000 new job oppertunitines when inface 36,000 of them we a supermarket doing additional training for EXISTing staff).
270 where he can sign long term contracts for things like ID cards.
270 where he will tell us of tory cuts and nuLabour investment (dispite looking at how to slash the NHS by 20%)
Complain about this comment
" many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"
And the answer will be," because I just thought of it"
Telling the truth does'nt take long, thinking of ways to spin/lie takes a bit longer, but you'll know that being a journalist.
Complain about this comment
"134. At 03:54am on 03 Sep 2009, oldnat wrote:
#129 DistantTraveller
No matter how many times we say it, you whinging POMs never listen!
The Scots don't want their MPs voting on English only issues. That's something that only is done by the Brits representing Scottish constituencies. Why should we care how you want to run your domestic affairs? It doesn't affect us."
Sorry but the scottish MP's almost to the man voted for UK universities to charge top-up fees, had they not voted the goverment would of lost the vote. Their votes made the policy. This was dispite knowing that their constituents would not be charge them, that their introduction was against the govements manefisto.
Complain about this comment
124 sagamix
(7) political correctness - I believe that this is one of the great forces for good in our time - the Labour government has done more to promote it than any other
===========================
The Labour Government has certainly done more to promote PC, to the extent that Poliitcal Correctness is now an industry in it's own right and a career choice in itself for thousands in government and local government.
As for "one of the great forces for good in our time". Many people simply see it as one of the (many) forces of erosion in our society from control hungry authorities resulting in the erosion of comon sense (a subjective term I know), and unfairness, divisiveness resulting in increasing contempt for the authorities.
I know your hero Harriet Harman is big on this issue, she may even send you a Christmas Card ... sorry I mean a Winter Festival Card ... for your support. I doubt that the court of public opinion is with either of you on this one.
New Labour have certainly changed the face of the country with many of the points in your list, though the changes, IMO have not been for the better, and will take a long time to reverse if at all.
Have you read about what the new mayor of Doncaster is doing? He has the right approach to this I think. This could be the new model for local authorities we desperately need.
Complain about this comment
Whether you think it was right or wrong to release this man is a matter of person conscience. However, he has been released on a matter of law. Mr Salmond has gone up in my estimation over this. To have courage in your convictions is admirable and something our PM appears to lack.
We do have asymmetric devolution in the UK and we have got here thanks to Labour. Looking at the 2005 election results does not paint a picture of a Labour majority in England. In England more people voted Con than Lab (8116005 vs 8043461) Ironically Lab have a clear majority in both Scotland and Wales. I think Scottish independence is inevitable and I think the SNP right to get Scotland to decide which way to go. As you may guess I do not live in Scotland but wish them all the best whatever they decide.
I think that England, Wales and NI should also be invited on a referendum on the Union. It is feeling like a marriage break-up when one person walks out. It may be the case that all sides would be happy with a mutual split.
Complain about this comment
wombat @ 137
I care because that's 270 days where we have to see his smug face
I understand the feeling, I really do (Brown is annoying, isn't he?) but please consider the alternative, DC - I mean, I'd much rather have an early evening cocktail and a chinwag with Cameron because he and I have quite a lot in common, not least of which is we're neither of us serious politicians
Complain about this comment
pickled @ 140
I think you're missing what PC is all about - the tabloid end of it ... Bah Bah White Sheep, that sort of stuff ... is silly but then extreme forms of anything tend to be, don't they? - as a cultural force, it's changed our society more (and vastly for the better) than any political party - bet if I transported you back to, say, 1972 you'd see what I mean - you'd wander around wondering "what sort of a place is this? ... what on Earth do these people think they're playing at?"
Complain about this comment
#140 strictlypickled
The Labour Government has certainly done more to promote PC, to the extent that Poliitcal Correctness is now an industry in it's own right and a career choice in itself for thousands in government and local government.
As for "one of the great forces for good in our time". Many people simply see it as one of the (many) forces of erosion in our society from control hungry authorities resulting in the erosion of comon sense (a subjective term I know), and unfairness, divisiveness resulting in increasing contempt for the authorities.
I know your hero Harriet Harman is big on this issue, she may even send you a Christmas Card ... sorry I mean a Winter Festival Card ... for your support. I doubt that the court of public opinion is with either of you on this one.
New Labour have certainly changed the face of the country with many of the points in your list, though the changes, IMO have not been for the better, and will take a long time to reverse if at all.
Have you read about what the new mayor of Doncaster is doing? He has the right approach to this I think. This could be the new model for local authorities we desperately need.
---------------------------------------
Definitely agree with you on this. As with so many schemes championed by this shambolic government, it has taken a good original ideal and bastardised it in the delivery.
And as a Doncastrian who was decidedly suspicious of our new mayor, so far he's done the political unthinkable by actually following up on and doing the things that he said he would in his campaign. Only this morning the local paper announced his intention to cut council tax by 3% next year.
Honouring manifesto promises? In this day and age? It shouldn't be a rare novelty - as far as I'm concerned a manifesto is a written contract between politicians and the electorate.
Complain about this comment
A lot of polite posts addressing 'Nick'. Is he now reading these again?
4. At 1:15pm on 02 Sep 2009, Breakfast-Maker wrote:
Brown is a master at saying nothing or keeping his head down while the flak is flying.
Not sure if these are talents one masters, as by definition you keep on 'doing' b-all to acquire them.
Still, I guess it helps to have many, in government and media-friendly areas, to fill the... considerable... void.
Just... not so sure it a style of leadership or representation that does me and/or my country much good, really.
Complain about this comment
@143 Sagamix
You need transporting into this country to look around now.
Successive governments have wrecked all our traditions and institutions.
Cultural force? Its more like a virus that is eating away at our very being.
But what do you expect when we are led by murderers (Iraq), thieves (expenses) and traitors (EU)?
Complain about this comment
saga 124
You wrote "(10) universities - I know some of what goes on sounds absurd but with longer life expectancy (and probably the need to work till you drop) and with people not wanting to grow up too soon, then the idea of spending 18 to 21 learning something (anything!) ... not least about themselves ... before the fun stops for good, has a lot to be said for it"
I am amazed at your position on tertiary education. Back a couple of weekends ago, you were arguing for the end of student loans and a return to the student grant, but with qualification for the grant restricted to respectable academic courses at respactable academic institutions. Other than a small number of people who might still get to do Media Studies because they can afford to go private, that meant, quite clearly, you were arguing for pruning university education back to about 1980 levels (a position that I broadly support, as it happens).
Yet now you seem to be arguing for what amounts to a holiday for practically all 18-21 year-olds. What happened suddenly across these last few days to change your mind?
Complain about this comment
143 sagamix
Can you enlighten me as the the point you say I am missing ?
"the tabloid end of it ... Bah Bah White Sheep, that sort of stuff ... is silly"
Yes it is, but whether it is tabloid sensationalism or not, it happens.
"PC ....as a cultural force"
Political Correctness is not so much a "cultural force" but more huge industry, mainly based in local government, backed up by legislation and ever increasing powers of enforcement. PC is very big business, and probably funded to the extent of hundreds of millions, if not billions, by taxpayers of one sort or another.
"it's changed our society more (and vastly for the better) than any political party"
I agree it has changed our society, though I don't agree that it's vastly for the better. Whilst it may be of benefit is some areas, it does have negative impact in others. PC has been essentially created, funded, legislated for and driven by the government. It is big business!
"1972 ....you'd wander around wondering "what sort of a place is this? ... what on Earth do these people think they're playing at?""
I enjoyed this comment! Whilst the "Life on Mars" aspect is undoubtedly true, the (probably unintentional) irony of this statement is that many people are wandering around NOW looking at Gordon Brown's government, and wondering exactly the same thing.
Complain about this comment
Re: 134 oldnat.
The reasons given over the years was that England would not give into full Scottish Independent Home Rule due to the Oil - Fields found in the Scottish Sector of the North - Sea, but now we hear from England that it cost English tax-payers through the Barnett Formular more money than they receive in Scottish Oil revenue to fund Scotland.
If this the Case then why is there not any universal grouping making up a English National Party to represent these views at Westminster, rather than trying to keep down-graded any fully independent Government for Scotland.
At this moment in time the Isle of Man Government is more independent from Westminister than the current Scottish administration is.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 143 (sorry to be on your case this morning)
I'm amused to note that while you claim increasing Political Correctness to be a success of the current government (and if you are going to base an election campaign on that, you must be desperate), the period you quote, over which you say we might be able to notice the difference (1972-2009), actually had a longer period of Conservative rule than Labour rule!
Complain about this comment
ScotInNotts: "Please enlighten me, what could Westminster offer the SNP and the SNP trust them to deliver in order to risk all in a lose lose situation such as this? That's right, absolutely nothing."
You seem to be saying that politicians trust each other...possibly the odd naive one. You seem somewhat enamoured with the SNP. Friendly warning: Salmond is like Brown. Both are politicians and therefore not to be trusted.
If I was more involved in UnHolyRood or Westmidden I could give you a better example of a deal. How about a share of the Libyan pie for Scottish companies in return for the bomber? Important for the SNP should independence come along. I am sure someone with more inside knowledge could come up with better theories. Time may tell.
Complain about this comment
Saga, could you elaborate on what this force for good has achieved? I confess to a certain bemusement on the subject, and am quite prepared to be educated. Are you referring to quotas, positive discrimination etc?
To respond to a few of your other points from 124
1) They could have handled it infinitely better by attempting honesty rather than ongoing deception of the people who voted for them. If someone had said, "yes we want to do it to protect our interests, and besides it is the compassionate thing to do" rather than "wasn't me guv" there would be nothing like the response we are seeing. Some would agree, some would disagree, but at least we would not have been taken for fools by the biggest fool of the lot.
(2) minimum wage - good and bad things about it. What is clear though is that since labour have come to power the gap between rich and poor has grown, so despite introducing a minimum wage Labour have failed in their attempt to create a "fairer" (read punishing the succesful) society.
(3) immigration - we don't "need" people in at all. On moral grounds I have huge problems with this issue in general and don't know what the answer is. A large part of me thinks it is appalling that we deny anyone the right to live where they wish to, especially those who live in such abject conditions elsewhere. From a more selfish point of view, I resent paying over my hard earned money for the large number of immigrants who come here only to sponge. As I say, I don't know the answer.
(4) Not sure what point you are making here.
(5) public services - substantial improvements? More than a bit subjective. If you consider schools that turf out kids unable to read or write, and an NHS that even the most optimistic of observers knows can not be sustained to be an improvement, then I guess I can see why you would think that. Those of us who observe rather than listen to every line fed by Labour HQ know that this Labour government has achieved the only thing any of the others have. They have thrown vast quantities of money at problems that have just not gone away. They measure success by how much they spend, not the results they get, and some people will always fall for that and think "wow, look at all that money, they must be doing the right thing".
(6) sounds like you are defending stealth taxes to me. You are essentially endorsing the government in doing what it wants to do and trying to hide its policies from the voters. A democracy is meant to work by a representative being elected on the strength of what he is elected to do, and then when he gets into power, he does it. If voters do not want something done, they will not vote for the representative. Telling voters one thing and doing another, all the while trying to hide what it is you are doing, is pretty despicable. Basically, you are trying to take the choice away from them.
(7) political correctness - strong suspicion you are on your own on this one.
(8) monetary policy etc - hypothesising to draw a conclusion is dangerous at best, criminally stupid at worse. Might have, might not have, all completely irrelevent because you can invent whatever result best suits your argument. The only relevent fact is that the recession happened on Brown's watch, after a decade of his missmanagement.
(9) constitution - hmmm.
(10) universities - Intersting way to look at it. I would tend to look at encouraging too many people to go to University as a cynical ploy to keep them out of the "unemployed" category for longer. Although of course this is exactly what most students are. However many thousands are at University are people not building up a figure that this labour government will do anything to keep down, even to the point of changing the way it is counted.
Complain about this comment
There are a number of issues that need addressing by HMG;
1. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Govt of the UK believing that it is right, for a whole host of geo-political reasons, to see a convicted murderer released.
2. What is wrong however, is to try to play the Libyans, the Americans and the British Public off against each other, and its the fact that Brown has no political courage that he is in the mess he is in. (Can you imagine Thatcher, Wilson, Callaghan or even Blair being so spineless?)
3. If HMG agreed with the release, why doesn't it say so? Quite simple really. And if it disagees with it, all it needed to do was state that, although they disagree with the decision, it was up to the Scottish Justice minister and we understand the reasons for the release. Why the problem??
4. If the issue of Al Magrahi was brought up constantly it Inter-Government discussions between the UK and Libya, why was the question of revealing the murderer of WPC Fletcher not brought up as often (if at all?)
5. It was interesting to note that there was a written afadavit by the British Govt in 1991 stating that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie murders would spend the whole of their prison term in jail in Scotland.
It was also interesting to note that the current Govt decided that this was no longer binding on them - in other words, an agreement entered into by 1 Government could be ditched for political expediency by a different Government. Does this mean that a precedent has been set, and an incoming Tory Govt in 2010 can simply state that they don't feel bound by the European Constitution (for example)?
What this sad episode illustrates yet again is how unfit to govern is the current Government.
Complain about this comment
#133 oldnat
me - "World Opinion is against you here"
you - "Interesting statement. Just how do you substantiate it? The UK media have been inevitably poor at sampling this...."
Obviously the UK media is not a perfect method of assessing public opinion, but given the widespread condemnation, it's hard to see why you doubt the unpopularity of the decision. Not only are two thirds of Scots against the decision according to a BBC poll, but the SNP was defeated in the Scottish Parliament. I am sure most people would consider this as reasonable evidence - unless of course you think the BBC is part of some English conspiracy to discredit Scotland!
Also not sure why you dismiss US opinion. The US has a huge population - and its President democratically chosen by the people (unlike our own appointed Prime Minister). Whilst we can agree the US President should not have the final say in UK affairs, his opinion is surely worthy of consideration.
BTW - I'm certainly NOT in favour of capital punishment. I believe a civilised society should show compassion, even to convicted murderers. However, in this instance, the deal struck with Libya (we may never know the actual 'terms') smacks of political appeasement rather than justice.
#134
"The Scots don't want their MPs voting on English only issues. That's something that only is done by the Brits representing Scottish constituencies."
To use your own question.... that's an interesting statement! How do you substantiate it? Do you claim to represent the 'true' voice of the Scottish people over and above their elected representatives? You seem to be suggesting that all Scots want a total separation. Perhaps if there is a referendum, we will know one way or the other!
The question of what constitutes an 'English only issue' is obviously problematic. As you say, England is the largest partner in the Union, so anything that affects the UK is also an English issue.
You say "If you want English autonomy, you can have it. Just vote for it"
No, that's the whole point! We can't just vote for it! The Scottish dominated Labour party has lavished great gifts (bribes!) on their own people in Scotland, but the English have been offered nothing comparable. The idea of 'regional assemblies' was always a non-starter; people could see these bodies would have no real power and just be an expensive additional tier of bureaucracy. Besides, fragmentation into ever smaller zones is not the way forward (unless you are a Scottish nationalist!)
Just to compare, Scotland now has it's own Parliament. London, far more populous than Scotland, has a useless and toothless 'assembly', which swallows up huge amounts of tax payers' money, but offers very little value. The Mayor, although elected, has far too much executive power for just one pair of hands. Red Ken once arrogantly boasted that he ran London as his 'personal fiefdom'. Shortly after, Londoners had the good sense to boot him out and are now much better off with BoJo.
But the point is, how would you feel about a Scottish Assembly (on the lines of London) with a Mayor of Scotland? It would be ridiculous - but this is an example of how New Labour has favoured Scotland over England.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Are you inferring that the prime minister was somewhat economical with the truth to the rest of the country?
Do we have any idea about whether this consensus was actually part of cabinet government or simply Brown on his own?
I don't suppose Brown will be doing any interviews with American networks for the foreseeable future, especially Fox, what do you think?
Does it also mean that he has blown the opportunity for the lucrative lecture circuit over in the US?
Complain about this comment
#139 icewombat
"the scottish MP's almost to the man voted for UK universities to charge top-up fees, had they not voted the goverment would of lost the vote. Their votes made the policy. This was dispite knowing that their constituents would not be charge them"
Yes this is a good example of how Scottish MPs can decide English Laws. As if this weren't bad enough, those same Scottish MPs could not vote on top up fees for Scotland, because that decision was made in Holyrood.
I am not in favour of breaking up the UK, and all other things being equal, would be happy for Scottish MPs to sit in Westminster. But all things are not equal. We have a Scottish Prime Minister and Chancellor, who between them have brought England to its knees through their blundering incompetence, whilst Scotland remains largely shielded thanks to their one-sided devolution.
Complain about this comment
Wee 'Eck has today set the ball rolling on the Independence Referedum for Scotland as promised.
Good for him and the SNP.
Hopefully, at some point past November 2010 both Scotland and England will be independent political entities, albeit still within the framework of the EU and Commonwealth.
NB. A poster above praises the mayor of Doncaster - I believe this mayor is an English Democrat - and maybe his election is a small sign that the English people are finally waking up politically and realising that the old order i.e. Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems are well past their sell-by date.
Complain about this comment
So when was the last time a ruling prime minister attended his own party conference with the threat of a US congressional enquiry into his actions hanging over him?
This is the low to which we have sunk; US democratic senator Frank Lautenberg is calling for a congressional enquiry into the actions of the UK in releasing Megrahi..the New York Times os calling Gordon Brown a 'sell out prime minister' and saying he has 'broken faith and ties with the US'...
IS this really the man we want to be running the country?
THis is a disgraceful episode in British foreign policy and this issue will not go away and I believe it will take Gordon Brown down with it. He always was in deep water once out of his comfort zone of handing out cash to his interest groups but this is the final straw for the Americans.
After spending eighteen months blaming the US for causing the global recession is it any wonder the US have turned on him and will hang him out to dry?
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
I must confess that the term P.C. seems to be the convict that for one reason or another everyone seems to be complaining about.
So just what is P.C. [ Political Correctness ], or moreover whom's Politics are we all referring too, as if by any chance we are going to admit that at some past point in the time of evolution the World stood still so that we could say that time never marched on, and there was positively no Breaking News of the Day, giving another view point on everyday topics.
Therefore, if P.C. was all about Grouud-Hog Day then I must have slept through it.
However, if you change the title from P.C. to un-wanted Do-Gooders in everyday Society trying to enforce their will upon others, then you just might carry the points you are trying to make, for it is People everytime that create problems for others, and not a label saying P.C. that nobody understands.
Complain about this comment
JRP re Unis ...
well yes I did (and still do) believe in what we said the other week - but only as a compromise - as the best way of spending a limited budget - looking more long term and big picture, I'd like to see pretty much everyone in some form of study (rather than work) until they're in their early twenties - makes enormous sense because life is getting (and will continue to get) progressively more "backended" ... you know, start work later, settle down later, have kids later, retire/die later (if at all)
so I'm not being inconsistent, I'm (mentally) multi tasking
Complain about this comment
Re NR 10:47 September 2
47
Your faith in the objectivity of newspapers is touching,but like politicians they are influenced by the interplay of interests and ideology. The majority of the population are sceptical of their content but they are a politically potent source of influence among less interested/committed voters.
Their agendas also influence television news.Most newsrooms will read the daily press and select the stories they will run.The negativism of the press also affects the way TV treats news items,emphasizing `bad news,`i.e. violence and disaster.
31:I am aware that my response to your query was less than adequate.However I cannot name names, so we must leave the specifics in limbo for the time being.I will just say that information on the Libyan involvement is counter intuitive.
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
Strictly Great DJ Hodge re political correctness ...
started at UCLA in the radical 1960s and mushroomed from there - a smooth blend of feminism, minority civil rights and good manners - its success is shown by the fact that many ridiculous attitudes prevailing back then are now obsolete ... well almost! ... and what's more, rendered so NOT by nitpicking rules and regs, or top down enforcement, but by genuine cultural take up at street level - it's been a revolution in the best sense of the word - a quiet revolution, bloodless and wholly good
Complain about this comment
"A poster above praises the mayor of Doncaster - I believe this mayor is an English Democrat - and maybe his election is a small sign that the English people are finally waking up politically and realising that the old order i.e. Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems are well past their sell-by date."
===============
The reference I made to the Mayor of Doncaster was to his intention in reducing the size, spending and indeed the role of the local council. Central to this is addressing political correctness, and challenging what the local taxpayers should actually be required to fund, amongst other things. This is what I was highlighting and praising his somewhat new approach.
The problem for me, is that this has all been allowed to grow virtually unchecked, and in some cases even encouraged by the authorities. I have always thought that councils should always be seeking to reduce the level of council tax, and that this could be done without cutting key essential services. I know, however, that this is never going to happen. But here we have someone with a plan to try and achieve just that. It will be interesting to see how he gets on.
Finally, he is indeed an English Democrat and I gather somewhat right wing in his views, which is something I definitely not supporting or praising.
Complain about this comment
rjd @ 158
but Robin, I thought we didn't want to be America's "poodle" ... wasn't that one of the big gripes with Blair?
Complain about this comment
Well, it seems the Americans have revealed that, in 1998, representatives of the UK and US governments gave an undertaking to the UN Security Council that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing would serve their term in a UK jail.
As far as I can tell, there were no "unless this or that" clauses.
Any undertaking must have been approved at the very highest level.
Subsequently, the UN Security Council passed a resolution, in response to which Libya produced al-Megrahi.
But a UK Minister recently assured the Scottish Executive that any previous undertaking was "no longer binding".
Did he do that on his own initiative? Doubtful, but:
If so, he should be sacked.
If not, then who else was involved in the decision to set aside an undertaking to the UN Security Council?
So this (our) government says that an undertaking given to the UN is only "applicable" until they change their mind. (Although there is no evidence that this was ever suggested.)
So not only did they break an undertaking jointly entered into with the USA - but also one given to every member of the Security Council.
It is obvious that the US never expected the undertaking to be broken. So this shattered, shambolic mob of an administration didn't even bother to try and pave a diplomatic path towards facilitating release.
Forget whether compassion is involved. This is the worst bit of diplomatic nonsense we've seen for decades (and that's saying a lot!!!).
A full public enquiry should be set up, with every scrap of information available to the government being produced in a "quasi-judicial" environment - with evidence given under oath.
Maybe there will even be more light shed on exactly how the bombing was arranged - and who was involved.
It's shaming that our Foreign Secretary doesn't seem to give a good goddam about the impact of a UK undertaking within the UN having to carry a clause "unless of course something crops up under Scottish legal jurisdiction".
Where on earth does that leave the UK within the UN?
No wonder Brown doesn't want to talk about this.
Complain about this comment
@158
They way your talking there, it sounds worryingly like we need America's approval for everything we do. Maybe the next P.M should be sworn in by both the Queen and The President.
Complain about this comment
#157 JohnConstable
Re: the Mayor of Doncaster, yes, he's an English Democrat, although I think that side of things wasn't as important as him not being a politican (he was a teacher at a local school). The guy who came in second was also an independent.
If nothing else I think it demonstrates how we're all sick of politicians generally.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mods why is Saga allowed all of this very of topic stuff to aired when me like other has had large quantities of post removed for being in the view of the Mods of topic ?
In which case Saga discuss the situation about bady P and the state of the Family courts and the high profile campaign to expose the family courts for what they are
1) a vaste waste of public ie tax payers money
2) In human ie no human right for mainly fathers
3) Un-equall access for father v mothers
4) allowed the death of many like bady P whilst destroying the lives of fathers children and extended familes.
5) treated the protestors like terrorists
Disuss with out moderator intervent like all your comments on this thread. Or do you have privilages reason why you can post so of topic and in imense quantities.
Complain about this comment
It is plain to everyone except the Scots that a deal was done...well let them rest on their compassionate laurels.. maybe it is because i live in France, but i never realised how sensitive the Scots are regarding the English ...anything said no matter how innocuous is immediately jumped on by oldnat and his scottish friends... methinks they do protest too much...anyway i see they are going to get a referendum on independence ...so here is your big chance to rid yourselves of the English yolk ( and all the money sent north of the border!)
Complain about this comment
Saga,
Political correctness, as we all know, has grown and mutated well beyond anything alluded to in the 1960's.
Linking it to to the initial feminism may be a bit far fetched, it was a completely different movement. And that brand of feminism, the laudable principle of equal rights, is a far cry from the rabid preachings of Harman; men are rubbish, women must be given all of the advantages.
As to some of the rest. Can you seriously be suggesting that "good manners" have become more ingrained and widespread since 1960? All evidence would appear to point to the contrary.
I'm afraid that your opinions on this, much as your opinions in general, are off in a hypotheticl idealised world that the rest of us do not live in. I actually envy you that you can see everything in such a good light all of the time, it would be far better than seeing the mess of idiotic laws, quotas and nanny stateism (my apologies) the way it really is.
Complain about this comment
#162, sagamix wrote:
"Strictly Great DJ Hodge re political correctness ...
started at UCLA in the radical 1960s and mushroomed from there - a smooth blend of feminism, minority civil rights and good manners - its success is shown by the fact that many ridiculous attitudes prevailing back then are now obsolete ... well almost! ... and what's more, rendered so NOT by nitpicking rules and regs, or top down enforcement, but by genuine cultural take up at street level - it's been a revolution in the best sense of the word - a quiet revolution, bloodless and wholly good"
Saga, I have no idea how this relates to the blog topic.
The "genuine cultural take up at street level" means that we now have kids killing each other with guns, knives, or just for the fun of recording a beating on a camera phone. Bloodless?
I can't see what has really changed over the years in social terms. Plenty of legal changes, new "frameworks" etc. But not a lot of genuine progress. If you're brought up to deal with everybody else with a bit of respect - possibly caution until you know them - why do you need a myriad of laws to enforce stuff that just isn't enforcable?
Just too much nonsense being introduced. Blackmail sounds bad. Why?
There's nothing racial implied. Blackwater in Surrey is surely not to be forced to change its name to "people of colour water". Oh, maybe it could have to consider that.
If somebody says it's black and white, that has nothing to do with race. It's a manner of speech to reflect the extremes of visual reality.
For goodness sake, people who head a group are called "The Chair". Why? Would you want a bit of furniture leading a major debate?
Oh, that's an interesting point, could we have some direction from the Table?
Do you really think that every company or organisation requires a statistically adjusted mixture of men/women, white/black (which I feel is insulting - there is a great range of "whites" and a huge range of people from across the continents - straight/gay, etc. etc.
Your pal HH seems to think that directed correction is the way ahead. Ask her exactly what "directed correctives" allowed Obama to become the Pres of the USA. He'd be pretty teed off if someone suggested he was a "token" person of colour...
Complain about this comment
sagamix 160
Well, we had the "permissive society", now, if you were to get your way, we would have the logical follow-on, the "leisure society".
I accept that your call for near-universal education up to some age in the early twenties is only for some time when you perceive that we can afford it (i.e. never). But I have to ask you, up to what point is the life of someone whose work is something like stacking shelves in a supermarket (because these jobs have to be done and there is a ready supply of people who have no higher ambitions for their careers) improved if he or she has a pass degree in "popular culture", three or more years out of the employment market and a debt of £30,000 or more - these being the costs of obtaining that degree?
And just what state of luxury in the public finances will it take before we really can afford to subtract the most productive years of a whole generation from our commercial economy? (Look at how long we took to recover, the last time we did that - 1939-45, just in case you were wondering.)
Complain about this comment
Political correctness is madness of the highest order...An example of political correctness is the changing terminology used to described handicapped people. In the past the term "crippled" was perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive. At some point, somebody decided "crippled" was degrading and the preferred term changed to "handicapped". This, too, was eventually deemed offensive and "disabled" became the preferred term. Today, "disabled" is now considered degrading and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are now the politically correct terms .....I guess soon someone will decide these too are not acceptable....
Complain about this comment
saga where are your comments to 169 if you are really interested in domocracy, you have had a wide say on many issues on this particluar blog that are very off topic.
Or is it with you its one way traffic ?
Mods to please comment on the amount of allowable off topic matter that has been allowed which supports ZANU-labour that others have had to argue down ?
Complain about this comment
#158
America has of course an extradition treaty compelling people in the UK suspected of crimes to be extradited and face trial. The English Prime Minister is NOT the head of state.
Those who live by the sword . . .
Complain about this comment
35 @ 175
saga where are your comments to 169?
hiya! ... yes sorry ... have no comment really ... get the impression that issue is close to the bone for you
JR @ 173
up to what point is the life of someone whose work is something like stacking shelves in a supermarket improved if he or she has a pass degree in "popular culture"?
well, I'm a great believer in using technology to eliminate menial jobs like that - as a product of ICOSAT, with the "T" standing for what it does, I guess you feel the same
jolo @ 174
Today, "disabled" is now considered degrading and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are now the politically correct terms ... I guess soon someone will decide these too are not acceptable
yes I hope so - let's stick with people's names, shall we?
haye @ 171
I actually envy you that you can see everything in such a good light all of the time
mmm not everything ... I don't see the Tories in a good light, for example
fairly @ 172
you're picking out the silly stuff there - all of that is a bit irritating, sure, but it pales into insignificance beside the benefits which the PC movement has brought us
Complain about this comment
#177 its not to close to the bone actually so you can comment,
the mods seem to be letting everthing through for a change so lets get on with it. I'm ready'n'willing
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 177
At the end of the day, we both know that there is a definite proportion (maybe a quarter?) of the population whose work prospects do not extend the simple, mundane and repetitive. These people make their biggest contribution to society in other ways. Except, of course, they have no such opportunity when you abuse technology to take their jobs away. Put it another way: you tried to side-step the question there. Have another go.
Complain about this comment
At 1:29pm on 02 Sep 2009, nautonier wrote:
I wonder what would happen if the Scots Nationalist win independence for Scotland from the UK and assuming Gurning Gordon would still be in power - How much of the army, navy and air force equipment would Brown simply give away to Scotland as including a couple of trident submarines - or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?
Considering Scotland pays its way within the union, on independence I think we would be entitled to some military equipment. As for the nukes our stance on having nuclear weapons on our territory is well known, we don't want them. Being honest, living next door to Faslane, I'll be glad to see the back of that place and it's nuclear arsenal.
Complain about this comment
Laughing Gordon Brown, I have been trying to find a blog anywhere that actually says nice things about our P.M. It's true that when his jaw drops and is about to speak you can see people starting to giggle, knowing that whatever he says we will be falling over and laughing in the aisles. His gaffes and political awkwardness must be by now legendary across the entire universe...c’mon Flash do something right for a change.
Complain about this comment
#57 No English Justice Minister could over rule the Scottish judicial process? Probably because we have no English Jutice Minister or any other English ministers; could this perhaps be because Labour would have no chance of control in an English Assembly or devolved parliament? Or would it be because the £5000 per head devolution bribe would be to expensive to give to the population of England unlike the smaller populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS