Where next on Megrahi?
The minister, Kenny MacAskill, sounded sporadically stressed. He stumbled over the odd word.
But then again it isn't every day that you have to defend a decision to release a man convicted of 270 murders.
Alongside the evident tension, though, a key note of assurance. Kenny MacAskill said the decision to free Abdelbaset al Megrahi was his - and he stood by it.
Opposition leaders thought several issues remained unanswered - not least the examination of alternatives to returning the prisoner to Libya and the question of whether Mr MacAskill was obliged to visit al Megrahi in person or whether written representations would have sufficed.
Utterly unscientific, I know, but Nationalist MSPs seemed, if anything, more content after the exchanges than in advance.
So where next? Following this emergency session, there will be a full-scale debate in the Scottish Parliament next week, with a vote.
SNP government ministers are pre-empting opposition attacks by tabling a motion of their own, supporting Mr MacAskill's decision.
It may prove a little difficult for the opposition parties to agree a single, common line - particularly with Labour keen to attack the SNP while the Conservatives want to widen the criticism to include the Prime Minister.
The Liberal Democrats stress that their focus is upon examining the decision itself, not pursuing Mr MacAskill in person.
More generally, a motion of no confidence seems unlikely at this stage. That might misfire as being too evidently partisan.
As so often, the verdict will rest, ultimately, with the voters.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
What is all the fuss, an innocent man has been released.
Complain about this comment
I thought Kenny MacAskill was in fine form today, but I will continue to stress that I feel opposition groups are acting like wild dogs who are hungry for blood. It still appears groups looking for the upperhand for political purposes rather then taking steps to ensure convicted terrorists do not qaulify for compassionate release.
I certainly hope that certain opposition figures break ranks to back Kenny MacAskill because the international community (in otherwords Americans) are still on the attack, we need a united front against foreign critics, even against our brothers and sisters down south who are critical of our decision.
Right or wrong, we should at least come together as people to tell the world, love it, hate it we have made our decision and this is where we stand. You can never force us to bend over!
Complain about this comment
don't post here much but after a session in which no meaningful blow landed and a range of opposition contributors ended up looking crass and foolish (honourable mention onlooking a klutz goes to Nicol Stephen) for you to begin your blog with those opening remarks makes you look partisan in the extreme Brian. BBC coverage of this goes from bad to worse.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Labour in Holyrood, and for that matter the unspoken but widely recognised alliance of Tories and Lib Dems, have always been good enough for a laugh, good enough in their mediocrity and ambling insistence on the limits that must be placed upon Scottish participation in politics. They have a fear in their own mediocrity, preferring to let the self-appointed big-boys in Westminster get on with the big important stuff, thereby exacerbating their own collective inferiority complex, and thereby, in turn, forcing them to seek to continue to insist that Scotland must lower itself to match their own standards of mediocrity, in turn, as if to supplant some wider malaise, and help them to find some cold-comfort. And, as I said, they were always good enough for a laugh, as they were, trying so desperately to draw themselves into convoluted little stories about the greatness of the union - RULE BRITANNIA - that has seen centuries of poverty, war, and democratic deficit. If they hadn't been so funny, they would have been truly tragic, but today, they let their little masks slip, and showed themselves for the pathetic and melodramatic reality that has passed for the Tragi-comedy of Labour in Scotland and Holyrood.
I must say that I've always treated Labour in Holyrood with a sort of big brotherly condescension, slightly hoping that the little rug-rat begin to show some sign of maturity, but I've wiped my hands of them today, such is the absolute depths to which they plunged. Similarly, the Tories, who I've never had much time for, but were clearly seeking to score points in the elaborate and excrutiating game Labour and the Tories have constructed for themselves, all for the aid of Cameron. Only Chisholm redeemed himself, the rest of the Labour and Tory bunch clearly content to obey the diktat that this serious matter should be a party matter, precisely at a time when it should be far from a party matter.
Unfortunately, this is the reality for people in Scotland. We have unionist parties who insist upon their own medicrity, seek that medicrity everywhere they look in Scotland, and to attempt to achieve a wider malaise, will attempt to tear apart the very fabric of the understanding of Scotland's system of justice. This is the reality, and this is the new understanding, and welcome to pre-independence Scotland, they'll do their best to make it ugly, even if they have to look in the mirror everyday, it'll be something ugly.
Complain about this comment
Tell the truth, Brian. There was not one hit on McAskill today.
And Labour will rue the day it threw principles and decency out the window as it has done since last week.
This is the day the collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland was diagnosed as terminal.
Complain about this comment
I see the BBC are peddling the line that the opposition parties were "united in anger" at McAskill's decision, today in the Scottish Parliament.
No reference to Malcolm Chisholm's support for the decision. Funny that.
I also see that BBC fell over itself to give Jack McConnell a platform yesterday in his puerile condemnation of McAskill, but not so much to Henry McLeish's endorsement.
Brian, do YOU support McAskill's decision? Glenn Campbell's absolutely raging face in recent days would suggest he doesn't. But what about you?
Complain about this comment
I think it really has become a bit of a damp squib. Earlier today I feared a destructive attack on Kenny MacAskil and the SNP but no, it was mainly a subdued affair with MacAskil performing beautifully. Next week might be another thing. A week as we are often told is a long time in politics and the dust has already started to die down. Public opinion, far from being anti-MacAskil seems to be showing a degree of support for his stance.
Iain Gray looked feeble and rather pathetic, rather like a wee five-year-old on his first day at school. He'll have to try rather harder if he wants to fatally wound this Scottish Government and I don't think he is capable of it.
A confidence vote would at this stage be suicidal. Labour in the UK and Scotland are rapidly becoming pariahs and only a few steps away from unelectability. The Tories have as much chance of being in government in Scotland as Ian Paisley has of being the next Pope. The Lib Dems under Tavish Scott are shrinking into a parody of their former selves. If they all bring this government down they had better face up to the fact that an SNP administration might be returned with a working majority.
Complain about this comment
what's happened to the moderation on this and previous blog. Could it get any slower?
Complain about this comment
I find it quite extraordinary for all these politicians’ to be saying the Justice Secretary has damaged Scotland’s reputation. All he did was apply the law under due process. Are we to believe that they don't uphold the proces of law?
I totally support the stance on the release. I like many others feel that our nation operates to a different value set to the USA. Justice without compassion is the sign of a society that has not matured and is not at ease with itself. On a secondary point, it’s a bit of a cheek the USA seeking to interfere in our justice system when they would be outraged if we tried to do the same to them. I should add it’s all a bit rich from the USA on the day some classified sections of a CIA report into the torture of US terrorism suspects are due to be made public. Which nation would I rather live in and which values would I wish to live under?
So those who rubbish the Justice Secretary with what seems little more than party political points scoring, you are the ones damaging Scotland’s interests with your posturing.
Complain about this comment
Labour and other Unionists in Scotland have seriously misjudged this one, there appears to be overwhelming and growing support for MacAskill.
Brown is silent and missing as usual, he is a political coward and doesn't know how to handle a situation much of which has been caused by Labour politicians.
The public comments from senior American figures will have been done with the knowledge of Macavity and Whitehall. The prisoner transfer agreement was accomplished by a Labour government acting with the full support of the USA. Both these administrations supported the transfer of Megrahi from Scotland, an act that would have been contrary to the terms of the original trial agreement that insisted that he serve out his sentence in Scotland.
The orchestrated attacks on MacAskill were intended to sway public opinion away from the Justice Minister whilst at the same time weakening the SNP. However, with each staged attack the support for MacAskill by the Scottish electorate increases.
The English media have now picked up the 'boycott' story and are a little uncomfortable with the fact that the much highlighted website makes mention of UK goods. This is where Macavity will be targetted by the English media, many of whom will use the opportunity to question him at some length over the very many aspects of this case.
Macavity is in a hole, if he says nothing then he will be labelled a coward. If he supports MacAskill then he (publicly) is in disagreement with the Americans, who don't really care because Cameron will be used in order to 'mend' the relationship. If Macavity supports Iain Gray's nonsensical suggestion that a dying man should have been forced to stay in Scotland, leaving Scotland a possible number 1 target for fanatics, then what of his moral compass and christian faith?
Remember also that refusing Megrahi's request for compassion would have left his appeal live. The nightmare scenario of an innocent (now dead) man refused compassion by a Scottish Government is simply unthinkable.
Labour in Scotland believed that the petty politics and smears that are the trademark of their election campaigns would work in their favour here. They have completely misjudged the fact that the Scottish electorate, of all hues, saw a Scottish Government Minister represent the nation last Thursday - they didn't see an SNP politician, only Unionists saw that.
Complain about this comment
It aint alf duff Brian! (as GB talks cricket)
Every day, bit by bit my confindence is shattered by New Labour and their extreme manner of political tic/tac.
What next! lets hope a better progressed Scotland, where westminster has less and less control.
Complain about this comment
I listened to the statement made by the tongue tied Secretary, to me he rather unconvincingly tried to sound as though he believed what he was saying. The content may have been mostly truthful, but his delivery caused doubt.
Complain about this comment
If the Scottish Nationalists are voted down, then they will turn all their guns against Labour's role in the affair. It is clear Labour had some idea what was going on, and perhaps more than some. Labour MSPs should therefore think twice before undermining their government in London.
The Liberals had also better be careful. They are treading dangerously on the toes of the Conservatives at the moment, and their base is annoyed. Grandstanding against compassion may be enough to do Clegg in for good, given the perceived turn he has made to the right. In any case it is a dangerous game to play, especially as (1) there are ample grounds to suspect that justice may not have been served through the original conviction, and (2)even if the original conviction was correct, the real man behind the act of terrorism would be Gaddafi himself, a 'terrorist' with whom not a few western leaders chose to negotiate nowadays. It is all right for Bush and Blair, Brown and Obama to negotiate with the real culprit then, if he is the real culprit, but its not all right for a dying minnow to be allowed home? A strange idea of justice that would make.
The clear winners politically are therefore the Conservatives (whose current leadership has all the advantages of consistency), and to a certain extent the Scottish Nationalists themselves, who have shown that Scotland can have a foreign policy of its own (even if in fact London was involved). In any case, as a Briton (but not a Scot, or a nationalist), I can say that the decision to make such a release on grounds of compassion was one that made me proud, quite aside from it being extremely sound politics.
Iannis Carras.
Complain about this comment
Within the boundries of the Scottish legal system, it appears that this was the enevitable conclusion, much as I hate to admit to. I do not agree with the SNP in many things, but in this case they have followed the law and made the appropriate decision in the full knowledge of how unpopular it will be around the world.
'with Labour keen to attack the SNP while the Conservatives want to widen the criticism to include the Prime Minister.'
I see the Labour party trying to turn an issue as serious as this into a political game as abhorrent. The Tories trying to attack a Labour Prime Minister with no power on this matter defies belief! Discuss the laws and guidlines of the country which led to this situation by all means, but don't attack the man who, it appears, has had his hands tied by them.
Seeing this happen under a government led by the SNP almost convinces me that they truly are more than a one issue party that have chanced into power....
Complain about this comment
"The big question is how can the Lib Dems possibly continue with their current name after their decidedly illiberal approach to this subject?"
How about Nu Nu Labour or Scottish Labour lackies Party
or The Dunderheids Party or Doh !
Complain about this comment
Public opinion is firmly behind MacAskill on this one and even the compliant Scottish media will at some point have to start reflecting this.
Where are the Unionists to go in order to and safely?
When Glenn Campbell suggested that this moment may well have defined the SNP Government's first term in office - he didn't think that it would be dignity and courage that would be the defining traits, coupled with a growing body of support for the courageous decision.
Shereen Nanjiani's shock and growing despair was palpable on the radio phone in this morning. Caller after caller supported MacAskill and were scathing of both the American intervention and the behaviour of the likes of Iain Gray and Jack MaConnell.
Tonight we heard a deserate Bill Aitken suggest that the texts, phone calls and letters to newspapers was part of an organised campaign of SNP supporters - the accusations get ever more incredible.
Gray in particular needs a get out here, he has been left high and dry by Macavity who knows a losing hand when he sees one. Tavish Scott appears clueless and was not helped by Nicol Stephen's disgusting and wholely intemperate rant today.
Goldie saw an opportunity to land a blow on London Labour and took it with glee.
Labour need a headline that appears to leave them looking as though they have 'drawn blood'. A vote of no confidence will not look good to the Scottish electorate if it results in a decent man being forced out of office for the crime of making a courageous decision.
A vote of censure seems to be his only get out of jail, and even that may be looked on unfavourably by the Scottish electorate. Remember that a by-election in Glasgow North East looms and this issue is bound to feature prominently.
Brian Taylor must have been sleeping when the story of the day emerged - Malcolm Chisholm not only supported and commended MacAskill's decision but was scathing of the politicising of a very serious event by his own party and others.
A former Labour Minister openly criticises his party leadership's tactics on the most important political event ever witnessed in Scotland (devolution excepted) merits a mention surely?
Complain about this comment
Attempted distortion of the truth: "More generally, a motion of no confidence seems unlikely at this stage. That might misfire as being too evidently partisan."
Actual reality: Labour know they'd be roundly hammered if they forced a Holyrood election now.
Complain about this comment
It wasn't Scottish foreign policy which made the US and the UK the most despised nations in the Islamic world. It isn't Scottish policies that need to be addressed in order to make the world a safer and a better place in which to live.
The US has been involved in torture and the UK has been complicit. The US is in no position to point the finger at any nation on this earth. It needs to put its own house in order. That goes for Obama as well as Bush, and their predecessors. Hypocrisy is the order of the day in both Washington DC and in Westminster.
Complain about this comment
#4 Northy
That rhymed like it chimed and it made me laugh/snort milk out my nose.
Complain about this comment
I watched the debate at the Scottish Parliament and didnt see Macaskill stumble over his words. What I saw was a person voicing the opinion of many Scots in that it was the right decision No other country has the right to dictate to our Parliament on how our legal system should be operated The Scottish Legal System is the best in the world .Firm yet compassionate and I say that as an ex policeman.The Macintosh clan motto ashould be quoted to America and others who try to interfere viz " Touch not the cat bot a glove".
Complain about this comment
It's becoming increasingly obvious Brian that the BBC prefer to publicise negativity than good news. Our democracy was not served by the opposition today. MacAskill's comments were intelligent, honest and full of integrity. The cringing opposition comments belittled the investment and faith their supporters put into them at the ballot box.
Have a look at the BBC's own 'have your say' page on Lockerbie and click on the 'readers most recommended comments' button.
There is overwhelming, succinct, mature support for MacAskill's decision from around the world. An overwhelming number support the decision over the opponents. Ten out of the first pages fifteen comments endorse his decision.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=6897&edition=1&ttl=20090824185459&#paginator
Have glance through and see that this decision is not all doom and gloom.
Complain about this comment
The One Show has just committed a massive carve up about the issue. The introduction was the very opposite of balanced and they then posted vox pops of people in Aberdeen, almost all against the decision. And then they asked ADAM SANDLER what he thought.
He said "I'd be happy if the guy was dead, a ha ha."
Jings.
Complain about this comment
New ICM poll in the Guardian tomorrow. It doesn't break down to give Scottish figures, but over the whole of the UK, SNP/PC are at 5% (+2% from July).
The poll took place the weekend after MacAskill's release of Megrahi.
If Scots were so appalled by the announcement, then someone will have to explain the huge rise in the Plaid vote!
Complain about this comment
It is worth looking at Malcolm Chisholms question in full.
* Malcolm Chisholm:
“Can I regret the politicisation of what is a quasi-judicial decision, and for my part commend the Justice Secretary for a courageous decision, which is entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of Churches across Scotland.
“Does he share my revulsion, however, by what happened when Al-Megrahi returned to Libya, but does he accept that there is nothing that anyone in this Parliament could have done to stop that? And does he also agree that it [Libya reaction] is entirely irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the original decision?”
John Farquhar Munro Lib Dem MSP has also supported Kenny MacAskill
* John Farquhar Munro:
“I’m sure there are plenty of MSPs with the same thoughts as I have.
“I’m of the opinion that Mr MacAskill had no other choice but the one he made. It was obvious from the doctors that Megrahi is suffering with cancer and that Megrahi’s health was going down every day and with that the correct thing happened and that MacAskill let Megrahi go with the information he had.
“I believe that MacAskill did the thing that was right and the thing that people will be looking on for years to come and that every time they raise the question of how well MacAskill did because of the rules and laws of Scotland.
“The right thing happened and MacAskill made the right and correct decision. With that it doesn’t give me any troubles whatsoever that there are some who are complaining.”
Do you think that there are any other opposition MSPs who may grow a backbone now and do what is right, rather than just blindly follow the party line?
P.S. Never thought the Chisholm question would make the evening news, is the tide turning?
Complain about this comment
Typical Scottish parliamentary performance, great build up but lacking totally in substance. Nearly a question from Nicol, nearly. Some sort of bellow from the Shetland sheepdog, maybe some sort of war cry "up helly a "? A nearly full articulate sentence from Ms Curran , (meaningless as usual ) and a few rather large ladies demanding answers to questions nobody asked and which really didn't have anything to do with the job in hand.The presiding officer was as usual the epitome of pomposity and at the end of the day , nothing really happened. Perhaps they should have moved the whole shooting match to one of the Fringe venues, because it had about the same substance as one of the second rate stage school productions.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
This is a very euphemistic account of another inglorious performance from Kenny MacAskill. He again waxed lyrical about Scotland's surfeit of compassion and treated Scottish jurisprudence as if it as the holy stone in Mecca.
Large parts of his 20 minute statement were a reprise of Thursday's performance; he stonewalled throughout the subsequent hour of questioning: persistently he was asked about his meeting with al-Megrahi , answer there was none, but it emerged that his consultations with Strathclyde police about options if he was not to go to Libya were cursory and I was frankly shocked by how little time he had spent talking to the American bereaved.
The most revealing part was when he uttered a straight NO upon being asked if the economic consequences of this decision had crossed his mind or been discussed with other ministers. This truly speaks volumes of the SNP as guardians of the national welfare.
In his statement, he ignored the US authorities but made complaints about London's ambiguous role; not surprised that you failed to mention a sudden outburst when he described The Times as 'the state organ of the British establishment'.
perhaps he would like a few such organs on his side and no doubt he will hav them soon enough.
He again stonewalled when asked about the possible distress caused to relatives by the leaking of the repatriation decision before it was formally announced...to the BBC as it happens.
I think he must have liked your remark early this morning on the BBC Radio TODAY programme when you remarked hat he 'was being pursued by the FBI'.
The SNp will ndeed be content when its Sir galahad is seen in such mock heroic terms and the reasons for American dismay and danger are not gone into.
Complain about this comment
Brian, could you tell your bosses at BBC Scotland to complain about the totally biased reporting on the BBC's national news at 6 o'clock. It was deliberately anti-snp. They showed Annabell's questions and Scott's questions but failed to let the public know the full replies to these question given by MacAskill. The BBC are required to be impartial in their reporting but were certainly not in this case.
Iain Gray didn't get his questions on the news but that would have been an embarrassment to him as he got his facts wrong about the requirements for returning Al Megrahi to Libya and how does Iain Gray know what the silent majority think? In other words he muffed it. This guy is a liability to the Labour Party!
The venom from Nicol Stephen was very obvious. His question looked irrational. An embittered man, but no matter he has been kicked into the long grass. Will anyone listen to what he has to say any more?
Its looking increasingly likely that Salmond and co have wrong footed the Scottish opposition and the UK government, again. You might call them The Untouchables!
Complain about this comment
I also heard parts of morning extra and was pleased that the majority of calls seemed to support Macaskill and from all parts of Scotland so it would appear Grey and Baker do not speak for the majority. Funny how a strong support for anything SNP is put down as an organised campaign or the work of cyber nats, no you half wits its a growing number of people taking an interest and deciding to speak out.
Maybe one day the BBC will reflect public opinion in a balanced manner.
Complain about this comment
Many people in the media and elsewhere seem to forget that the verdict reached in the Lockerbie trial was extremely unsafe. I think that the decision to release him was the right one. Although we may never know who were responsible for planting the bomb, when you look at the evidence, Megrahi was definitely made a scapegoat in order to satisfy people in Britain and the US, that "justice" has been done. Certainly our justice system does not come out of this well but at least compassion has been shown to this man to whom it seems more than likely has suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Complain about this comment
#23 MartinFromBothwell
Just saw it too! Couldn't believe it, maybe having failing to control the court of public opinion they have decided to see if they can do it via light 'entertainment'. More disconcerting than Sandler's response was the presenters laughter (Jon Sergeant being one of them).
Hi northy!
Complain about this comment
Brian "missing" Malcolm Chisolm's impassioned statement reminds me of poor John Sergeant with his back to the action as Mrs Thatcher emerged from a door behind him live on air.
Were you out taking a comfort break or maybe listening to your i pod?
Naw only kidding, I know what happened.
Pauline McNeil's eyes popped so far out of her head, Tom and Jerry style, when Chisolm broke ranks that you were temporarily concussed.
Complain about this comment
http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/08/24/megrahis-release-kenny-macaskill-was-right/
Interesting blog from Scottish QC Jonathon Mitchell which points out, among other things, the lack of similar outrage anent the release of dozens of convicted Irish terrorists by the UK government. Definately worth reading to get a rather more informed view than from the foaming maw of the tabloid press.
Let's face it - MacAskill made the right decision within the bounds of Scots law, and the US can just live with it. Did we not have to just live with it when they used Prestwick as a stop-off on route to breaking international law and torturing prisoners? Maybe they can boycott our aiports for that purpose!
Complain about this comment
#27 foiavista
Thanks for an alternative view.
If KM's statement had been totally different from Thursday would that have been better or worse?
The most revealing part was when he uttered a straight NO upon being asked if the economic consequences of this decision had crossed his mind or been discussed with other ministers. This truly speaks volumes of the SNP as guardians of the national welfare. Would it be better then if judges passed sentence on whether we could afford it? You would have been down for 3 years but the moneys run out so that'll be £50, or, Its a new financial year so you're down for 5? By the way the economy is a reserved matter for Macavity + Co
he ignored the US authorities He is Scottish Justice Minister he has to follow Scots Law. Foreign affairs is another of Macavity's reserved matters.
If you have proof that he was responsible for the leaks then let us know, otherwise what has he to comment on; that they made his task harder?
But it is good to get an alternative view.
Complain about this comment
I watched the debate live, plus the ensuing interviews and have to say I think that Mr MacAskill did admirably well and he sung the 'same story' continuously and I admire a politician who is prepared to stand up for what they believe in, rather than some of the lesser beings both in Holyrood and in Westminster from all sides of the political spectrum who would try to worm their way out of things.
I also admire Mr MacAskill's references to the backings of certain Church parties - although the church and state have long since been separated, it can be argued that the one influences the other - which way round is of course open to debate! MacAskill's references to a 'higher authority' are surely indicative of Mr MacAskill's belief in some form of deity, and whilst it is wrong for any person to force his or her beliefs on anyone, it has to be recognised that anyone who classifies themselves as a Christian makes decisions guided by not only those advising around them, but also how they feel that 'higher authority' to be leading them.
To turn this issue into a party-political argument for a particular party's benefit I find irreprehensible - this was and never will be a party-political issue, but regrettably I fear there will be those in corridors of power who will see it as such.
Although the Justice Secretary belives Megrahi to be guilty, it is really irrelevant - MacKaskill has sent Megrahi '... home to die.'
Applying the logic of Pascal, would a man believing another man to be guilty set him free?! This shows the truly compassionate nature of Mr MacAskill, and I admire him all the more for 'standing up to be counted'.
The only other thing I would comment on from is the fact that any subsequent inquiry into this whole affair cannot be led from Holyrood because they do not have the 'power' to do so. If this is the case, why did the decision to release Megrahi lie within Holyrood and not Westminster? Stupidly, because decisions about 'foreign affairs' lies in Westminster, but 'justice' lies in Holyrood.
What an absolute farce - this is just another example of a situation where Holyrood needs to be completely separate from Westminster.
Complain about this comment
BBC bias? Being retired I have been tuning in to the BBC National TV News regularly over the last few days and I must say that I have never seen such unbalanced, one-sided, reporting from the BBC. They have continually focused on those against the decision giving the impression it was MacAskill/Salmond against everyone else in Scotland. How many times did they show that video clip of McConnell? No mention ever of Henry McLeish, also a former First Minister, endorsing the decision. No mention of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, Scottish Justice Secretary at time of Lockerbie trial, saying that the FBI Director was out of order. No mention of Archbishop Conti endorsing the decision. No mention of Church of Scotland endorsing the decision. At 5 o'clock tonight, after the Holyrood statement, the persons they had lined up to comment were Iain Gray and Liam Fox. Even BBC Scotland tonight was biased in their reporting. They showed the three opposition leaders questions without MacAskill's replies. Where do I turn to now for balanced reporting, eh?
Complain about this comment
#27 foiavista
What mockery commoth from such a small mouth, take thee sunken ship sir and place it just outside thy imperial parliament in the thames.
What part of compassionate mercy doth one not understand....feckle. u?
Complain about this comment
#23 The One Show were probably still reeling from their special guest Brian Cox telling everybody that he thought Megrahi innocent. I dont think they expected his answer and it probably wasn't what the BBC in general wanted to hear either.
#28 Hamish42- I am also pretty disgusted with the way the newspapers and BBC are so biased. BBC Scotland is just a disgrace and i commend all the people calling in to voice their opinions on this that went against what the Unionist media has been lying to the public. Oh you can say that it was all SNP campaigners or what not but i doubt it. I am not an SNP member but i do care about my country and that is why i contribute on here. Its funny but Labour doesnt seem to be able to muster the same support (apologies to Derek).
I have to say though that some of the papers are hedging their bets by also running stories about who the real bomber might be, just so they don't look stupid if the truth ever gets out. It is a great pity that none of them had the backbone to do this years ago.
The only thing i can probably say that's not my opinion but (Neil will point this out too probably) saying that Megrahi is going to face a higher power will probably be used against him by families of cancer sufferers. I know it was part of his speech last week but i feel he could have left it out this time. The woman that said her 3 year old had cancer and Kenny thinks the kid is being punished by god is not good. As it is I'm an agnostic but i know what he meant.
Complain about this comment
having listened to the Labour Shadow Justice twice today on Radio Scotland it beggars belief that this guy has a) a seat in parliament and b) goes out of his way to draw attention to it. The decision as far as we can see was made by due process, but for me the most interesting thing is the almost complete silence from the UK Government on this issue. Then Baker spouts some tripe about it being a devolved matter blah blah. Does he really think we are all that stupid, they are willing to take the benefit of this decision-oil, oil, oil -but none of the bad press. Come on this has approval, approval, approval all over it. If Baker was the man on the spot would the result have been any different.....mmmm. Anyway at tea time he had the audacity to say that he and his ilk represented the people of Scotland and that their(our) voice would be heard and went on to dismiss those listeners who had texted and mailed in support of the decision. Woe is me that we have insignificant people sitting in our name in our parliament, what did we do to deserve this. The people will have their say, first in June next year and then a year after that, headline grabbing, pack hunting politicians of limited ability would do well to remember that.
Complain about this comment
At least Malcolm Chisholm showed some decency as he regularly does. He's actually a good and intelligent person and I thought he'd have made a very good Labour leader in Holyrood. But of course, being a good hearted and intelligent person, he had no chance of being elected by Labour MSPs.
He should cross the floor or declare himself independent now.
Complain about this comment
It will not be the politicians or media who cop the derry for this one. Poor Gary McKinnon will "arrive" in US to a humming of cordless black and deckers.
cheers
Complain about this comment
14. ianniscarras
"The clear winners politically are therefore the Conservatives (whose current leadership has all the advantages of consistency), and to a certain extent the Scottish Nationalists themselves, who have shown that Scotland can have a foreign policy of its own (even if in fact London was involved)."
I agree entirely. Today Mr MacAskil delt easily with almost all questions levelled at him. The best one was when Curran decided to make up her little accusation. I have never stopped laughing at the levels and lows that many in the Labour ranks will stoop. The obvious exception being Chisolm.
Goldie made a number of sensible points, and made sure to let Aitken lead the media charge on the run up to the days events- in case there will be any anti-unionist backlash.
Her question in regards to the possible alternatives to compassionate release however remain unanswered by MacAskil. When asked what specific advice he recieved on what other options- he sadly seemed caught off-guard momentarily. His attempt to downplay reasoned questions with a "ludicrous" bombast did him no favours.
All in all however, I do have to say MacAskil had a thouroughly good day. He was clear, precise and sure footed throughout.
Although I disagree with his ultimate decision (and the gods knows I do)- I will say I will defend his right to follow due process of Scots Law.
Complain about this comment
The website "boycottscotland.com" which implies it is American is hosted in Markham Ontario Canada (according to whois)
Registrant:
Domain Privacy Group, Inc.
c/o boycottscotland.com,
7030 Woodbine Ave. Suite 800
Markham, ON L3R 6G2
CA
Given the comments that right wingers in the USA make about Canada I am amazed.
Complain about this comment
27. foiavista
"he stonewalled throughout the subsequent hour of questioning:"
He certainly stone-walled when asked by Annabel Goldie what compassionate alternatives he looked into and what theadvice was he recieved. Instead of answering MacAskil merely trivialised the reasonable question by throwing "ludicrous" about.
Despite this, I do believe however that MacAskils' performance was solid, and consistant.
Complain about this comment
Didn't Christine Grahame mention a Lockerbie suspect known to be residing in Washington DC???? That was the most interesting but overlooked thing I heard. Full International Inquiry now!
Well done Kenny! A great performance! He gained in confidence as he went along and I felt this echoed the increasing support he is getting from all over Scotland.
Complain about this comment
The nationalists posting here continue to live in there own wee world ignoring the reality of the situation.
This is not the American nation, American media or American government that is objecting to the release, but American family and friends of the American victims.
This was not a proper debate today, MacAskill continually simply ignored the hard questions that were asked, i.e. how could he in one breath reject prisoner transfer on the basis of assurances to the victims families to keep Megrahi in a Scottish jail and then in the next breath release him to be free?
The outcome I came away with from watching the responses he did give was, that part of the reason MacAskill did not want Megrahi released into the Scottish community was that he could not control the press pack here and hence Policing would be difficult and expensive. However he did think he could control the Libyan press from making it a high profile return! Priceless, you couldn't make it up!!
Complain about this comment
it is interesting that in phone in shows there seem to be a balance in favour of the decision and yet in pre-edited shows (news, current affairs, lite entertainment) few or no voices are heard in support of the decision. We know they are out there Lord Fraser, the churches, McLeish etc. Many have posted over the years regards BBC impartiality (or otherwise) perhaps nowis the time to challenge editorial process with the Trustees?
Complain about this comment
The results of the poll on MacAskill's decision are now at Brigadoon. For the link-averse the result was: 38 votes for compassionate release, 1 for prisoner transfer and 4 for keeping Megrahi in prison.
Thanks to all those who expressed their view.
Complain about this comment
Of all the comments in the press over the weekend about the Megrahi release, one seemed to make more sense than most, and from a somewhat unusual source - old Union Jack flagwaver-in-chief Hitchens himself at the Mail on Sunday.
Hitchens best highlighted the utter hypocrisy of "Uncle Sam" by pointing out that were it not for the millions of Americans stuffing a few dollars at a time in collection boxes for "the cause", there would have been no IRA terrorists nor all the atrocities committed in their name.
How many Americans wept when a bomb went off in Britain? Very few, I'll bet, because it was they who paid for the semtex, even if many never realised it. I can't remember us boycotting them though . . .
As Hitchens says, the last place on earth the IRA would ever have let off a bomb was in the USA, because "hey presto" suddenly the Irish would have become the bad guys and the funding for the IRA would have dried-up.
So to now have the American nation sanctimoniously preaching at the Scottish nation and the SNP government in particular for showing REAL principles and morality is what sticks in my craw more than anything else about this whole episode.
Pot, kettle, black, doesn't even begin to describe such double standards, but then it is the land of utter make-believe.
If there are any Southern Baptists reading this, then remember the line from your favourite book - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
And you can boycott us all you like for all I care, even if that includes old Trump and his combover.
All together now:
"OH, SAY CAN YOU SEE, THE HYPO-CRISY"
Complain about this comment
#38 ubinworryinmasheep
I don't think you need to apologise to derek for slagging Labour. His recent posts show all the bitterness who realised that he was betrayed by them.
Complain about this comment
I think there is growing unease with the direction that the opposition parties are taking on this. It is pretty obvious that they are only interested in their own selfish ends, gaining votes to the detriment of Scotland's reputation. In the eyes of the world they are denigrating the Scottish justice system which they themselves set up in its present form.
Genealogists: did you know that you are be charged THREE TIMES what the English are being charged for obtaining the information that is on the Scotlands People website. You can read the article in the Herald. Another Union Dividend!
Complain about this comment
Incredible number of pro-Government posts here tonight. Easy to see which way the wind is blowing, clearly the BBC hasn't got a clue or cares little about actual public opinion.
But on a more positive note, wasn't that a brave intervention by the Labour MSP, Malcolm Chisholm?
Complain about this comment
#43 uk_abz_scot
Further to this domain, might it be possible to find the host of the boycotscotland.com website and complain to them?
After all, this is surely in breach of most ISP's rules against racist or offensive websites? [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#46
Hark the British nationalists speak! well mord, the due course of Scottish release took place and other half of the prisoner release scheme (the one Blair set up in libya 2005)has been with Brown and Mandelson over the last few months?
Has Brown or Mandelson come forth and explained yet?.
Hoo Hummm! trot on!
Complain about this comment
#42.deanthetory
"Goldie made a number of sensible points, and made sure to let Aitken lead the media charge on the run up to the days events- in case there will be any anti-unionist backlash."
Not according to SUBROSA.
"Annabel Goldie's idea that Mr Megrahi could have been transferred to his temporary home in Newton Mearns, a hospice or a hospital was quite ridiculous."
Complain about this comment
This is the first time I've been moved to post here. As an Englsh born resident of Scotland can I say how refreshing it is to see a politician stand up for what is right and not what is most expedient for their party. This is the start of English independence and it will do them good to have to run their own affairs and stop meddling in those of others! Kenny prooved himself a brave and principled man in stark contrast to most of the opposition hypocrites and truth deniers in Holyrood. All they could manage was a feeble "we don't agree" but not one could explain why the decision was wrong.
Roll on the referendum (I think the English and Welsh should also have the opportunity to vote for their independence!)
Will Trump now take his golf course somewhere else or will he continue to bully Aberdeenshire Council into doing his bidding for him?
Complain about this comment
#43 uk_abz_scot
Thankyou for that link to Canada!!!
I'm off to the USA in a couple of days and will take that little nugget with me!
Complain about this comment
Brown has spoken!
Says he wants to invite the England Cricket Team to Number 10 and that he'll be in touch. :-D
Complain about this comment
To get away from the Scottish bed of nettles, I just watched an episode of 'Jeeves and Wooster' on ITV 3.
This one describes the chaos resulting from Bertie Wooster's attempt to sort out the romantic troubles of several of his friends at a country house weekend.
Okay maybe a bit removed from th fraught Scottish scene but Big Kenny even with his broad Scottish tones almost reminded me of Wooster - earnest, eager to plunge into a messy situation but with the poise and subtlety of a rhinocerous.
But we all love these 'what ho' stories' and it seems that many Scots are ready to find an excuse for Kenny's bizarre actions - an nmistakable sign of how sheltered from reality this parochial wee place has become.
Complain about this comment
A nervy performance from the Justice Secretary which he actually handled with only two minor slip-ups and one very major mistake. The major mistake may very well do for him. Interesting, that absolutely no one has spotted it, but you will.
It is quite a simple question. I knew it was coming so rather than watching the Justice Secretary I watched the FM to gauge his reaction when it landed. Poor Kenny! From that moment both he, the FM and Bruce Crawford who was sitting behind knew Ken. was a dead man walking.
And who asked this killer question - actually it was Jackson Carlaw. Poor Ken's answer barely qualified as waffle. But, crucially it concerned East Renfrewshire, the richest, best educated and most influential electorate in Scotland and they do not take kindly to being taken for granted.
Complain about this comment
"Biased, Unionist press"???
These accusations are ludicrous. As an American (of Scots/Irish descent), I actually come here to get the whole story which is either lacking, late or too politicized in US media.
The bias some of you see in BBC coverage is perhaps a bias that you yourselves have for the SNP and Scotland itself, and against the UK/England/Westminister itself, and not some media conspiracy. Think about this if you will.
And kudos to Malcolm Chisholm: well said and done.
Props as well to Scottish justice: not all Americans are angry at your government. Far from it...
Complain about this comment
#46 sir_mord
Do your homework. The US Government protested strongly about the application for Prisoner Transfer. MacAskill listened closely to their (and the US relatives) representations that the UK Government had promised them that this would never happen.
The UK Government denied this had ever happened. Effectively they accused the American relatives and the US Government of lying.
Complain about this comment
Brian, do YOU support McAskill's decision?
Complain about this comment
It seems that Kenny MacAskill is more interested in locking up alcoholics than terrorists.
Complain about this comment
interesting Brown can stick his head out of the bunker to congratulate the Engerland cricketers "well done the nation is proud of you!" but still nothing about Libya. strange that ain't it! I console myself in the knowledge that we will never say it to Brown.
I wonder if Shareen will phone in sick tomorrow for the phone in on radio Scotland ?? my bet is they will choose a ridiculous topic and not risk another humiliating hour.
Sid
Complain about this comment
100. GAberdeen (previous thread- a reply he might have missed over there)
"Nelson was under the impression that Auntie Bella had been doing this all along. I know you think highly of the Woman - I'd like to court your opinion."
Well I stand accused of being one of Nielsons aforementioned "vichy tories".
Nielson says "According to a recent survey of Tory candidates, 46 per cent say they would not be ‘uncomfortable about Scotland becoming independent’". Well what is wrong with this? What it tells me is that 46% of Conservative prospective candidates are pragmatic on the issue.
Nielson may be one of the 'die hard unionist' blue nosed lot- but I am pleased that my party is increasingly open minded. The position is now increasingly 'if the Scots want independence let them have it'- quite right, who are the home-counties Thatcherites to dictate to us Scottish tories, or even the Scottish nation.
If Scotland wants independence- 46% of those polled basically believe they shoul have it. Its democratic, its pragmatic and its open minded. Still the committment to the union remains, but its less about the means being justified by the end (that being pertpetual union). Its rather changed- Goldie and her more centrist wing of the tory party stands for the union; but only if it benefits us.
Neilson doesnt like this moderate stance on unionism- so I am a "vich tory" then? Its incredible.
But I continue:
Neilson seems to believe that Goldie is an apparachik of nationalism. Its silly. She understands the nature of minority proportional government, and is negotiating with the SNP who are in office. She has already acheived much of what we wanted. Not least town centre regeneration, business rates cuts, and has supported the SNP push for more police officers. All achieved thanks to Goldie being reasonable, open to negotiation.
What Frasier wants I think is a return to the Lord Forsyths' extremism on constitutional matters. Well I am a well known Heathite, pro-european moderate who agrees firmly with Goldie, and her policy of putting Scotland before petty ideology.
Nielson can take his tripe and run and jump.
But it is true that the Scottish character is more nationalist now than ever- so it cant hurt us that Goldie is moving us away from being 'the unionist party' in favour of 'the SNPs' negotiating partners'.
Complain about this comment
To paraphrase Brian: Where next FOR Megrahi?
He's a dying man. Deathbed testimony is supposedly law. And he's going to name names.
As a former intelligence office, deception may be his stock-in-trade, but what motive would he have for not now telling the truth?
Complain about this comment
#46 sir_mord
"how could he in one breath reject prisoner transfer on the basis of assurances to the victims families to keep Megrahi in a Scottish jail and then in the next breath release him to be free?"
Welcome to the BT threads. The rest of your post is based on your opinion, to which you're entitled however silly, but the section I have quoted seems to indicate that you didn't listen to last Thursday's statement and cannot have read either it or the discussion on it here or elsewhere. Compared to most judicial decisions, MacAskill's Lockerbie decision is a model of clarity, and you can read it here.
Put as simply as possible, had the transfer option been exercised, Al-Megrahi would still have been in custody but the Scottish legal system would have broken the pre-trial agreements. As it his, the release on licence means that he is no longer in custody and does not break the pre-trial agreements.
Whatever else you may think of the man, MacAskill clearly believes in honesty, truth and the rule of law, something perhaps so rare in the politicians you clearly admire that you were unable to spot it.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I am suprised at the lack of British Government support, although the decision came from the Scottish Parliament, should the British Government not support our decision at an international level?
Should we expect Cameron to support the idea of boycotting Scottish goods and services? How can the Scottish Parliament and Government defend Scotland since Foreign Policy is not within our existing powers?
Complain about this comment
Been a long time since I commented on the political scene in Scotland. The thoughful contribtions on this very motive topic moved me to comment.
Firstly, I should say that Scottish political discourse has moved on incredibly even in the last few years. There is now a recognisable Scottish political discourse (with its concommitant oppositions and reactions, understood language and symbolism). I have to say that this developmen is down, in great part, to the rather incredible maturity and professionalism of the SNP administration. It has, like Caesar at Alesia, led from the front and forced others to follow (largely against their will).
This latest act from the Scottish government (how strange and new, yet old and familiar that term seems) re: Megrahi has taken it one step further.
I do not agree with the laws of the furies, or the laws of vengence. I find the justice of the mighty even more objectionable ('we think this is wrong and we create the discourse through threats and coersion, so it is wrong). Therefore, to me at least, the prospect is delightful of blind justice exercising clemency in the face of bitter opposition from those exercising politically expedient and synthetic rage (the US government - not the families; the families are, unfortunately, being used by the US in all of this. I think in their heart of hearts they know this - and they know Scotland has been set up by the US and UK to take the fall for their greed).
Well done Scotland finally finding political maturity and finding the courage and intelligence required to avoid being used in a rather grubby tug-of-war between.
Complain about this comment
I watched the show and thought (Vicar) MaCasKill did better that I thought he would have. I felt compelled to make a wee complaint though to the BBC too as I felt that they have again faired towards the side of "against" in whatever has been happening in Scotland and reminded them that people like to see the whole picture. I felt that the al-Megrahi situation is an excellent example of blatant bias. Fair enough, people are unionists but when there is a large support for Kenny MaCaskill, then that support should be aired.
Malcolm Chisolm (was that who supported MaCaskill towards the end) should be commended. His statement was admirable and I know that if I had not witnessed it, then I would not have believed it happened nor seen it on the news. It gave Labour some credence in the end. Again, Labour have tried to twist their argument. If MaCaskill had said no, Labour would have went for the "yes" vote.
If a no confidence vote is won, I trully hope the SNP gain an extra couple of years by winning another 4!
I commend those who broke rank and felt that those who stood up to their parties leaders in support have vindicated Kenny MaCaskill. Sorry if you do not agree with my views but if the US wants to support a boycott of our goods, they are simply displaying their ignorance to facts and reality. I read on the boycott scotland web site that the author had linked Megrahi to 9/11. I felt I had to email them to say that Lockerbie has been linked to Libya, Iran and Palestine. 9/11 was due to the fact the Bush clans friends, the bin Ladens, did not like American feet on Saudi soil prior to the firt Gulf War. the bin Ladens, if I understand correctly, wanted to free Kuwait without American help. 9/11 and Lockerbie, from my point of view, are not linked!
And to the fool who states categorically that al-Megrahi is innocent, the problem with most of the evidence was circumstantial, anecdotal evidence, from what I recall. However, you cannot remove the fact that the man had influence and knew Malta very well. A fact that led the investigators to Megrahi when they traced certain and specific material back to Malts and Libya! Never forget that!
Complain about this comment
Interestingly enough the BoycottScotland website is registered through the auspices of Domain Privacy Group, Inc who are based in Markham, Ontario, ie CANADA and not the US, though I assume the prime mover behind this is American. The use of a Canadian Privacy shield is presumably to get past any cursory checks
Complain about this comment
#38 UBINWORRYINMASHEEP
No apologies needed!
You see the sicking thought is! that the cross benches labour/liberal/conservatives all suggested that Mr MacAskill never gave due course or consideration to the victims families, the international community nor the arrival of Megrahi in Libya, some even suggested that MacAskill was some type of terrorist sympathiser.
I for one will not sit by and watch the hounds attack such a gracious act in a very difficult world. (solidarity with what is right)
Complain about this comment
Well we started with the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill but we can now add Henry McLeish, Malcom Chisolm & John Farquhar Munroe to the roll of honour. Scotland needs many more politicians just like them. Well done guy's thank you
Bluelaw @#45 - yes that is what she said I read the same over the weekend , just one little bit of info from of all places the sunday mail. more and more will be dripped into the public domain as Brown fails yet again.
Sid
Complain about this comment
#27 foiavista
"The SNp will ndeed be content when its Sir galahad is seen in such mock heroic terms and the reasons for American dismay and danger are not gone into."
#59 foiavista
"Big Kenny even with his broad Scottish tones almost reminded me of Wooster - earnest, eager to plunge into a messy situation but with the poise and subtlety of a rhinocerous."
Welcome. What an enigmatic pair of first posts.
Is your #27 suggesting that Scottish jurisprudence should be based on the wishes of the US public? If so, how do you suggest it works? A new reality show, perhaps, with a self-selecting US jury 'phoning in their verdicts?
Your #59, though, does seem to have some relation to reality. Jeeves, you will recall, always gets his way.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I have to agree that the BBC has been one-sided in its coverage, and whether you agree with MacAskill's decision or not he was perfectly entitled to make it within his remit as Justice Secretary, and he has had the bottle to stand by it in the full glare of national and international scrutiny.
As for the FBI Chief, we don't need any lectures on justice from the US, as many posters have already spelled out in detail.
As for the opposition in Holyrood today, they made the SNP government look even more electable come 2011.
Complain about this comment
My gut feeling is that there is a groundswell of support in the country at large for the Kenny MacAskill's stance but if that's correct, it is not reflected at all in the media coverage. Do journalists nowadays just sit at computers and accept what's fed to them rather than go out among the people to gauge what's happening before they file their stories? I'm thinking of Jack McConnell's contribution yesterday when he said that the people of Scotland were against the decision to release Magrahi - He (Jack McConnell) couldn't possibly have know that unless he had access to a survey. Why would journalists not want proof of a statement like that? Are they just lazy, or told by editors what to say/write or is there another agenda?
Complain about this comment
I fully support the decision to release Megrahi, but why on earth does Kenny MacAskill (or Magasgill as the London BBC keep calling him) have to answer every single question in that same grating tone?
Complain about this comment
69. At 9:31pm on 24 Aug 2009, Thomas_Porter:
"Should we expect Cameron to support the idea of boycotting Scottish goods and services?"
Goldie would hand-bag DC first! This is a silly question.
Complain about this comment
An interesting intervention in the debate in the Scottish Parliament by the Labour MSP Patricia Ferguson cast further light on what's been going on behind the scenes.
First to set her intervention in context.
It became clear today from MacAskill that the Prisoner Transfer request came from the Libyan government, not Megrahi himself. MacAskill said it was the requirement on him to find out what Magrahi's view on this was which led to the prison visit [given that MacAskill would be opposed to P.T. on principle one could understand why he wanted to check if Magrahi wanted this]. MacAskill seemed to imply that his initial fact-finding activity, including speaking to the families of the bereaved, as well as Megrahi, was made necessary by this move by the Libyan government.
Now to Ferguson's intervention.
She asked if the Justice Secretary had sought advice from his legal advisers as to whether he was competent to refuse the Prison Transfer rather than to merely check whether Magrahi met the criteria. In other words, she was saying that the Prisoner Transfer legislation, because it was based on a treaty between the UK and Libya, was not something he had authority to intervene in.
MacAskill did not accept this, but the fact that he pre-empted having to test this by releasing Magrahi anyway makes one wonder. The fact that Magrahi dropped his appeal may now be understood as a necessary means of maintaining pressure on MacAskill to, either agree to P.T., or respond in some other way [the continuation of the appeal would have ruled out Prisoner Transfer]. Clearly, having objected to the deal, the Scottish government would not want to be seen to be implementing it, if there was an alternative. However, in going for compassionate release, instead, they have muddied the waters and let the UK government off the hook. As a result they have also taken all the flack themselves.
This may also explain the Libyan government's response of thanking Brown i.e. because the release came out of the process initiated by their request for Prisoner Transfer [something agreed between them and the Labour government]. Presumably, also, they would have been reminded of this option when Gaddafi spoke to Brown at the G8 and his son spoke to Mandelson in Greece.
Brown's advisors may well have guessed that the Scottish government would be forced by the terms of the Prisoner Transfer legislation to seek an alternative solution, which respected the independence of Scot's Law. In other words, keeping him in Scotland was never an option once Libya entered a request for Prisoner Transfer.
Complain about this comment
55. At 9:01pm on 24 Aug 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
#42.deanthetory
"Goldie made a number of sensible points, and made sure to let Aitken lead the media charge on the run up to the days events- in case there will be any anti-unionist backlash."
Not according to SUBROSA.
"Annabel Goldie's idea that Mr Megrahi could have been transferred to his temporary home in Newton Mearns, a hospice or a hospital was quite ridiculous."
----
She is a cybernat. Although I disagree naturally- she is an otherwise intellegent blogger and I regularly enjoy her postings.
But in this case I disagree firmly.
Complain about this comment
#60 MagisterIlluminatus
"From that moment both he, the FM and Bruce Crawford who was sitting behind knew Ken. was a dead man walking."
Could you shed a little more light on the matter for us poor expats who suffer from IP apartheid on iPlayer TV and haven't the bandwidth to download the whole 130+ Mb session from holyrood.tv?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I saw this little comment tonight on the BBC News website;
"Meanwhile, in a move pre-empting the opposition parties, the Scottish Government will lead a full debate on the Lockerbie decision at Holyrood, when it returns from summer recess at the start of September."
Complain about this comment
#77 raisethegame
"Do journalists nowadays just sit at computers and accept what's fed to them "
Yes.
Complain about this comment
#68 Brownedov
I had read the transcript of Mr MacAskill's statement before today and also watched the statement and debate live this afternoon. Mr MacAskill said last week;
"Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland. It is for that reason that the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject."
He rejected the prisoner transfer option at least in part because of assurances to the victims families. So while he did not break the letter of any agreement that "the sentence would be served in Scotland", he destroyed what everyone understood by those assurances, that is that Megrahi would remain in a Scottish jail to serve the sentence as handed down by the courts.
#62 oldnat
I've done my homework. The US government were speaking on behalf of their constituents, in this case the victims families. And as I've said above what everyone understood by the agreement has been blown to pieces.
Complain about this comment
#50 oldnat ... yeah ive noticed he's a bit disillusioned but there's probably enough Labour blood still in him to stop him making the leap.
As for boycotting Scots goods .. what rubbish .. i cant stand T****s after all I've read in Private Eye but i still end up shopping there. I cant see the Americans drinking Japanese Whiskey for too long.
Complain about this comment
Still no BBC TV news on McLeish's intervention or comment on where those Saltire's came from or what would be done with the flags if a plane landed in Tripoli carrying Megrahi in a coffin.
Now perhaps the Justice Secretary can devote the authority of his office to finding a missing middle-aged man last seen in the North Queensferry area and answering to the name Gordon, he believes himself to be some sort of leader and is described as muddled.
Complain about this comment
#61 TripleRLtd
"The bias some of you see in BBC coverage is perhaps a bias that you yourselves have for the SNP and Scotland itself, and against the UK/England/Westminister itself, and not some media conspiracy."
The bias seen is not so much between one party and the rest but between those in favour of the unreconstructed union and those in favour of home rule. That debate in your country [assuming your "American" means US citizen] resulted first in your revolutionary war and subsequently in your civil war ending the hopes of many in favour by confirming a largely top-down union. The hope of most here is that self-determination can be achieved without resorting to violence but the staunchly unionist media seek to avoid even discussion of the issue, sadly resulting in an unnecessary rising of tension.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
* 61. At 9:12pm on 24 Aug 2009, TripleRLtd wrote:
"Biased, Unionist press"???
These accusations are ludicrous. As an American (of Scots/Irish descent), I actually come here to get the whole story which is either lacking, late or too politicized in US media.
The bias some of you see in BBC coverage is perhaps a bias that you yourselves have for the SNP and Scotland itself, and against the UK/England/Westminister itself, and not some media conspiracy. Think about this if you will.
And kudos to Malcolm Chisholm: well said and done.
Props as well to Scottish justice: not all Americans are angry at your government. Far from it...
I have watched all channels and I have yet to see both sides of the argument being presented in a fair and balanced manner, the spin meisters and in full flow, remember there is a general election due soon and they are bricking it that the Scottish will gain their independence. If they can pull strings to get their foot in the door for Libya's oil, they dont want Scotland getting its hands on its own oil and its wealth of hydro schemes and natural resources, the energy crisis in the next big thing
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
#79.
"Goldie would hand-bag DC first! This is a silly question."
I made three points in total, two of which were real points concerning the British defence of Scotland since the Scottish Parliament can not defend our image and interests abroad.
I mentioned David Cameron because Mr Cameron has spoken against the decision, Gordon Brown has yet to comment. However should the Prime Minister in waiting not come to our defence against American critics, especially since Scotland can not defend herself (powers outwith our control).
Is it Conservative-policy to leave Scotland high and dry because we managed to upset the Americans? I would be suprised if the Conservatives rushed to our defence, but who is suppose to look after our foreign interests?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
46. At 8:34pm on 24 Aug 2009, sir_mord wrote:
"...part of the reason MacAskill did not want Megrahi released into the Scottish community..."
What nonsense is this? There was never any question of al-Megrahi being "released into the Scottish community".
Complain about this comment
Sir-Mond:
#85.
*whispers* I shall remind you that not every person from the victims families actually believe Al-Megrahi was involved, and welcomed the release. *whispers*
Complain about this comment
82. Brownedov
Unfortunately, I run things and employ people to do these things. I have absolutely no idea how to do them myself.
Complain about this comment
#85 sir_mord
"The US government were speaking on behalf of their constituents"
Precisely. Which is why your original statement was nonsense -
"This is not the American nation, American media or American government that is objecting to the release"
All are reacting on behalf of their own, and quite understandably so. However, unless you are advocating Sharia law for Scotland, that is not how the legal system works.
Complain about this comment
#87. govanite
"Now perhaps the Justice Secretary can devote the authority of his office to finding a missing middle-aged man last seen in the North Queensferry area and answering to the name Gordon, he believes himself to be some sort of leader and is described as muddled."
He's busy building sandcastles on the beach below the water line and still trying to work out where they go.
Complain about this comment
90. Thomas_Porter
Our actions speak louder than words, it was the Scottish Conservatives that have won £60 million pounds to regenerate neglected urban Scottish centres. Neglected by Labour and SNP. It was the Scottish Conservatives who put Scotland first and supported the SNP budget during which time Labour and Liberals played politics.
It was my lot who have consistantly sought to work with the SNP and other parties in Holyrood where we agree, and oppose you when we disagree. This is a responsible position which has aided and strengthened Scottish Proportional government and devolution itself.
So my response: Yes- we will always put Scotland first, and Annabel Goldie will always seek to do this. She and the Scottish tories may get it wrong sometimes but our intent and achievements speak loud for us after a decade of Scottish home rule.
Complain about this comment
#81.deanthetory
Do you honestly think that was a viable option knowing of the disruption to all others who require those facilities, non starter.
Complain about this comment
With all due respect. The man is a convicted murder, which although held in prison, was not held in inhumane conditions.
And although I am greatly disappointed and disturbed that he has been allowed to go free I will defend your right to do with your prisoners as you see fit.
And one other note, don't get the USA citizenry confused with our politicians. They like in your country are not one and the same.
Complain about this comment
#94 MagisterIlluminatus
Brownedov was requesting clarity from you, and you have confirmed you don't know how to do that.
We didn't need to be told. It was already very clear.
Complain about this comment
#88 Brownedov
"The hope of most here is that self-determination can be achieved without resorting to violence"
"Most" have I missed something? There is no majority for that view. SNP doesn't even have a majority in the Scottish Parliament.
Complain about this comment
Is Jim Murphy away his holidays with Gordon Brown because he too ( for once ) has been silent on this matter.Also to raisethegame post never mind a survey why don't journalists go out and ask the right questions to the right people? Mr Brown,Mr Mandelson,Mr Milliband
Complain about this comment
Browndov
I watched the whole broadcast. The only part about East Renfrew council that I can recall was about their social works department are the local authority who are monitoring Megrahis release (do not ask me why) and he is supposed to report to them once a month via video link.
The question asked was, what will the council do if he misses a month.
MacAskills answer was to remind the questioner Megrahi was sent home to die.
I must have missed it but I never saw any alarm on any ones face.
Complain about this comment
Tories & LibDems continue to return to 'alterntive compassionate options', I'd like to hear some of their suggestions whih aren't simple variants of safe-house or hospice.
Complain about this comment
I'd also like to see more challenge to the assertion that Scotland's reputation abroad has been damaged.
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
#97.
I was discussing at an international level, neither the nationalists nor Scottish conservatives have powers at this level and I would have hoped that the British Government, or at least David Cameron may support our decision (although disagree with it) since we can not defend our interests at an international level.
I feel like Scotland has been left high and dry, I feel defenecless against the American critics.
Complain about this comment
"The government that took the decision was the Scottish government, which has control over judicial affairs in Scotland. But the problem with this approach is that the Scottish decision has ramifications for wider British interests."
The solution to what the BBC clearly believes is a "problem" is staring them in the face. Restructure British government so that the decisions of a Scottish government have no ramifications for "wider British interests".
So-called "problem" solved!
Complain about this comment
Have the Americans military officials making these comments never heard the saying "people in glass houses"?
How can the head of the CIA - an organisation widely acknowledged as having been at the centre of moral duplicity for years - possibly feel justified in critising this decision? Would have been nice to hear what Robert McNamara had to say about Kenny McCaskill too and maybe that would complete the set.
The overwhelming impression is that American policy has moved on a new stage - not only do they consider themselves above international law but also apparently the only country in the world with the audacity to criticise legal decision making in other jurisdictions with such arrogance.
Anyway of course the Americans are right - we're only chasing the oil - maybe that thought hadn't occurred to them!?
Complain about this comment
#94 MagisterIlluminatus
"Unfortunately, I run things and employ people to do these things. I have absolutely no idea how to do them myself."
I'll be able to get the text of what was said tomorrow in the Official Report, but what I was interested in was why you feel MacAskill is now "a dead man walking" and what was the "killer question"? Lucky you to have minions to report for you, but the information they imparted must have been at least interesting for you to have posted your #60.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Where next on Megrahi?
Well a good place to start is to figure out where we are now. As best as I can understand it we currently have;
Pro the compassionate release:
Dr Jim Swire - the most dignified individual in the whole affair
Archbishop Conti & Catholic Church
Rev Galloway & Church of Scotland
Dr David Steel
Professor Alan Millar - Scottish Human Rights Commission
Tam Dalziel
Rev Dr John Cameron
Henry McLeish & Malcolm Chisolm - (Well Done! True to real Labour principles)
Most intelligent, informed Scottish "subjects"
Most civilised countries
Agin the compassionate release:
Iain Gray
Jim Murphy
Tavish Scott
Nicol Stephen
David Cameron
Robert Mueller - FBI Director
Hillary Clinton - US Secretaty of State
Barak Obama - US President
Most uneducated, uninformed or politically motivated Scottish "Subjects"
Some of Amerika (and most of it's media)
Oh, and most of the BBC it seems.
Don't knows (or won't tells):
Gordon Brown (Where are you hiding?)
David Miliband (what are you hiding??)
Bill Aitken (though good questioning of Westminster's part)
The Scottish Conservative Party
Many of the pro release camp are calling for an inquiry and the release of the secret documents that both the US administration and Westminster are known to be holding. Most of these people believe that the withheld information would clear Megrahi if brought to light.
This would seem to be the only way forward from here.
If those that are withholding information would only realise that this is all going to Come out now, one way or another, and stop trying to obfuscate the matter we might be able to put his to rest now. If this is not done then we will continue to go round in circles with recriminations and conspiracy theories. Those that seek to keep the truth secret will ultimately pay the price. We will find out.
Complain about this comment
I have a friend in tripoli and she told me that a guy who works in the british embassy was the person who handed out scottish flags to the crowd.
Complain about this comment
#92 Electric Hermit
To quote Mr MacAskill's statement;
"It has been suggested that Mr Al-Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland."
Today Mr MacAskill said it would have taken 48 police officers and been too expensive.
#93 Thomas Porter
It's quite apparent that not everyone from the victims families believes Magrahi was involved. However we have to work from where we are and that is that Megrahi is convicted of direct involvement. One of the problems of the way this has now worked out is that the appeal will not be heard.
Complain about this comment
#99. At 10:56pm on 24 Aug 2009, LhunterL
Agreed - and both peoples (and their populations) fortunately have a wide range of attitudes and values within them.
Complain about this comment
Just watched Newsnight Scotland.
Why wasn't Ian Grey asked about McLeish and Chisolm? What wasn't Annabel Goldie took to task about this silly 'international reaction' defence of her opposition ot the move? Scotland's opposition politicians are of a fairly poor quality. Labour need more people like Malcolm Chisolm. If only he was their leader.
Thought Alex Salmond did well on Newsnight UK. He made a pleasing contrast (as did the former ambassador) with John Bolton. Bolton's parting shot that he would have executed Megrahi and the US should never have allowed Scotland to take the case was distateful in the extreme.
Complain about this comment
This issue goes deeper than we think, I have written a few of my thoughts on the matter at, http://politicsmatters.blog.co.uk/
Complain about this comment
I notice some folks calling comments from the United States hypocritical because of our wretched record on matters related to torture. I would agree were it not for the fact that we voted that Government out of power. Barack Obama won for many reasons, but one was that some us were utterly disgusted by the outrageous and criminal behavior of the Bush Administration. Barack Obama seeks to lead America along a better road in terms of American actions both at home and in the world. I remain outraged by the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
I believe in forgiveness. I am a priest in the Episcopal Church in the United States, a sister church of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Forgivness does not mean that the temporal penalty for a crime is excused. One can be forgiven and still "do the time" for the crime committed. He could have been sent home as a prisoner to continue his time close to his family. His family could have been brought to Scotland to be with him in last days. I could applaud either move as compassionate within the requirements of justice. What happened was a denial of justice to the dead.
Some have noted that they believe he is in fact innocent. He was tried in Scotland under her venerable justice system. If there was a miscarriage of justice, Scotland needs to come clean and explain how an innocent man has suffered this imprisonment and resume the search for the real criminals who committed the crime.
I spend several hundred dollars a year on goods from Scotland. I am seriously considering observing a personal boycott of Scottish goods for the next year. If enough of us refuse to purchase Scottish goods, perhaps we will make some small dent in the Scottish economy. This is not about revenge. This is not about a lack of mercy or a denial of the value of forgiveness. It is about justice for those who died and who have no voice nor defender in this life except those who live and remember them.
Complain about this comment
#85 sir_mord
"So while he did not break the letter of any agreement that "the sentence would be served in Scotland", he destroyed what everyone understood by those assurances"
But had the UK or US governments done their homework in late 1998 when the pre-trial agreements were set, they would have known about the 1993 act passed by Major's Tories under which MacAskill was bound to act.
Just conceivably, NuLab knew about the act and assumed Clinton's administration did too so did not bother to mention it. More likely in the Bliar era, both governments were too busy over "the big picture" to consider the sordid details.
In any event, it's hardly the current Scottish Government's fault that when the pre-trial agreements were made they did not mention then-existing legislation.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#103 dubbieside
Mehgrahi is released under license, the terms of which are to be monitored by East Renfrew council as that was his last address (Newton Mearns I think) in Scotland (apart from Greenock jail).
Sounds like MacAskill has not thought this through or does not care if Megrahi misses a video conference. I'm not sure I'd like to be in the shoes of East Renfrew council in that case, as the media will be all over them and the rest of the world (the US) will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Is this what magisterilluminatus means?
Complain about this comment
Anent the US boycott of Scottish goods - can it start with the 1200 Scots troops about to be sent to Afganistan please? Just cancel the tickets and send them back here unscratched ta!
Complain about this comment
I live in Los Angeles and work in the media.
There is NO campaign to boycott Scottish or British goods. Any mention of this has been brief and as a throw-away line. I believe this story is being created by British newspapers and television to create panic and try to undermine the Scottish government decision.
the moderation on this blog is WAY TOO SLOW.
Complain about this comment
wow thats interesting my comment about the appearance of the scottish flags in tripoli never even made it to this comment has been moderated...
Complain about this comment
I find it most interesting that i post a comment about the availability of scottish flags in tripoli (very well made scottish flags corporate quality)and it doesnt make it on to the web site. Has anyone popped into the shops in tripoli recently and attempted to buy a scottish flag. I have a friend there who recently got some handed to her.
Complain about this comment
#101 sir_mord
"`Most´ have I missed something? There is no majority for that view."
I had originally intended "most" in the context of those posting here, but you raise a very interesting point. In the 2007 elections, when the LibDems were still federalist the combined vote for home rule parties and independents both in the plurality vote and the regional vote was very close to 50%. When Scott still talks about a proper home rule settlement post Calman and with NuLab in deserved decline, I would be astonished if the combined home rule vote were not now in the majority.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
very interesting bbc three comments now completely removed yet the only thing mentioned was the availabilty of flags in tripoli.
coulndt possibly have the natives asking too many questions can we.
Complain about this comment
very very interesting bbc dont worry i will post my comment about the flag elsewhere on the web and mention your moderation of my comment.
Complain about this comment
#103 dubbieside
Thanks for the info. I'll look it up in the Official Report this afternoon. Prima facie, it certainly doesn't sound to have been a "killer question".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
John Curtice in the Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-curtice-labour-has-to-be-careful-in-its-attacks-on-the-snp-ndash-after-all-its-hands-are-not-wholly-clean-1776771.html
"Labour has to be careful in its attacks on the SNP – after all, its hands are not wholly clean"
Complain about this comment
110. At 11:28pm on 24 Aug 2009, X_Sticks wrote:
"Pro the compassionate release:"
You can add Martin Cadman, whose son was one of the victims. I don't doubt that there are others, on both sides of the Atlantic. But the media seem to prefer to ignore them.
Complain about this comment
Newsnight Scotland:
Goldies line is now boiling down to disagreeing with the decision and that somehow by releasing a dying prisoner Scotland's reputation has been damaged.
No evidence offered to support the charge regarding reputation.
Purvis also disagreed with the decision but chose to go down the "not all options considered" line. Well, Mr MacAskill adhered to due process and took representation from everyone he had to.
Gray again stated that the case had been mishandled and of course disagreed with the decision. The 'damaged reputation' was aired and again no evidence offered to support this.
Seems the only thing that the Unionists actually cite in order to support claims of mishandling is the prison visit. This has been explained by MacAskill as being unrelated to the request for compassionate release and in fact resulted from the prisoner transfer request by Libya.
BBC reporters, knowing this, still ask if every prisoner can now demand such ministerial meetings. Yes, of course they can, but only if they are Libyan and are the subject of a prisoner transfer request from Libya.
Now, the Unionists are claiming that MacAskill didn't have to meet him in person - Macaskill insists that in this case he did.
The 'visit' will form the basis of attacks to come for the Unionists have nothing else. The press will also run the 'American Backlash' story in order to try to 'puff out' the hollowness of the Unionist case and persuade the electorate to change their minds. However, what they don't realise is that such a backlash, if it were true, appears no more than blackmail and people don't like the idea that they are being bullied.
Do Unionists think that MacAskill's decision should have been made by considering how much money might be lost? This is a question that thus far hasn't been asked of any of them.
We are also waiting for a journalist to actually ask Iain Gray if he supported a prisoner transfer of Megrahi and how he would have dealt with the anger of the victim's families who clearly expected Megrahi to remain in Scotland.
Does Iain Gray support the suppression of the new evidence by David Milliband?
Does Iain Gray support calls for the UK government to hold a full inquiry into Lockerbie?
Newsnight Scotland seemed an appropriate place to ask these questions but it seems the interviewer had other ideas. The interviewer [Gary Robertson?] did ask three questions of Gray:
You didn't get much from Mr MacAskill today did you?
Will you all for a vote of no confidence?
What does Gordon Brown think?
There, that's what passes for hard line questioning of a Labour MSP on the BBC. Contrast this line of questioning with that put to Kenny MacAskill and then despair that you are actually compelled to pay for this.
Good to see Robbie Dinwoodie still prepared to present a story in an informative and non partisan manner.
Complain about this comment
Just catching the BBC America slot on news24, not a peep on Megrahi.
Complain about this comment
Maybe we are being boycotted by the moderators ;)
Complain about this comment
116
You don't sound much like any priest I would have respect for. Is there any particular reason why Megrahi's family should be inconvenienced by having to move to a foreign country to share the last painfilled days of their father/brother/husband. Why is it of any importance where the poor (and innocent) man spends his last months?
The behaviour of the US on this issue has been absolutely disgraceful but most people in the rest of the world expect nothing different.
"Oh would some pow'r the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us" wrote Robert Burns and it is a message tha fits the US exactly. Your ideas of justice,probity,compassion are primitive and unChristian and nobody here gives a hoot what America thinks.
Burns also said "For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard, save him whom the truth would indict!" and that is what is exercising the US authorities. But despite their best efforts the truth about the stitch-up of Megrahi and the American involvement of that will come out.
Complain about this comment
#130 mrbfaethedee
Nor on CBS News on Sky. However, I'll check out a range of US channels later this week.
Complain about this comment
#132 sneckedagain
"nobody here gives a hoot what America thinks. "
Don't include me in that!
Complain about this comment
Oops, BBC America now running a piece by BT, including saltire waving and stuff, recap of all the unhappy parties from opposition leaders here to Obama over there. Also Robert Mueller fbi director - if you want to know the real quality of that man who waxed lyrical about MacAskill's decision being a 'mockery of justice' read a transcript of him being interviewed by a House Judiciary Committee on why the FBI turned a blind eye to torture by the CIA. Very interesting considering the current escalation of the threat of prosecution of CIA torturers in the USA.
Complain about this comment
#132
Now! Now! sneckedagain your being far to poetic there, you'll end up stirring all our emotions, it's our gift of wisdom and mercy that makes us great, so let others to follow.
Complain about this comment
@# 27
I certainly hope that economic concerns were not in Mr. MacAskill's mind when he made the decision to release Megrahi. He's the justice minister, and is responsible for the administration of justice. What kind of justice would we have if it were weighted by money? Or is it that you would indeed prefer justice to be done free of filthy lucre, but would rather use any stick you can (in this case an easily snapped twig) to desperately beat at the SNP?
Complain about this comment
#133 oldnat
As just posted (my 135), there was a piece on BBC World News America. It comprised a repackaged sampling of recent BBC/BBC Scotland stuff voiced over by BT.
I doubt that we'll see any significant coverage abroad, even in the USA.
Complain about this comment
116. At 11:46pm on 24 Aug 2009, woodmason
"If enough of us refuse to purchase Scottish goods, perhaps we will make some small dent in the Scottish economy. This is not about revenge."
Nope its not about revenge- its about the US angery that Scotland dared to have the free thought to say to the USA- WELL, NO WE WONT COMPROMISE OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM BECAUSE THE USA DOESNT APPROVE.
Clear enough?
Complain about this comment
116. At 11:46pm on 24 Aug 2009, woodmason wrote:
"I believe in forgiveness."
If you imagine that release on compassionate grounds is the same as "forgiveness" of the crime for which al-Megrahi was convicted then you simply don't understand the situation.
Release on compassionate grounds implies no forgiveness. It says nothing whatever about the original verdict and sentence. Mr al-Megrahi has not been acquitted. He has merely been granted compassionate leave, on licence, to die in a Libyan hospital instead of a Scottish one.
If you must mount your rather pathetic little boycott then do so on the basis of the actuality, not something you have merely imagined.
Complain about this comment
About to pack it in for the night.
A quick question before I go.
As a political naif, I'm not sure where this goes now, and I'm sure there are a multitude of options I haven't considered. Who is aiming to do what? It doesn't look to me as though MacAskill is going to be forced out, I don't see how they could get a no-confidence on Salmond (assuming they wanted to try and initiate a general election). So is it all for vote gathering? That seems a pretty dangerous game to me. Or is all this happening simply because the media ran very hard with the story?
Complain about this comment
Megrahi was released on humane grounds sent home to spend his last dying days to be with his family. When Mr [ex president] Bill Clinton intervened with Gadhafi for the release of the british pregnant drug smuggling girl from england on humane grounds no one argued she should have stayed locked up & she was guilty. Have we become so callous & unfeeling & tell me what purpose would have been served by keeping him locked up to die, would those grieving families really have been satisfied, i suspect nothing would have been able to end their pain. I lost a daughter in 1980 & for me nothing eases the grief i feel each & every day
Complain about this comment
I think the title 'Scottish Justice Secretary' being banded around should perhaps be replaced with the title 'Scottish Legal Secretary' as the Scottish legal system doesn't provide justice; it implements decisions made by judges based on their interpretation of Scottish law.
This is a system I have never known to provide justice for any victim of crime; a fact that disgusts me as I have known many victims and criminals. I hope the consequences of this example of the Scottish legal system at work leads to changes in the system so that some day it might provide some degree of justice for victims of crime in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Contributors to this Blogfest exhibit all the emotions and reactions of the typical process following a tragic or unexplained death; denial, anger, acceptance and (finally) the search for The Truth ... And it's the petty details that grip; they get magnified and absorb us ...
It's The Truth, or rather what that might be, that I'd like to reflect upon; several of you have captured well the arguments surrounding the motives of the various parties nvolved in the daily scrum; once all that context has been dredged up, and the groundswell of public opinion formed, I hope we can focus on this apparently elusive Truth - for now, here's my tuppence worth ...
To start, I think we should all accept that, despite being able to understand the sequence of words emanating from the mouths of the key players (on all sides) there is no implication that what they are saying is true; it may come as a shock to some but the harsh reality is that politicians are ultimately self - serving, nasty little brutes who'd sell your granny for less than half a crown - think otherwise at your peril ... The Meeja are only marginally less pernicious in that there interests are simply nakedly commercial, and their job is to provoke supposedly controvertial comment from anyone who'll listen - in short they'll do anything to sell newspapers or make interesting TV ... See 'bicycle accident versus end of civilisation' ... I advise you to read everything you can, test and compare your views and opinions against those who you think might know better, and make up your own mind; undoubtedly there are those who think the right decision has been made solely because of their political allegiance ...
These basic characteristics and associated motives obscure the search for The Truth; in general, in both cases, they really don't care ...
Secondly, it is entirely possible (indeed logical) to see the Lockerbie Bombing as the inevitable consequence of decisions made long ago ... It is in this sense part of a process of natural re - ordering (of States and their political alignments) that started in anger after WWI (at the Peace Conference where the seeds of so many of today's troubles were sewn) ...
Thirdly, as in many things, it takes only to scratch the surface for all sorts of underlying complexity to appear; try this ... The US shot down the Iranian Airbus at a time when they (the US) were supplying Saddam with weapons in the Iran - Iraq war, so Iraq is suddenly in the picture; we (the UK) effectively created Iraq (at that Peace Conference) ... Iran's current position on Israel is that there should be no Israel; at the same Peace Conference the creation of a homeland for Israel was essentially agreed - in comes isreal and with it the seemingly intractable problems of The Middle East ... Underpinning all this, and bringing things neatly back to the present, is (of course) oil; or, to give it it's more prosaic name, money ... Libya has a lot; we like it a lot, and greedy men with enormous influence and power will do a lot to get their hands on it ...
Why then are we so surprised at the possibility that deals might have been done, that political expediency could outweigh the outrage and high feelings of so many ??? ...
If you haven't read it, and it can be heavy going, try Fisk's 'The Great War for Civilisation'; the long and depressing history of the consequences of The West's interventions in The Middle East, of which (as I said above) Lockerbie is one, is scalpelled open to expose a rotten core of 'permanent interests' (as Disraeli or Gladstone replied to a QV bewildered by our ever - changing alliances; someone please correct this reference) ...
Of course Libya is a pariah state; remember the US bombed it (with our support) not so long ago in retaliation for 'terrorist' attacks ??? ... But that doesn't matter today, not with all that loevly black stuff to find and sell (whoopee !!!) ...
Money makes the world go boom ...
InfrequentAllele: I haven't forgotten the earlier monster thread ('Keeping Time') and I will be responding - if it's still possible - to your #1952 there, at some point ...
Complain about this comment
I don't post much since BBC doesn't like my opinions, but I'll simply say that McAskill did great. And like many I would LOVE to see Labour force an election. Unfortunately, I don't think even they are that stupid.
Too bad about the BBC and newspaper bias. It gets old fast. They seem, however, remarkably inept at changing public opinion. If anything it is growing more pro-MacAskill by the day.
Complain about this comment
Just wanted to add my voice to say Kenny MacAskill comes across as a sincere, honest politician with heart-felt conviction. I truly sense Scotland is rallying round him, I hope the Parliament does too.
Anent the boycottscotland website referred to earlier. Do a detailed whois on the name then look closely at the records. Another website shares the server it is on and if you go to it you will see it shares the same style. And it is no surprise to find it is a one-man band effort - from a guy in New York.
I think the media, over here anyway, have given this guy too much prominence.
Complain about this comment
1. What the parties need to do is not have a confidence vote but have a vote of censure of some sort, say that this was not done in the name of the Scottish people, that if they'd been allowed to meet before the decision took place they would have acted as a Parliament to stop it. That way they can rescue some credibility for our country, make their attack on the SNP and save us all the pointless bickering.
Rants about resignations and votes of confidence are stupid politics, you let the voters force parties out you don't do it yourself. But then strong politics was never something one could expect from the Scottish Parliament (although the nats on here never seem to gather the fact that the collective incompetence of our MSPs, in all parties, is one of the biggest reasons nobody will ever support their agenda)
2. It's wrong to attack Gordon Brown for remaining quiet. The same people would attack him if he came out and criticised the Scottish parliament. MacAskill might have taken what most believe to be the wrong decision, and clearly he screwed up his handling of the affair, but it wasn't an invalid decision. We have a developing federalist system in which such decisions are rightly devolved and the government plays no role in them, therefore shouldn't be commenting on them as to do so undermines the fact that it's a devolved issue as it raises the question of, if the government were really opposed to it why didn't they overrule the decision, and therefore completely undermines the legitimacy of the system. No comment is the correct position for the national government to take in this situation, supporting the right to make a decision, if not the decision itself.
3. The one thing that angers me is MacAskills attempt to give the impression somehow that he took a decision by the book, that his hands were forced because we have criteria for compassionate release and Megrahi met them. It's not his job to arbitrate over whether Megrahi met the criteria for release, there's nobody worse than a politician to do such a job! The reason why these decisions go to a government minister is because they can go either way, taking into account whatever circumstances the minister wants. I would say there were plenty of extra circumstances to consider here that were ignored, the views of the victims for one.
If he truly believes that it was just a tick-box exercise then I think it shows naiivety and an ignorance of his job, but I don't think he does, and so I would like him to own up to the fact that he knew this was a political decision and tok it for political reasons, to show Scotland as a compassionate nation. Again such a position I would find myself heartily opposing but it wouldn't be an invalid position. The "it was the only right decision" and "on the balance of evidence" aren't valid positions. Someone told him what the decision was "on the balance of evidence", he then had to weigh up everything else, which he did. It's time he admits to it.
Complain about this comment
This is my first time on this blog. I went to university in Scotland. Occasionally I watch the Scottish Parliament here in Canada (Ottawa) on our CPAC channel.
I am a little saddened that all that SNP fervour - much of which I sympathised with at the time seems just to have engendered a mouse.
The entries on this blog - just like the debates I have watched in Edinburgh - are so inward, so defensive, as though now that something may have been achieved what do you do next?
The decision to release Megrahi was taken devoid of a sense of the consequences and, I should warn you, is viewed fairly consensually in the press here with derision if not even some outrage.
Also, much as Scotland governs itself it has apparently still only a small proportion of the independence of a Canadian province.
Complain about this comment
147. At 03:03am on 25 Aug 2009, NCA999 wrote:
"MacAskill might have taken what most believe to be the wrong decision..."
Most? You will, of course, have the evidence to back up this bald assertion. Or are you like the despicable anti-Scottish government politicians and just hoping that if you repeat this often enough a significant number of people will assume it to be fact?
Complain about this comment
On the subject of the so-called boycott of Scottish (and UK) goods, I am not aware that anyone is taking this any more seriously than France took the great "freedom-fries" boycott of 2002-03 resulting from its failure to support the ill-starred anglo-US invasion of Iraq. Did France suffer from the bizarre and petulant American threats against it at the time? Hardly.
Is Scotland likely to suffer from the current boycott threat? A picture is conjured up in my mind's eye of numerous vengeful Americans intently engaged in burning piles of Scotch tape or destroying stocks of butterscotch while striving in vain to persuade consumers to turn away from Glenmorangie on the pretext that it is almost as evil as the NHS, Scotland having been discovered to be un-American, which is, of course, a bad thing and should be looked into by the CIA, which should have handled the Lockerbie business in the first place instead of letting a bunch of foreigners in skirts impose some un-American judicial process which doesn't even kill people or send them to jail for 150 years and is, therefore, a mockery of justice . . .
Quite a lot of sympathy for and agreement with the MacAskill decision on Megrahi are being expressed in the Canadian blogosphere, where one may even encounter a degree of admiration for the lesson which little non-independent Scotland has given supposedly independent Canada on how to stand up to the overbearing country to the south of it.
Now that the Scots have told America where to get off, the world is now wondering whether they will have the courage to do the same to the overbearing country to the south of them.
Complain about this comment
148. At 03:24am on 25 Aug 2009, royaldbentley wrote:
"The decision to release Megrahi was taken devoid of a sense of the consequences..."
Surely nobody can be so detached from reality as to suppose that Kenny MacAskill was unaware of the "consequences" of his decision. The main reason he has won such widespread support is that he took the decision he genuinely thought to be right without fear of the inevitable repercussions.
Here in Scotland, we admire people who remain true to their principles under exceptional duress. Perhaps doubly so when the individual happens to be a politician.
Complain about this comment
Nothing said so far even touches my comments. Note also that i spoke (I hope) with some detachment. The tone of many of the postings is so full of defensiveness, such emotion, such resentment, such fluff.
Where is the substance? And yes, I can quite easily conceive that when what is of greatest concern is exercising the bare forms of sovereignty - within whatever small scope it may have - all awareness (Mr MacAskill's) of the outside world is lost - not to mention the events both within and outwith Scotland which brought about the arrest of Mr Megrahi in the first place.
My comments are not meant to incite or anger - just to remind bloggers of the some of the aspects of reality they have not addressed
Complain about this comment
>152. At 05:22am on 25 Aug 2009, royaldbentley wrote:
>Nothing said so far even touches my comments. Note also that i spoke (I >hope) with some detachment. The tone of many of the postings is so full >of defensiveness, such emotion, such resentment, such fluff.
Sadly, and quite obviously royald, most of the commentators here seem to be zealous SNP supporters, and anti anything remotely "unionist" in their minds. And their collective minds seem made up. Hence, the defensiveness, emotion, fluff and resentment that you mention. I could also add: parochialism...
Complain about this comment
Mr Brown, although resident in Scotland, declines to comment on this matter since it is a devolved issue. A pity, but its the only excuse he's got and he's sticking to it.
However Mr Murphy is Westminster's High Commissioner for Scotland, otherwise known as the Scottish Secretary. He has no such excuse.
Complain about this comment
#125 karinm, i presume your posts regarding the saltire flags in Tripoli were all referred to moderators although they are posted now. This would explain to me why nobody picked up on your post. Very interesting if your info is true ... dirty underhand tactics.
#153 If you can tell us one good reason why the union is a good un most on here would listen to you as it is nobody ever has..hence the deep SNP support on this site, and no i dont work for the SNP.
Complain about this comment
Actually, royalbentley, your post was full of generalizations and a total lack of content, I'm afraid.
Generalizations such as "so inward, so defensive" are meaningless. So your point was--what?
"as though now that something may have been achieved what do you do next?"
Since the Scottish Government will lead a full debate on the Lockerbie decision at Holyrood, when it returns from summer recess at the start of September I think it's known what do we do next. Your point again is--what? Did you have one?
"The decision to release Megrahi was taken devoid of a sense of the consequences..."
It's already been pointed out this is a rather daft comment. Of course, he realized. It is one of the reasons the Scots are defending him rather fiercely. They like a Justice Minister who actually has the backbone to stand up to foreign pressure.
"I should warn you, is viewed fairly consensually in the press here with derision if not even some outrage."
Canada right? And so having not caved in to the US, Scotland is supposed to cave in to Canada. Well, I rather doubt it. And I think Scots can live with both your derision and outrage.
MacAskill has earned respect here. And you'll get more response if you make comments that make sense.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov.
You ask why I think MacAskill is a dead man walking. For the last week, he has sought to portray himself as a morally superior being who acted in strict adherence to the law. Yet, by releasing Megrahi on life licence, he has compelled East Renfrewshire Council to legally enforce the conditions of that life licence without either providing the money, the legal instructions or the wherewithal for East Renfrewshire to carry out its legal requirements. For example, how exactly do East Renfrewshire revoke the licence and return him to custody if he breaches the conditions? Do they send in East Renfrewshire's army?
Effectively, this morally superior being who acts in strict adherence to the law has placed East Renfrewshire in an impossible legal position. It wouls seem that while terrorists get the full benefit of law, that benefit does not extend to East Renfrewshire or its people. That is why he is a dead man walking and he knows it.
Complain about this comment
#156
This attitude is pathetic. "We're supposed to give into Canada".
This sums up entirely what you and a number of others on here, completely fail to understand about this situation. I'm not sure if you're just genuinely ignorant or if you know that you're making a ludicrous argument but either way I'm going to respond to it.
The expression of an opinion from an individual in Canada is not the Canadian government trying to "force" us to do anything. Equally expressions of disagreement from people in the government, in the populous from either the UK or the US are not anyone forcing MacAskill to do anything. It's expressing their opinions, which they are entitled to do, and people like you do regularly. A fair a just justice system takes into account the affect a decision will have upon the victims of crime as a major priority. This clearly wasn't done in this case, but even if it was to claim, as some here do, that the victims of this crime are wrong to express anger and upset is something I must disagree with heavily.
Some of the pathetic nationalist conspiracy theorists on this blog perceive this to be some issue of national pride, not whether the decision was right or not, but whether we did the opposite from what everyone else thought we should do to highlight our independence. I think a decision should be taken on its merits.
Here is an interesting question for discussion. If the 270 people had came from Mr MacAskills constituency rather than the United States, do people think he would have made the same decision?
Complain about this comment
#156 MagisteIlluminatus ... COS or wishful thinking ? .. I would imagine that should Megrahi recover fully or live longer than thought that our Justice Minister can fall back on the advice he sought from the medical profession. Conditions ..what conditions does he have ... not leaving the country (Libya) possibly ... nude hangliding into a bucket of eels perhaps .. im sure Megrahi will he taking a low profile from now on.
Complain about this comment
#159 I'd get your facts right if i were you ... all 270 didnt come from the US... a simple search of google and you could find that out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Passengers_and_crew
shoddy comment min ...
Complain about this comment
I'm well aware of that ubinworryin.
It's typical of some people on here to not respond to the point being made but to some pernickity little fact.
I was prompting a discussion to ask peoples opinions. Anybody with a drop of intelligence understood what the topic of my point was. I'm quite sure you probably did as well.
Comments like that just make you look daft, nobody else.
Complain about this comment
#157 MagisterIlluminatus
You make the case against the current devolved settlement rather well. The situation only exists where there is no constitutional structure to deal with such problems.
Clearly there are solutions.
1. Abolish the Scottish Parliament and return political control of Scots Law to Westminster
2. Create a Federal/Confederal structure in which the Federal Government would take the required action to support the "sub-national" (to use the academic jargon) government
3. Independence for Scotland.
Do let us know of your preferred option.
Complain about this comment
Hear, hear NCA999!!!
And to think I was given some sort of Scottish ex-pat history lesson comparing the Revolution and Civil War in the US to Scottish devolution/independence by Brownedov, (...and I have a degree in History!) which would be like comparing apples and footware.
Then he continues on with a not so subtle threat:
" The hope of most here is that self-determination can be achieved without resorting to violence but the staunchly unionist media seek to avoid even discussion of the issue, sadly resulting in an unnecessary rising of tension."
LMAO!
Perhaps I've entered the Twilight Zone and this is really a debate on Ireland and Northern Ireland some fifteen years ago?
Geesh...
Complain about this comment
116 woodmason
Are you going to boycott penicillin if you need it? Anaesthetic if you require it? Drive on the grass in steel rimmed wheels as you wouldn't want to drive on tarmac on pneumatic tyres! Are you going to write a letter condeming your navy founded by a Scot? Ignore your declaration of independence based on ours signed by 13 Scots? Never fly as radar was a concept established by a Scot? The majority of your presidents have Scots ancestry are they now going to be erased from American history? If you are indeed a man of the cloth heaven help(you'll need it) the parish you preach in!
Complain about this comment
oldnat
It's a good point that you make and I think, and I suspect most reasonably people would probably agree, that we need a federalised system across the whole country, not just in Scotland.
Half the problems in our country at the moment come from the fact that different people have different levels of control over their governance. The outcry about the fact that the Scots and Welsh get free prescription charges should be a perfect example of democracy at work, but because people in England don't have the power to elect a devolved government to do anything about it things don't change.
Also a clearer federalised structure would have allowed for greater clarity, and greater checks/balances, about how to deal with problems like this.
Complain about this comment
Some examination with English law in regard to prisoner release might be useful.
In answer to queries about the release of Biggs, Jack Straw said on 21 July 2009.
"To release the advice given to Ministers by officials about the release of Mr. Biggs would be likely to prejudice the provision of full and frank advice to Ministers in future and I am therefore not making this advice public."
He also released tables which made it clear that English Ministers follow the English tradition of greater political interference in judicial affairs. In the period 2004-9, The English Ministers overturned the recommendation to release on 11 occasions.
The 1993 Act was essentially applying the English concept to Scots Law, and Scottish Ministers have followed Scots tradition in distancing political interference. Their role has been to confirm that all the requirements of the law - especially in regard to public risk have been observed.
This is clearly not the time to alter the legislation, but I hope that the Scottish Parliament will, in due course, alter the legislation to something matching Professor Alan Wilson's advice, and finally remove political interference from the administration of the law.
Complain about this comment
Tell me, self righteous Scotsmen; If the gunman from Dunblane had been taken alive, and was now in a Scottish jail dying of prostate cancer would a compassionate Justice Secretary be announcing his release to go and die peacefully at home with his family?
Complain about this comment
I'd just like to say I've have always been a proud Scot. But I'm even more proud due to the contributions of many like minded Scots on this forum so I'd like to thank you all and you know who you are, even Derek! Rabbie would be proud. We are a humane, decent peoples and Kenny Macaskill has done a great job in very difficult circumstances. I'm utterly outraged by most of our media and the despicable Unionists(not all) trying to make political gain out of a sensistive issue. The SNP have shown themselves to be a pricipled party even if you don't agree with them.
Complain about this comment
#161 McAskill has made it clear he made his decision following the law so i suspect had it been 270 Scottish people killed he would have done the same. And no i'm not daft ..just busy.
Complain about this comment
#165 NCA999
Your preference is a Federal system for the UK. That's a perfectly reasonable stance, although you would need to spell out which powers were to be exercised at which level.
Although my preference is independence for Scotland, I would, of course, accept the decision of the nation. In which, probably, lies the rub. My nation is Scotland and the Constitutional Convention reaffirmed that Scotland has the right to determine its own political future. Referendums (referenda? - I'm never sure) would need to be organised for each of the component parts of the UK.
However, we are in total agreement that the current system of asymmetric devolution was ill thought out, and requires a complete re-examination.
Complain about this comment
How curious that Senator Edward Kennedy, the FBI Director and other high-profile US people have found their 'Law-and-Order/Justice-must-be-served' voices to condemn the release of a convicted Terrorist who brutally killed Americans along with others and yet Kennedy etc. found no reason to condemn and return to the UK convicted and wanted Irish Terrorists during 30 years of atrocities!?
What can be the difference?
Oh! No American deaths!
So, one is a 'Terrorist' if they carry out acts that destroy American lives, but another, who calculatedly harms residents of the British Isles is a possible nothing of the sort!?
Thus, the full rigour of Law and Justice according to US opinion must be applied to a Libyan but apparently no such equality pertains to people whose victims were not from North America.
Complain about this comment
#167 Skiptic
Every precedent says that if the guidelines were followed, and there was little risk to the public, then yes.
I presume from your introductory insult that you are not Scots, so you probably don't realise that the tradition of Scots Law is probably different to yours, and much more in line with the concept of human rights.
Complain about this comment
Just to follow oldnat #172, didn't Mr MacAskill cite the example of his predecessor, Mr Wallace, granting just such compassionate release to "a child killer"?
Complain about this comment
On Gray's shame at seeing the Saltire flying in Libya - he is ashamed of the Scottish flag flying at all!
He supports Scotland not speaking for itself internationally.
If he doesn't want us to have any significance ("It's nay for us tae make trouble"), what does it matter to him whether we're seen in a good, bad or florescent light?
On Gray's "silent majority", why then is Radio Scotland crying out for callers and contributors to their programme, this morning and yesterday, who DO NOT support MacAskill? If these people, as claimed, are outraged, does silence usually follow outrage?
The truth, it appears, against the backdrop of three anti-SNP interviews to every MacAskill statement remember (thanks opposition and BBC news - News at Ten was astounding last night...), is that most folk think Kenny was "fair enough".
They are far happier with him speaking for Scotland abroad, than the Brits, and more and more (it's getting harder and harder to avoid), than the opposition, unelected leaders of Scotland as they see themselves, for the more they speak, the more embarrassing THEY appear!
How many people have decided to not vote Labour and vote SNP in future over this.
Complain about this comment
Unionists completely fail to appreciate that this is backfiring on them not because there is overwhelming support for the decision but because of the petty sniping from the likes of Iain Gray who has politicised it.
Arguments can be made regarding the merit of MacAskill's decision and indeed the route he took, however no-one is seriously challenging the assertion that due process was adhered to.
The BBC are complicit in this for one clear reason - they have hoghlighted and given prominence to only one side, they have subjected only one side to serious public scrutiny. The circumstantial evidence suggests that a majority of Scots support MacAskill's decision. No-one can ever be absolutely certain whether MacAskill definitely spoke for most Scots but what evidence we have suggests that he probably did.
Last night's Newsnight Scotland was a perfect opportunity for the BBC to disprove claims of partisan coverage, they blew it by asking three insipid questions of Iain Gray.
Even Jeremy Purvis was asked some difficult questions but a badly twitching Iain Gray need not have been there so blatant was the kid glove treatment. Goldie was also handed the metaphorical cigar and slippers as once again we heard the current version of "When did you stop beating your wife?". How many times will a Unionist be able to start a statement with "if we are to repair the damage this has done ....".
Scotland's reputation has been enhanced in the eyes of many countries. Understandable anger from some of the American victims families and an articulation of that anger by some American politicians is not national outrage nor does it constitute evidence that the reputation of Scotland is in tatters.
Unionists are now firmly back to where they were when the Trump campaign was at it's highest. Assertions, opinions and fantasies are being uttered and headlined routinely - they have displaced the actual facts of the event.
MacAskill adhered to the laid down procedures and processes, if he hadn't then he would have gone by now. Some Americans have complained that they did not agree with the decision - fair enough, but remember that some Americans would also have disagreed with any decision to send him back to Libya as part of the prisoner transfer deal instigated by Labour.
As I have said, the only thing the Unionists have left to cling to is the prison visit and that wasn't even carried out as part of the request for compassionate leave, rather it was as a result of the prisoner transfer request made by Libya - the rest of their attacks are unsubstantiated opinion mixed in with fantasy.
The politicising of this has saw fault lines emerge within the ranks of the Unionists. Many senior figures are now openly supportive of MacAskill and yesterday we witnessed the undermining of at least one leader - Iain Gray.
Complain about this comment
Here is a representative example of a Canadian blog post on the subject of the decision of the Scottish Government in the case of the soon-to-be late Mr Megrahi:
"Thank you Scotland.
Without the moral upperhand of logic, compassion, reason and temperance, we are no better than people who would blow up entire airplanes full of innocents. Scotland's decision is THE VERY REASON we have a right to try and to judge individuals. Without demonstration that we can behave in accordance with the values we profess to impose on others - we have no basis upon which to judge anyone else right or wrong. I don't care who or what or why. Scotland made a decision to treat someone with humanity, despite that individual's inhumanity. Is that not the very and most precise lesson that Jesus taught?"
While it is true that, for fairly obvious reasons, the Canadian media, like the UK media, are not generally sympathetic to 'provincial' governments and political parties that aim to detach their territory from the state of which it is a part, the Canadian public appear to me to be showing unmistakable signs of being split down the middle on the question of whether the Scottish Government did the right thing here. As for their attitude towards Scotland now, I don't think that in a popularity contest between the USA and Scotland there is any doubt as to which of the contestants would win.
The reputation of Scotland is strong enough to withstand criticism and indeed character assassination from the United States, whose own character it assassinated itself long ago.
Complain about this comment
162. Oldnat
Actually, your three alternatives are a complete red herring. Scots Law has always be separate and the majority of it was the Common Law over which Westminster had no control and case law enacted by Scottish Judges in Scottish Courts. The majority will of the Scots people was for the current constitutional settlement and I have no argument with that.
My argument is that the Justice Secretary is supposed to practise equity and fair treatment under the law for everyone. Not just those people whom he feels a moral obligation to - everyone. That he manifestly failed to consider the wider impact of his decision on a significant section of the Scottish population and has now placed them in an impossible legal position is neither equity, nor fair treatment. For that reason alone, his position is untenable and he should resign before he is pushed. He knows it, Alex Salmond knows it and now you know it.
Complain about this comment
#173 Caledonian54
That one was quoted as a dig at the unctuous Lib-Dems, who have abandoned all pretence at recognising their Liberal side and are now so "democratic" that they want a quasi-judicial judgement made by Parliament.
I understand 3 murderers have been released in this way.
Complain about this comment
Skiptic asks at 167:
Tell me, self righteous Scotsmen; If the gunman from Dunblane had been taken alive, and was now in a Scottish jail dying of prostate cancer would a compassionate Justice Secretary be announcing his release to go and die peacefully at home with his family?
We don't know, there are many considerations to take account of. For example the state of his mental health for one coupled with any security implications. It is probable that the security implications might serve to compel a justice secretary to deny such a request.
If however a sufficient time had elapsed and there was no fear of reprisals, as in the case of the child killer released by Jim Wallace, then it is quite possible a dying man could be released.
It would of course come down to the recommendations of the parole board, the prison governor and other bodies that have input.
Now that your question has been answered, care to inform us why you insist on labelling Scottish men as self righteous [I assume Scottish women have been spared the insult]? Not all Scots supported the decision, and of those who did there has been no indication nor evidence of feelings of being self righteous - merely a solemn attempt at explaining the decision.
Complain about this comment
Online_Ed and others... Would you please stop referring to those who opposed MacAskills decision as Unionists. This has absolutely nothing to do with being opposed to SNP seperatism, nothing. Most people don't support independence, it's highly unlikely that all of those people disagree with MacAskill's decision. Equally it's unlikely that the minority of people who do support your cause all agree or disagree with the decision.
The way in which people on this blog turn EVERYTHING into a debate about their one issue of interest is thoroughly tiring.
The SNP sought votes, and got elected, as no longer being a single issue party.
Agreeing or disagreeing with breaking up the country has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with releasing a terrorist. As you accurately point out the government were apparently after this Prisoner Transfer deal which I would have equally opposed.
Please quit with the "Breaks within unionist ranks" comments, and participate in the ACTUAL debate.
Complain about this comment
Some of the cheap shots directed at Scots from our more Hawkish friends across the pond ( especially on Guardian's comment is free) are mind bogglingly offensive.
Long time commenter Berchman's is doing a good job of defending poor wee Scotland because no other b*gger seems to be coming to our defence. Thomas@106 is right that we are pretty much defenceless against these attacks especially when our Prime Minister is awol yet again.
Anyway back to Berchmans, I loved this exchange on Kevin Mackenna's blog about Lockerbie
JoeN said ( disparagingly to Scots)
.
## you can have a state like a big boy!##
Berchman's put down in reply,
"We had a state here when your people were being helped by the Indians to dig roots. We were the most enlightened, liberal and apart from Sweden the most literate country in the world when you guys were living in Dogpatch from coast to coast."
Like Chisolm yesterday, well done that man!
Complain about this comment
"Mr MacAskill gave a statement to the Scottish Parliament, which was recalled early from its summer break."
Can someone provide the answer to these questions?
The BBC appears incapable of doing so.
What is the name of the person who made the decision to recall the Scottish Parliament early?
On what authority did that person do so? Using a parliamentary procedure under which Act?
I'm sure providing the answers will not be difficult for those posters on this board who pride themselves on their expert political knowledge.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#176 frankly_francophone
Thank you frankly, I was wanting you to give us a take on how this story is being convered abroad. (Less biased perhaps? :-)
Complain about this comment
#123 Brownedov
We're getting off topic here and it's possibly unfair to use this thread for a discussion on devolution. But I think it's relevant.
I had for a fleeting moment wondered when posting previously whether you meant "most" in the context of this thread, but (wrongly) assumed you would not think you could presume to speak for the other people posting here. All the indications from polls are that there is no majority for independence. As I said, the SNP do not even have a true majority in parliament.
No, Mr Salmond knows he is not winning the debate by reason, so he also takes a much more dangerous line. He's working on the other side of the equation by deliberately seeking to stir thing up south of the border with Westminster and with the English people. So the Megrahi case fits in with that. The fairly benign respect of the English for the Scots is slowly being whittled away and turned around by the deliberate policies of Mr Salmond. Eventually England will want rid of us, which will in turn stir up a desire for independence here. So reasoned argument is substituted with antagonism, leading to hostility.
And on this side we have veiled threats such as yours;
"The hope of most here is that self-determination can be achieved without resorting to violence". So good of you to be willing to give reason a try first.
The families of the Lockerbie victims and Mr Mehgrahi are pawns in so many "games" right now.
Complain about this comment
#158 NCA999
"A fair a just justice system takes into account the affect a decision will have upon the victims of crime as a major priority."
MacAskill has stated repeatedly that he took representations from many concerned parties including the families of the victims, he has stated that he took it into account in his deliberations which led him to his decision.
You are stating that he didn't take it into account, and that his decision was unjust, when the simple fact is he did take it into account and you can't accept that he didn't come to the same decision you did!
"but even if it was to claim, as some here do, that the victims of this crime are wrong to express anger and upset..."
The 'some' you mention must be a particularly small sample, as I can't recall anyone saying that the victims (by which i take you to the families of the victims) are wrong to express anger or upset. If they did, I and the overwhElming majority of posters to this forum would disagree with it as heavily as you - and to pretend otherwise is to seek to paint a nasty picture of those who dare to disagree with you.
"Here is an interesting question for discussion. If the 270 people had came from Mr MacAskills constituency rather than the United States, do people think he would have made the same decision?"
This is why a legal system that makes its decisions based based on some priciples of justice is the mechanism we use rather that a system which bases its decisions on the opinions of those most closely affected - waht a justice system that would be! MacAskill has already responded to this asisine line of questioning when asked if he had a son/daughter brother/sister on the plane. He said he would expect the process that has been enacted to be replicated in that case too! So franklY, not that interesting a question for discussion.
"This attitude is pathetic. "We're supposed to give into Canada".
This sums up entirely what you and a number of others on here, completely fail to understand about this situation. I'm not sure if you're just genuinely ignorant or if you know that you're making a ludicrous argument but either way I'm going to respond to it."
No. What is happening is that when anyone who comes on this forum from some country around the globe and claims that their country is a against it, is simply a way of building on the pretence that there is some kind of global condemnation of MacAskill's decision - false. Have a look around and tell us where you are seeing this mass condemnation from around the globe - it isn't in evidence. So when posters on this forum respond to fluff pieces claiming consensual indignation from any nation, they are well within their rights.
Your reaction simply highlights your own failure to understand the situation.
Complain about this comment
#177 MagisterIlluminatus
Your debating style lacks substance.
You make a weak point (East Renfrewshire Army).
Solutions are proposed which would unify the appropriate functions of government.
You respond inappropriately by referring to the administration of Scots Law, when the point is its political control. You say you are happy with the constitutional settlement, when it was the inconsistencies of that settlement that you were complaning about!
You then make a wholly different point and claim that this is now "your argument".
Weak.
Complain about this comment
#124 karinm
Very interesting how touchy BBC moderators are to anyone mentioning the source of the Scottish flags.
Could there be any clearer an example of manipulation of public perception for political purposes than that?
It's even more sinister than their usual tactic of deleting posts that expose Unionist duplicity.
Complain about this comment
#177 magister
Again you confuse the whole issue, I dont think Mr MacAskill has a moral obligation to any prisioner, he followed the due course of Scottish law and certainly did involve all those people who were likely to be most affected by a release decision.
Your consistent impartial attack upon Mr MacAskill, are most certainly not transcended by reason nor by due process, you simply have a grievience against Mr MacAskill and your quite happy to fabricate your views, to justify your cause.
Complain about this comment
180
The UK is not a country but I would love to break it up. Do you think the term 'separatism' is some sort of bad word to be used against those who have a different opinion from you? You are a Unionist with nothing to offer as usual. Just how many steps ahead are the SNP? They wrongfoot everyone time and again. Those with intellect(separatists) appear to hold the better view, maybe a wee bit condescending but you catch my drift?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I watched the MacAskill speech and Q&A in Holyrood yesterday. I thought Kenny did quite well. He did fluff a couple of answers but, after all, he is only human. I would rather have a man of principle making a couple of insignificant mistakes than a fully polished machavellian Mandelson type where I couldn't trust a word that they said.
Interesting point put over by a previous poster (karinm I think) about the saltires being made available by the British embassy in Libya. Is there any proof of this? I live in London and have been trying to get one for ages. It seems like I need to go to Libya to get one. This is not just an unimportant point, over the flags, if the previous poster is correct in their posting then this is the UK government deliberately interferring in Scottish judicial matters to make the Scottish (SNP) goverment look bad on the world stage. Then you would also have to ask yourself who was flying them and why? If it was supplied by the Gadaffi regime then why didn't they supply the St. George's cross or the Union flag too? If the previous poster is right in their information then this stinks of blatant political interference.
As to Brown and Murphy disappearing it is quite right that they have no say on a purely Scottish judicial matter, but when it comes to foreign relations then this is nothing to do with Scots law or devolved matters and it is right that something is said by the UK governemnt, so where are they? Where are our UK Foreign Office representatives to stand by the people of Scotland when we need them? I suspect that the voters will remember this when it comes to the next GE and, I suspect, not just the Scottish voters but also the rest of the UK voters who are sick of this corrupt government. There are going to be a lot of Scottish MPs who are going to be out of a job, post election. The best thing that the Labour party can do is to dump Brown and go to the electorate. However, I suspect that it may be better for the SNP if Brown and his cronies were to stay in office until the bitter end. Even with the usual bribe that governments normally give to the voters (with our money) just prior to a GE it will not be enough to wash away the sleaze from this malfunctioning UK government.
Complain about this comment
#102
Interesting to see Jim Murphy at the Rev Ernest Levy's funeral, The Reverend would I am sure have supported McAskills position considering his stance on forgiveness and compassion, all the more bewildering then that Murphy should oppose the decision(#110)though I havent seen that myself.
Levy was a formidable character who as a holocaust survivor could quite easily have become an embittered and vengeful man yet chose compassion over hate. Woodmason could do with taking a leaf from his book.
Complain about this comment
To the eyes of this Scots-Irish descended American, it would seem that many of you ultra Scottish nationalists have got your proverbial panties in a bunch over this. You throw around terms such as Unionists and Brits as slurs, as if you are currently not in a union and are not Brits. Or, are these coined and convenient terms for the English? If so, you're a sad lot indeed.
Drawing on my history lessons, I do believe that the last two PM's of the Union were in fact Scots, as were some Kings. Some of you talk about these sovereign leaders as well as your own brothers and sisters in the devolved Scottish Parliament as if they are interlopers at best and traitors at worst. Frankly, this speaks volumes about you and yours and the fanaticism the reeks from your words. To be honest, it is not a pretty sight, and frankly, I for one am embarrassed to be a part Scot at this time (and it has nothing to do with the flag flying in Tripoli...it has to do with the things you type here and now).
Quick question for you ultras: what will you do with those you consider Unionists after you gain your coveted "independence"? Toss the buggers south of the border "where they belong"?
Complain about this comment
#157 MagisterIlluminatus
If East Renfrewshire Council is repsonsible in law for enforcing the conditions of Megrahi's life licence, then they are responsible for enforcing it. The law has compelled them to be responsible.
How do you know they will not be provided money should any egregious costs be involved?
Do you think if the UK government were responsible and conditions were broken that they would send in an army?
No. What would happen if prisoner on licence in a council in Scotland absconded to and was protected by a foreign power? Presumably, the council would make representations to the next tier of government to deal with it on their behalf as they do not have the powers and resources required, this process would lead us to the national government and whichever body they would find most appropriate to deal with such troubling circumstances.
I assume that is what would happen in this case too.
Hardly the 'dead man walking' scenario you assert.
Complain about this comment
Mr bighullabaloo
I imagine it will have been the office of the speaker, likely in conjunction with the executive.
Such decisions are usually taken when there is a sufficiently large number of MSPs requesting a session on a serious issue.
On a serious note I would say it's a good thing that Parliament discusses this, as the Justice secretary should really be representative of the Parliament, in that their support is what grants him his job. As with all such jobs they would ideally be done by the parliament, but practically cannot be, hence why we have cabinets. Parliament is still however the supreme authority, not an individual minister in a minority administration.
If that helps answer your question?
Mr bfaethedee.
No thats not what I was saying, I suggest you go back and actually read my comments and then perhaps you may understand them.
I'll spell the point out for you just in case I was being a little too subtle for you to properly get your head round.
I was arguing that he hadn't appropriately balanced the opinions of the victims, clearly he will have taken them into consideration. His decision on most of the days that he deliberated to go home for dinner at 5pm was probably a factor in his decision as well, just probably not a very big one. My argument is that he came to the wrong decision, and that he did so because he weighed the impact on the victims as less than the impact on the criminal. I think this is wrong, what do you think?
sir_mord
Whilst clearly you're right re: Salmonds tactics to win Independence, I suspect even most Nats on here would agree that this is one of his main plans at the moment, I don't think it's fair to say that this decision was taken to antagonise the rest of the country. I do believe that MacAskill made a genuine decision. His attempt at self agrandisation and to paint us as being somehow better than the inhumane legal systems of every country that isn't Scotland could be argued to be part of SNP spin but I don't believe the decision was. Clearly he's taken a difficult decision, in difficult circumstances.
My anger, and I think the real anger of almost everyone I've spoken to, is that such a screw up was made of it. I personally think the decision was wrong and ill conceived, but it's execution was the really bad part and the bit which MacAskill will ultimately fall on the sword for I imagine.
Complain about this comment
184
More Unionist nonsense. We need a referendum but the Unionists are too scared! Is that maybe not a better way to gauge the country's feeling - i.e. if the Unionists thought they would win they would endorse it, maybe they need some of KM's backbone.I presume you agree that Macaskill's action is gathering support! Are you worried?
Complain about this comment
Shereen Nanjiani's phone in yesterday heard her desperately trying to suggest that there was some kind of deal hatched when MacAskill met Megrahi in prison.
On this morning's show we witnessed Shereen taking this a step further by asking "What promises were made to Megrahi in the meeting?". This was asked many times by Shereen who has clearly decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that promises were made to Megrahi.
A handfull of callers at last gave Shereen what she craved, but alas they disagreed with not just MacAskill's decision but the alternatives suggested by the opposition. Once again though, most callers supportive of MacAskill's decision.
A clear explanation by SNP MSP Michael Mathieson, who called in response to unionist MSP's phoning in, on the exact nature of the prison visit that it was carried out as a result of the pridoner transfer request and NOT the compassionate leave request seemed to whoosh right over Shereen's head as she curiously asked Mathieson how he knew this if he wasn't there!!
Shereeen again asked "what promises were made to Megrahi", clearly as far as Shereen was concerned promises were made - it was just a question of what they were.
Unionists still insisting that the electorate are siding with them, let them believe that if they wish.
Complain about this comment
#193 TripleRLtd
For someone to consider someone else as "ultra" anything requires, of course, that they themselves be speaking from a standpoint at the opposite extreme.
Thus, it's time you had a good long look in the mirror.
Complain about this comment
#190 RJCowboy
I think you are wrong. Megrahi was the equivalent on a CIA operative working for the Libyan state. Not a terrorist. Now your Senators are visiting Libya, still under the same administration as when Lockerbie happened and glad handing them for their oil. If you have $6000 you can go on a mission, sponsored by the US government, in the fall and get government help with introductions and translators. So not much terrorism there. Even Bush never had Libya in his axis of terror.
Complain about this comment
Megrahi is on a licence release, are the leaders of the opposition parties calling for that license to be rebuked and for Megrahi to return to a Scottish prison?.
Or are those opposed just playing a political game?.
Complain about this comment
#193 TripleRLtd
You raise a good point. What did you do with the Confederates after your Civil War?
Complain about this comment
#193 TripleRLtd
It is difficult to understand the language used in the political debates of another country. When I'm in the USA I have great difficulty in understanding the way in which you use words like "liberal". Like most Europeans I have difficulty in understanding why you even debate the concept of universal health care.
However, I recognise I'm seeing a different system, whose people use their own political language, and never comment. You should consider adopting a similar approach.
To help you understand. "Nationalist" means someone who wishes to dissolve the current political union with the UK. "Unionist" means someone who wishes to preserve that union. "Ultras" is a term of abuse which can be applied to either side of the debate.
Complain about this comment
First time poster.
First, I'd like to thank all the regular posters here for giving me much food for thought,as well as many informative links.I don't know if anyone has touched on this point yet,there have been so many posts that I haven't had time to read them all.
I don't think that there has been any collusion between Edinburgh &
London on the al Megrahi matter. There are many at Westminster who are qualified in Scottish law,Alistair Darling being one of them. Once it
had been announced that al Megrahi had terminal cancer, & Kenny MacAskill is apparently well known in legal circles as a stickler for the letter of law,surely those at Westminster must have felt that this affair would reach the conclusion that it did. Which would explain the UK governments confidence in assuring Gaddafi that al Megrahi would be released.
Complain about this comment
Comment 180 NCA999:
Online_Ed and others... Would you please stop referring to those who opposed MacAskills decision as Unionists.
Note the attempt by NCA999 to suggest that all who disagree with Macaskill's decision are deemed Unionist by independence supporters who post here.
NCA999 has simply ignored the obviious flaw in this statement - namely the repeated acknowledgement of American's who oppose the decision.
What I and others who post here, are doing is criticising Unionist politicians like Iain Gray who have politicised the situation.
Indeed there have been some Unionists who support the decision as evidenced by Chisholms comments yesterday as well as Henry Macleish and others, something that has been acknowledged also.
It's got to the point that even those Unionists who post comment here are realising that this has been very badly handled by Unionist politicians and as such are now reverting to tired old misrepresentation.
Complain about this comment
to RJCowboy a few questions for you....
after the US Warship blew up the Iranian plane in 1980's, did the ship receive glorious welcome home ? did the sailors who fired the weapons and the ships commanders receive prison sentances or medals ? Did much of the funding of terrorists activities in Northern Ireland come from the USA ? How many IRA bombers did the US help to release and how many people did they kill ?
Complain about this comment
193 TripleRLtd,
are you accusing us of having a big Freedom Fry on our shoulder?
Complain about this comment
am not a regular blogger, but as i am a resident of Lockerbie and have been all of my life i feel the word JUSTICE is not accounted for. this matter is a disgrace and angers me to the bone.
i read that he served just 11.5 days for each MURDER!! Mr MacAskill's hang your head in shame.
Complain about this comment
Digressing slightly here but everyone refers to Megrahi as a 'terrorist'.
Now assuming he was guilty as convicted of the horrible offence to humanity that was the Lockerbie bombing, he was acting under the orders of his superiors in the Libyan government. Is he then not a soldier carrying out orders and therefore guilty of a war crime rather than a common law offence. Should this even have been prosecuted under Scots Law.
Back to Mr. McAskill's decision. I don't fully support it but I can see his reasonings behind it. What I do admire is his guts in standing up and making it, then defending his decision to the world without trying to blame it on someone else
Complain about this comment
198. bighullabaloo
Thanks for the advice bro. I checked the mirror.
It turns out I'm an American of Scots/Irish descent, and have no horse in this race. Just stating what I'm reading from your lot.
ps
You could have checked my posts, you know, click on my name...
Complain about this comment
#203 Rockycoast
Welcome. You make a very good point. I hadn't thought of that.
I'm always interested in conspiracy theories but, as you show, there are usually simpler explanations.
Conspiracy theories are fine in the blogosphere, but I do get worried when political parties try to use them as a tactic.
Complain about this comment
Jack Straw's U-turn on Ronnie Biggs tells you all you need to know about this. Rather than bringing down McAskill, I wonder if this might bring down McAvity?
Complain about this comment
177. At 09:27am on 25 Aug 2009, MagisterIlluminatus wrote:
"That he manifestly failed to consider the wider impact of his decision on a significant section of the Scottish population and has now placed them in an impossible legal position is neither equity, nor fair treatment."
What is this "impossible legal position" and who exactly is included in the "significant section of the Scottish population" that is supposedly affected?
Complain about this comment
#207 Downie Boy
I think everyone agree that there has never been justice for those affected by the crime. Other than anyone who might think Megrahi was acting on his own, there has never been an adequate explanation of why a plane was downed over your town.
That, however, is a different matter from applying the law in all cases. You can't make law for a particular case, and especially not in anger.
Complain about this comment
#195 NCA999
I quoted what you actually typed in as part of the specific post to which I responded, I shall do it again now
(nca999)158"A fair a just justice system takes into account the affect a decision will have upon the victims of crime as a major priority. This clearly wasn't done in this case,..."
See how you say that a fair justice system takes the opinion of victims into account, then go on to say it wasn't done in this case.
Then i say yes it was, and that you're real problem isn't that things weren't taken into account but that you don't like that his decision was different from the one you'd have liked -
(mine 185)"You are stating that he didn't take it into account, and that his decision was unjust, when the simple fact is he did take it into account and you can't accept that he didn't come to the same decision you did!"
So perhaps you should read the responses to your comments more carefully, particularly when the responses are to direct quotes.
Now we have -
(nca999 195)"I was arguing that he hadn't appropriately balanced the opinions of the victims, clearly he will have taken them into consideration."
You're point now seems to be exactly as I suggested, you simply didn't agree with his decision.
The reasons for which require no subtlety - self-evidently he weighed up the factors differently than you would.
This is exactly why I highlighted that you were wrong to state that he hadn't taken certain things into account (as quoted above). I think it muddies the water, and if all you are trying to do is say that you don't like his decision, that's what you should have said instead.
My tiny mind is incapable of managing the subtleties of you not saying what you mean and instead replacing it with things that aren't correct.
For what it's worth I have absolutely no problem with the idea that many people disagree with MacAskill's decision. I think he called it right; crucially, I think that he went about it in the right manner. On his actual decision at least we can surely agree to disagree, no?
Complain about this comment
I do think the decision is right, but am ashamed at the poor handling of the announcement, and the damage to relationships with the bereaved families and other governments. It may be the Cabinet Secretary's decision but the effect of it on trade, and Scotland's reputation and the nation's pride and values called for wider consideration. The apparent lack of consultation seems to call into question the Scottish Government's ability to play on the international stage. Constant repitition of the same statements by Cabinet colleagues won't change the bad press.
Complain about this comment
# 193 TripleRLtd
'Or, are these coined and convenient terms for the English?'
No. Even if Scotland gets its independence we will still be British. British is a term which relates to the inhabitants of these isles. If we mean English we will say so. You use the term 'American' to describe yourself but America is a continent. I assume that you are a citizen of the USA but are happy to call yourself an American.
'You throw around terms such as Unionists and Brits as slurs'
The term 'Unionist' is to describe someone who supports the Union. Whereas we see ourselves as 'Nationalists', meaning we want independence from the UK. I seem to remember that the forefathers of the USA had a similar disagreement with the UK.
'Some of you talk about these sovereign leaders as well as your own brothers and sisters in the devolved Scottish Parliament as if they are interlopers at best and traitors at worst.'
Really? Can you name those people and give examples of your accusation? As far as I can see we (Nationalists) disagree with the 'Unionists' as to what is the best course for Scotland. I think that you will find that the vast majority of us 'Nationalists' want to continue having good relations with England after independence. Some of us have even attacked anti English posters on this blog in the past. So your assumptions do not add up.
'what will you do with those you consider Unionists after you gain your coveted "independence"? Toss the buggers south of the border "where they belong"? '
No. They have a right to, not only to live where they want, but, have any political views that they want. It is called democracy. We reserve the right to have that as well. I hope that makes it clear for you.
Complain about this comment
#193
You may be embarassed to be a part Scot and are entitled to your opinion, however, if you had been a regular reader of this blog you will realise that the majority of "nats" have no quarrel with the English, plese do not confuse the Brits and Unionists as being English, there are also many Scots who believe in the Union and consider themselves British.
When we gain independence the Unionists will still be welcome in Scotland, we may not agree with their politics but that doesn't mean we have to ignore them or boycott them.
You should be more embarrased to be an American at this time considering the unchristian attitudes emanating from your countrymen.
Complain about this comment
I think that Westminster saw an oportunity with the possible release of Al Magrahi,on compassionate grounds to hatch a trap for SNP and discredit them, allowing a labour/liberal Dem colation to return to power.
The reasons for this are that consitantly polls have shown that should Cameron become PM that the poll figures for indepence go up by 15 - 25 % which woul be enough for the referendum to be won. Should this happen then Labour will never get the keys for Downing street again as they rely upon scottish MP's to get the majority required to get there. I think that this shows that Labour are expecting Cameron to win and know what the future for them holds if that happens. They had hoped that Scottish public opinion would reject the SNP government and a return to power of a Lib/Lab government in Scotland.
But it appears to have backfired on them and if they do force a no confidence vote and an election happens then their worst fears will happen and Scotland will become to Labour what it has become for the Conservatives a place where they hold minimal seats. It is very conspicous that no one from westminster is getting involved, they are probably hoping that Scotland is hit economicaly and that this will help them acheive their objective. If they had been sucessful then we could say bye bye to free prescriptions and other policies that are for the people of Scotland. Hello to more backroom deals regarding the further outsourcing of parts of the NHS, lining private companies pockets and possibly the pockets of others, by backhanders which did go on under the labour/liberal government.
Complain about this comment
#207 Downie Boy
i feel the word JUSTICE is not accounted for. Are you sure that justice is the word you should have used? Perhaps vengeance was closer to the mark? If he's dead in three months how many extra days will that be for each life lost? Vengeance is mine saith the Lord so we should leave him to get on with it and as mere humans try to behave as humanely as possible.
Complain about this comment
207 please read 208
Complain about this comment
180. At 09:35am on 25 Aug 2009, NCA999 wrote:
"Online_Ed and others... Would you please stop referring to those who opposed MacAskills decision as Unionists."
You are confused. The unionists are being attacked, not because of their opposition to MacAskill's decision, but because of their decision the politicise the issue in the name of petty partisanship.
Some of these may genuinely disagree with the decision. But, taking their past record into account, one is bound to suppose that at least the most duplicitous and self-serving among the Tory/BLP alliance are feigning outrage as part of their ongoing campaign to undermine the Scottish government regardless of the interests of the Scottish people.
In the Scottish tradition, the people are sovereign. In fact, parliamentarians are ultimately answerable only to the people. The unionist cabal in Holyrood can no longer claim to be a "loyal opposition" as they have forsaken allegiance to Scotland's parliament and people in favour of loyalty to their party and the union.
Complain about this comment
OldNat: if you don't understand, you need to become better "read"...as in well read. And thanks for trying to "help me understand", but I understand quite well what these terms mean in Britain. You see, I am well read. Frankly, I just hadn't understood how the ultra's had taken over the beeb blogs.
Grassynole: yes
Handclapping: The confederates turned out just fine in fact. The feds/Union didn't sent them to Canada. ;) Rather, Jefferson Davis spent a couple years in prison for treason, but Rob't E Lee only lost his citizenship which was eventually restored. Within a year or two, Reconstruction/restoration deemed to restore the south to its pre-war status quo.
Many ended up running the country years later. What is ironic is that the party of Lincoln was in fact the Republicans. The Republicans in turn eventually became the majority party of the south.
To whomever brought up the conspiracy theory about the flags in Tripoli: the original poster stated that an employee at the UK embassy provided them. IOW, a local employee like the one Iran arrested that you Brits employed in Tehran. You're reallllly reaching now. No surprise that...
Complain about this comment
#213 oldnat
"That, however, is a different matter from applying the law in all cases. You can't make law for a particular case, and especially not in anger."
True, well said, and not said often enough.
It is, in my opinion, one of the major reasons why in recent years controversial legal decisions in many different areas rumble on for so long and to such a degree. There seems to be a poor understanding of this idea in general. As a consequence whenever people feel that a given case should be handed a particular way there arises an assumption that specific details of a case can somehow be framed directly in law. It lends itself also to tabloid sensationalism which feeds back to reinforce a poor lay understanding of the legal system in principle.
Complain about this comment
#174 vere_scribo:
#197 Online_Ed:
Two hours 44 minutes into "Good Morning Scotland" today Shereen Nanjiani said that they'd had 300 calls mostly supportive of MacAskill and hundreds and texts and email again mostly supportive but followed this with the question, "Is this just a very vocal minority?".
She then followed up with, "If there is a silent majority out there we really want to hear from you.".
From this exhortation I can only assume that "Good Morning Scotland" is actively soliciting anti-MacAskill comments because the bulk of the comments so far have not followed the Labour script.
Complain about this comment
Gray claims he has a different interpretation of 'compassion' from MacAskill. That certainly appears to be true. Everyone agrees that this was the toughest decision for any minister in the devolved parliament since its inception and the stress of the decision shows in MacAskill's demeanor. Yet Gray and the opposition parties are still going after him like wild dogs. Is this what Gray means by 'compassion'. Why doesn't Gray back off and take the lesser mortals like Scott with him. They have had their pound of flesh from MacAskill. They should now leave the man alone.
Gray says he would not have released MacAskill but it would never have been within his remit if he was first minister (another little porky), and does Gray's view echo that of Gordon Brown? I am sure they would have had their little coaching tete a tete. You can visualise it; "What will I do Gordon, what should I say, what should our slant be on this?"
Margaret Curran on Radio this morning, was singing off the standard issue Labour hymn sheet. Has she no originality in her thinking?
I see that the story about saltires being supplied to the Libyan's from the British Embassy in Tripoli is still doing the rounds. Even if it is not true, it is not surprising that this story is getting some ceredibility as it is not outside the realms of dirty tricks perpetrated by dishonest governments.
Complain about this comment
@ 222 TripleRLtd wrote
"Frankly, I just hadn't understood how the ultra's had taken over the beeb blogs."
Strange isn't it?
This blog is open to anyone but it seems the unionists ( sharp intake of breath there, but yes that's what we call them because that's what they are) with a few exceptions, can't be bothered to come on and argue their case. Is it laziness, indifference, an absence of sound arguments, or a British Broadcasting Company conspiracy to give the nationalists free reign?
Complain about this comment
#195 NCA999
"I imagine it will have been the office of the speaker"
Typically, you have failed to read or understand what I asked.
I simply asked for the NAMES of some of these "MPs". Who were they?
How many MPs need to ask the Presiding Officer for a recall (there is no "Speaker") before their request is granted? In which Act of Parliament is this "number" specified? Who decides what is a "serious" issue? On what criteria?
We are supposed to have "open" government yet answers to these simple questions - even for a self-appointed "expert" like you - are not forthcoming.
So, no. Your "reply" does not in any way answer my questions. And it contains glaring errors of fact to boot.
Complain about this comment
#196 SchoolTieColours
"I presume you agree that Macaskill's action is gathering support!"
It's genuinely very difficult just now to provide any accurate answer to that. I certainly would not rely on any online forum or radio phone-in as an accurate poll of opinion. My suspicion is that the balance of opinion is against MacAskills decision, but I can't back that up.
Are I worried? I'd certainly be very worried if the SNP were in charge of an independent Scotland.
We're way off topic, let's not forget people like "Downie Boy". If I post any more to this thread it will only be directly related to MacAskills decision.
Complain about this comment
#209 TripleRLtd
"It turns out I'm an American of Scots/Irish descent, and have no horse in this race."
It's obvious from what you've written in #193 that you are on the "anti-SNP" horse.
You claim to have looked "in the mirror" but you can't have done so or you'd have seen that in labelling others as so-called "Ultra Nats" you are labelling yourself as being in opposition to them, or, to use your analogy: you're "backing a horse".
Complain about this comment
195. At 10:15am on 25 Aug 2009, NCA999 wrote:
"My anger, and I think the real anger of almost everyone I've spoken to, is that such a screw up was made of it."
What "screw up"? You and others of your ilk refer to this as if it was established fact. But the reality is that the Justice Secretary was scrupulous in adhering to due process and the procedures stipulated by law, convention and formal agreements between the UK and Libyan governments.
There was no "screw up"? The pretence that there was is merely political propaganda. A groundless smear generated by those whose sole purpose is to contrive every opportunity to undermine the elected government of Scotland.
You might want to reflect upon the unsavoury company you keep.
Complain about this comment
175.175. Online_Ed
"Goldie was also handed the metaphorical cigar and slippers as once again we heard the current version of "When did you stop beating your wife?". How many times will a Unionist be able to start a statement with "if we are to repair the damage this has done ...."."
I will defend Annabel Goldie.
I believe that she and anyone (not neccessarily Unionists) have the right to explain how to repair the damage done to Scotlands international reputation.
And yes, Goldie is correct, it has been damaged.
83% are against the Lockerbie bombers' release, now I am not saying this to suggest we do as US public thinking demands- but to highlight that there are alot of angery Americans there; and they might look kindly upon the 'boycott Scotland' movement.
The very association of the 'Scottish Government' being thanked by Gaddafi, Libya, and being congrad. by the Lockerbie bomber was seen around the world. It is going to cause damage- rightly or wrongly.
It is unbelievably nieve for you to:
a) suggest all opposition to the release comes from 'unionists'
b) suggest that thre has been absolutely no international backlash
Goldie is therefore entirely justified to seek to outline what a Scottish Conservative alternative would do to repair the damage. Damage caused by MacAskil and his decision.
Complain about this comment
#222 TripleRLtd
I was being courteous to you. However, if you choose to use abusive terms ....
You were so ill read that you didn't even know the SNP position on Scottish citizenship. Your minimal understanding meant that you were unaware of EU rules on the freedom of movement with the Union. What do you read? The Beano?
Those supporting independence for Scotland have not "taken over the blogs". If Unionists posted with intellectually coherent arguments, that would be a pleasant change.
Complain about this comment
@47 Bloo Toon wrote
"it is interesting that in phone in shows there seem to be a balance in favour of the decision and yet in pre-edited shows (news, current affairs, lite entertainment) few or no voices are heard in support of the decision. "
This ties in with Doug's comment @224.
There always seem to be abundant numbers of irate wee bauchles in poplin coats on Sauchiehall St ready to express their disgust with the SNP on Reporting Scotland but live shows seem to uncover hitherto undiscovered SNP supporters.
Maybe the BBC will have to stick to the pre- recorded shows if they're not getting the kind of callers they want.
Complain about this comment
218. ColonelKurtz
"The reasons for this are that consitantly polls have shown that should Cameron become PM that the poll figures for indepence go up by 15 - 25 % which woul be enough for the referendum to be won"
You are being nieve. Incredibly so. You seem to think that DC wouldn't understand and act to aswade Scottish fears. He will, because he understands the political games the SNP will start up once he is PM.
This is why he has supported Goldies' pursuit for further devolution. I honestly believe this 15-20% will vanish totally once DC buys Scotland away from seperatism by offering up further devolution.
Cameron is more than capable of handling Salmond, but post 2010 Scotland will be full of SNP-Con marginals and it will be extremely interesting to see whse record in government enables them to win.
Complain about this comment
#195
The "victims" are dead. I presume you meant "the families of the victims".
Fortunately our legal system does not base its decisions on punishment of the feelings of the families of the victims. Otherwise most of our convicted murderers (or,indeed drunk drivers who have killed in accidents)would be hung,drawn and quartered and their entrails fed to the crows.
I am sure Mr McAskill was fully aware of the feelings of SOME of the families of the victims and just as aware of the completely different feelings of others of them.
These have little substantive effect on the legal position.
Complain about this comment
#234
Sorry Dean but you're very wrong.
Cameron would be very happy to see an independent Scotland because it means that the Tory/Labour balance in England would be such that the chances are there would be an almost permanent Tory Govt in power at Westminster.
Complain about this comment
okay I'd like to apologise for my previous post from this morning which was perhaps off topic but there is a lot hypocrisy out there which is getting up my nose.
McAskill had to make a a decision, he made it, some may agree some may not but a decision had to be made. Scotland may be split down the middle altho most of the people i've spoken to pro the decision. Unfortunately that doesn't make as good telly as hysteria and cheap political point scoring. McAskill made a decision based on the law of THIS land and the recommendations from the prison service and doctors. Well done him for standing up and making that brave decision, which it seems the other parties in Scotland would not have the bottle for.
I certainly don't buy this alternative of putting him in a local hospice. I know from family experience that hospices places are in high demand. Are the tories really suggesting we should put him to the front of the queue and subject all the staff, patients, and visitors to security clearances, searches and armed guards ? I don't think so
Complain about this comment
That's quite the stretch bighullabaloo. I must have touched a nerve or two. Let me ask you: if I labeled you a Ranger fanatic, if in fact you were, would that make me a Celtic fanatic? Of course not, since I am neither.
As a matter of fact, as a trained and educated historian, it is in my province to recognize fanatical ultra nationalists when I read or hear one (or many in one place as it were).
Frankly you lot tire me, and it time for work 'cross the pond...
Complain about this comment
#180 NCA999
No, it has everything to do with Scotland and independence. The debate is to do with devolution meaning a Scottish parliament has been heard internationally, and the outcome of that, how that seems to us and others. Whether MacAskill was right, or wrong, internationally.
Not internally. Internally is a non-story, as every country would be predicted to be split on these contentious issues.
By the way "separatist" infers we are a group of one. Scotland is already separate. Britain is four countries, not one. Independence is about a separate nation having its own sovereign voice, just like all the others, or being spoken for by another, as an unheard minority in a representation which ignores national status, Westminster.
The vocal disagreement against MacAskill is mainly from the opposition parties - see the news! They oppose independence i.e. Scotland having that international voice. (They are embarrassed by Saltires waving, at all.) "It's nay for us tae mak trouble."
Complain about this comment
#183 vere-scribo
Am afraid I've been separated from my computer lately and am just catching up with the overseas media's coverage of various matters that I'm interested in, one of which being, needless to say, the latest chapter in the Megrahi affair.
Am not really in a position to offer an opinion at the moment on overseas media coverage of the MacAskill decision overall. So far I would have to say that what I have seen of French media coverage is rather balanced and favourable, as it is clear that what the Scottish Government has done is in accordance with French practice and in keeping with current European Union practice in general. As I've already posted on this point, I'll say no more about it.
Opinion in the French blogosphere appears to be as divided as it seems to be everywhere. There are those who have a vengeful approach to criminal justice arguing furiously with those who have a humane one all over the planet as a result of what the Scottish Government has done. Its decision to release Megrahi on medical or compassionate grounds has at the very least challenged the assumptions of a great many people all over the world on the subject of what it is appropriate to do in a case such as Mr MacAskill had to consider. This does not seem to me to be undesirable.
There is plenty of scope for no end of francophone intellectuals to be earning a pretty penny writing about the various ethical, ideological and deontological issues raised by the Scottish Government's actions in this matter until long after the cows have come home. The media caravan will move on, of course, as it always does, but Scotland and its principled and compassionate independentist government will not be forgotten in a hurry.
Should one be merciful in respect of a convicted mass murderer who shows no remorse (because he exercises his right to maintain his innocence)? Should the Justice Secretary have considered political, diplomatic and economic factors when taking his 'quasi-judicial' decision? The whole blogosphere has been heaving with fevered debate upon these and related matters. At the moment I have been focusing on the exchanges at the Canadian end of things, because the Canadian federation, like the UK, has, as we are well aware, a troublesome component (Quebec) which it wishes to discourage from going its own way. While there are plenty of people in Canada who would apparently be happy for someone such as Megrahi to have been hanged, drawn and quartered and are calling for Mr MacAskill's resignation (although what they imagine Scottish ministerial appointments might conceivably have to do with them I am not quite sure), there appear to me to be many more liberal-minded people who are praising Mr MacAskill, the Scottish Government and Scotland. Hardly anyone seems to trust anything that the US government says, on the other hand. It is widely condemned as hypocritical and is generally assumed to have a hidden agenda, not to mention an unconscionable tendency to fail to respect the sovereignty of other countries.
One aspect of this affair which has interested me over the last few days is the apparent exposure of Scotland to unrelenting pressure from the United States while the UK government, which is supposed to provide Scotland with a mechanism for dealing with such things through the UK Foreign Office, appears to have been standing more or less idly by while the little guy has been roughed up by what has been thought of as the most powerful nation on the planet. If Scotland were independent, of course, the US government might have been more circumspect and even diplomatic in its dealings with it. The SNP will not be distressed to find that this point has been brought home in the midst of all the brouhaha.
When the international spotlight falls on a country that is not accustomed to it, there are adjustments to be made both in terms of how the population of that country is used to understanding the rest of the world's perceptions of it and in terms of the rest of the world's understanding of that country. It is a bit of a rough ride, but that is what you get when you take responsibility for your own affairs. You want to go back to being administered by a compliant Labour/Lib Dem Scottish Executive that takes its orders from London, which takes its orders from Washington? Or would you prefer to take your own decisions and thus risk rocking the boat from time to time? OK, so Scotland has rocked the boat. It's not the end of the world. Nor will the boat sink, but something will change. It is changing already.
Complain about this comment
DougtheDug @ #224:
I think that, perhaps, by highlighting the evidence for Grey's 'silent majority', they were implying criticism.
The opposition parties are now acutely aware of this and are responding to it in several ways. The first, and most obvious response is the retreat from the vote of no-confidence. I would imagine that, Labour believed that once this senario (the Justice secretary of Scotland making this decision) had reached its conclusion, they would have been in a position to topple the SNP administration. Labour (and the Tories, perhaps) had been banking on this outcome for sometime, I believe. The fact that it has not transpired must be a crushing blow for them. They must now save face with this weak 'we-don't-like-what-you-did' motion - which could itself, given the hardening support for the government, be damaging to them.
The second response has been to question the people who have been voicing opinions in the letters pages of the Herald and the BBC phone-ins. Bill Aitken has done it; so have a few labour MSPs. This approach has filtered down to New Labour HQ in London, where David Aaronivich (sic?) dismisses those supporting the decision in Scotland as 'well-articulated Scottish middle-class types' (who are, according to him 'naive' - once a programme has been uploaded onto the Labour mainframe, it appears speedily and with metronomic regularity across all of their chosen media outlets. This is the enduring gift they received from the devil when they made their Faustian pact guaranteeing electroability - but alas with a soul corrupted by one moral comprimise after another).
Complain about this comment
Kenny Macaskill has made a poor decision. It has met Libya's agenda and allowed their triumphalism at the expense of the international image of the Scottish Justice system.
A compassionate handling to Megrahi's illness could have been achieved while keeping him in Scotland, but apparantly, budgetary considerations at Strathclyde Police held sway.
We have to expect that, an administration with no responsibility for international affairs, will make a decision which fails to properly consider the international context.
Complain about this comment
The canard that Kenny McCaskill (and thus the SNP Scottish Government) was incompetent in dealing with the Megrahi issue is a serious one.
It has suited the British government and the American government to say that this is an issue for the Scottish justice system. This means they can say they disagree with the result while respecting the system (but not the political party)but also continue to reap the benefits of the rapprochement with Libya.
However it has come as a supposed huge surprise to many commentators that if you have a local system of justice then the repercussions of that local system may have implications (in this case foreign policy implications) beyond the tiny unimportant jurisdiction involved.
If the 'incompetence' charge sticks or even if it doen't stick but is repeated often enough then there may be a political platform for the UK government to overrule Scots legal decisions. Clearly any overruling would be blatantly political and not 'justice' but hey we just aren't good enough to make these decisions on our own.
Complain about this comment
@238TripleRLtd
" As a matter of fact, as a trained and educated historian, it is in my province to recognize fanatical ultra nationalists when I read or hear one "
lol, Prof. Tom Gallagher take heart, you are not alone!
Complain about this comment
227. At 11:21am on 25 Aug 2009, bighullabaloo wrote:
"I simply asked for the NAMES of some of these "MPs". Who were they?
How many MPs need to ask the Presiding Officer for a recall (there is no "Speaker") before their request is granted? In which Act of Parliament is this "number" specified? Who decides what is a "serious" issue? On what criteria?"
Did it never occur to you to do some research for yourself? Or were you too busy abusing those who made a genuine effort to answer your questions?
According to Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament Ch.2 Rule 2.2 (10), recall of Parliament is solely a matter for the Presiding Officer. In practice, however, the Presiding Officer would normally act in consultation with Parliamentary Bureau. The current membership of the Parliamentary Bureau is,
Sources:
The Scottish Parliament - Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament: - The Parliamentary Bureau
We have "open government". The information is there. You just have to make the effort to go and get it.
Complain about this comment
#238
Indeed it is time for you to leave us. You know little and understand less. We can do without the condecension. You may be a "trained and educated historian" but you write like a juvenile which I suspect you are.
Complain about this comment
231
Will Goldie speak for the actions of the Tories who backed the war in Iraq and the international condemnation it has brought on UK/Scotland. How is she going to repair that. The Glasgow Airport attempt was part of this issue. Will she apologise to the stress this caused some of our countrymen/women? Cameron wouldn't enter a debate with with Salmond as he doesn't have the nous or intellect to deal with him!
Complain about this comment
Ah, it would seem that I have upset OldNat. Too bad that. But when one can not understand what the word liberal means, well then, I need say nothing, for you admitted your ignorance yourself.
Oh, and where do you get the idea that I don't "even know the SNP position on Scottish citizenship. Your minimal understanding meant that you were unaware of EU rules on the freedom of movement with the Union." Because I asked what you planned on doing to the Scottish "unionists" once you become independent? The question was rhetorical me auld son. I know more about the EU and its rules and laws than you ever will.
Speaking of the EU, what is your particular stance on the EU? Would you vote for full membership and approval of the Constitution in a referendum? How about the Euro?
Honestly, I don't expect any civil answer, since I seem to have burst your high falootin balloon of pre-conceived moral and intellectual superiority...
Complain about this comment
231. At 11:34am on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
You would first have to show that there had been such damage.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory writes [of me]:
It is unbelievably nieve for you to:
a) suggest all opposition to the release comes from 'unionists'
b) suggest that thre has been absolutely no international backlash
Both of the above are out and out lies.
I have already responded [see comment 204] to one Unionist who has taken to posting a lie that independence supporters are labelling every person who does not agree with MacAskill's decision as being 'Unionist'.
I haven't referred this comment to the mods but may consider doing so.
A number of posters have recently appeared who, rather than comment on the merit of the decision and the reaction of the opposition, are now given to posting insult and lies.
Complain about this comment
#238 TripleRLtd
"Let me ask you: if I labeled you a Ranger fanatic, if in fact you were, would that make me a Celtic fanatic?"
No, it wouldn't make you a "Celtic fanatic." It would make you judgemental in a derogatory way of "Rangers fanatics".
In other words you are exhibiting the exact same sort of extremely judgemental view of others that you're accusing the "Rangers fanatics" of having.
That's what you can't see.
Labelling someone as having "extreme views" doesn't require you to support the polar opposite view.
But labelling others as "extreme" is itself an extreme view, with no claim to moral superiority whatsover.
You are tiresome in your refusal to examine your own motives.
You have discovered, as many others have before you, that trying to characterise ordinary SNP supporters here as "extreme", then claiming political impartiality, lacks respect for the intelligence of the people reading it.
Thus, finding that no one will play by your rules, you've decided it's your ball and you don't want to play at all.
Complain about this comment
# 238TripleRLtd
"As a matter of fact, as a trained and educated historian, it is in my province to recognize fanatical ultra nationalists when I read or hear one."
And as another trained and educated it is within my province to recognise that if a colleague said "Frankly you lot tire me, and it time for work" it meant they were going off in a cream puff, having entirely failed to convince anyone.
Complain about this comment
248. At 12:07pm on 25 Aug 2009, TripleRLtd wrote:
I believe that OldNat was pointing out the fact that the meaning of "liberal" in the US differs substantially from what is understood by that term in Europe.
Strange that one so highly educated and well-informed as you claim to be should so abjectly fail to understand this.
Complain about this comment
#248 TripleRLtd
Bombast too! Clearly another cultural difference you have failed to understand.
I'm happy to leave my fellow posters to judge rather than make faux claims for myself.
No wonder you don't understand nuance.
Complain about this comment
#157 MagisterIlluminatus
"the law has placed East Renfrewshire in an impossible legal position"
Point taken. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, but I fully agree that the disadvantages of NuLab's asymmetric devolution don't only apply to England. As such funding issues still seem to be heavily influenced by Westmidden's control of the purse strings, isn't your grouse against HM Treasury and Capn. Darling rather than MacAskill?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
re my #254
I omitted the word "historian" after "trained and educated".
I'm happy to accept correction for any errors, but prefer to correct them myself.
I learnt that when I was being "educated"
Complain about this comment
#256 oldnat
Didn't you mean "historian,"?
Complain about this comment
John Constable (An English Nat) has posted this over on NR
"It is worth pointing out that al-Megrahi can only leave 'the country', meaning the so-called United Kingdom, with the specific agreement of the Prime Minister, who exercises that authority via the UK Border Agency."
I'm off for lunch, but can anyone confirm/contradict this? It's an interesting point.
Complain about this comment
#245 Electric Hermit
Thank you for your answer, although not for the insults and your abusive attempts to label me as somehow being "lazy" for asking.
Your clear resentment at even being asked reminds me of the mean-spiritedness displayed here by so many Unionists on so many matters.
It is not the first time I have asked a question - but it is the ONLY time I have received an answer that even remotely attempted to answer the question, albeit delivered amidst a barrage of abuse.
I gather from what you have written - and I have no reason to doubt it - that recall of Parliament is "solely a matter for the Presiding Officer".
Yet when he does so, he doesn't act alone. A logical contradiction if ever there was one!
If the Presiding Officer simply instigates a discussion of whether to recall, on what basis does he do so? This question remains unanswered by you.
Do a number of MSPs have to make a request? How many MSPs?
Why is the Presiding Officer - allegedly acting in a non-political capacity - deciding for ALL voters what is politically "serious" and what is not?
Why should I accept that he acts non-politically when his decision is inseparable from the political consequences that will follow from it?
The matters for which Parliament can be recalled should be decided collectively by all MSPs not decided by one individual or even a small cabal of five.
The whole thing stinks of an old Labour attempt to stitch up Kenny MacAskill.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Hermit: research, and more research. The answers are out there and quite easy to find nowadays.
nat: lmao. Frankly sir, you fail to see that I have not tried to convince anyone of anything. I have no agenda. I am not a brit, and only Scots/Irish several generations removed. Frankly, I think, after reading this blog, England itself should devolve and let your lot go your own way. Seems it would be less of a headache. Same with NI and Wales.
I first came here to post my support for Scotland, and reading this blog I was surprised by the rants of the nats: the conspiracy theories, the circling of the wagon around dear old Scotland, and the constant criticism of unionists and the "unionist media". I come here for all the news and points of view that some of you state the mainstream media, due to bias, leaves out. I found that ludicrous. Everything that some of you state was left out was not left out. I found it. So could you I assume.
That said, get on with your petty nationalism rants. I for one am all for freedom, but some of you lot have extreme views from what I've read and commented on. So, have at it and enjoy...
Complain about this comment
For an international but well informed view check this link - giving Mr McCaskill the only halo in this affair -http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KH26Aa01.html
Complain about this comment
My favourite expression regarding the opposition is Synchronised Howling at the Moon. I should add the word Meaningless, because when we see American tourists being interviewed in Edinburgh we see calm people telling us they are having a great time in Scotland and this won't affect whether they come back or not.
REAL voters, unlike we nerds, were apparently flocking to an SNP stall in Lochgelly on Sunday and just about cleaned the stall out of saltires.
So all these Americans ripping up their tourist guides to Scotland and all these Scots ripping up their SNP membership cards and scraping SNP badges off their car windows and presumably rushing towards British nationalist Parties to pledge their support.....
....all of these are figments of some very fevered imaginations.
As for those savage 'attacks' on MacAskill yesterday, the words Healey, Howe and dead sheep spring immediately to mind.
If anything, MacAskill and the SNP are coming out of this stronger than before, demonstrating that they are more than capable of conducting themselves well on the world stage.
Complain about this comment
#158 NCA999
"A fair a just justice system takes into account the affect a decision will have upon the victims of crime as a major priority."
You're obviously perfectly entitled to that view, in which case you should lobby for a change in the 1993 law passed in the days of Major's Tories. I may be wrong but I don't recall any cries from the media or the blogosphere when Biggs was released under the English version of the same law. I personally would lobby oppositely but until the law is changed all that is relevant is whether MacAskill administered the law as it is correctly. IMO he did.
#165 NCA999
"I suspect most reasonably people would probably agree, that we need a federalised system across the whole country, not just in Scotland."
Glad to see that we agree on something. The trouble is that so long as English voters continue to vote for the unionist tweedledums or the unionist tweedledees, nothing is going to happen. Even the supposedly federalist L-Ds seem to have been taken over by their centralist SDP wing. So long as they retain hegemony of Westmidden, it's most unlikely that a fair constitutional settlement will be found before patience runs out in Scotland.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#163 TripleRLtd
"Then [Brownedov] continues on with a not so subtle threat"
What threat? My #88 merely points out that your governments have a longish recent history of settling disputes by violence - something Scotland has not done for at least two and a half centuries.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Catching up on todays posts and I think I have just come across the saddest thing
#243 pro-loco said "...hey we just aren't good enough to make these decisions on our own"
That just drains the heart from me to hear someone so bereft of spirit, so lacking in confidence that they could make a statement like that.
Complain about this comment
My favourite expression regarding the opposition is Synchronised Howling at the Moon. I should add the word Meaningless, because when we see American tourists being interviewed in Edinburgh we see calm people telling us they are having a great time in Scotland and this won't affect whether they come back or not.
REAL voters, unlike we nerds, were apparently flocking to an SNP stall in Lochgelly on Sunday and just about cleaned the stall out of saltires.
So all these Americans ripping up their tourist guides to Scotland and all these Scots ripping up their SNP membership cards and scraping SNP badges off their car windows and presumably rushing towards British nationalist Parties to pledge their support.....
....all of these are figments of some very fevered imaginations.
As for those savage 'attacks' on MacAskill yesterday, the words Healey, Howe and dead sheep spring immediately to mind.
If anything, MacAskill and the SNP are coming out of this stronger than before, demonstrating that they are more than capable of conducting themselves well on the world stage.
Complain about this comment
#261 TripleRLtd
"I for one am all for freedom, but some of you lot have extreme views from what I've read and commented on."
You're insistence on labelling others as "extreme" is really looking more than a bit extreme!
Someone with "no horse in the race" wouldn't have such an extreme opinion on the matter.
You make the classic mistake of all who claim to be "above the argument": not being able to let go of it.
An hour ago you claimed it was "time for work" but you are still here boring us to tears with your blinkered comments.
Complain about this comment
#240 frankly_francophone
Thank you. Interesting as ever.
As I've said to you before, I like to read your posts :-)
Complain about this comment
Pro-loco @ #262:
Thanks for the link. According to this article 'the rest of the world [excepting America]' thinks that the decision was reasonable.
So what the government's opponents mean when they say 'the international community' is 'the US government'. Makes the opposition's position look more subservient and politicised than ever. Doubt this view from the outside world will ever make it onto the pages of Scottish newspapers (unless the Scotsman is bought out by that consortium) or the BBC.
It is amazing how fragile free speech and democratic debate are in Scotland. If the BBC decided to shut down this website, I honestly do not know where I would get a three dimensional view of politics.
One of the reasons I decided to post here was to thank those who contribute to this blog for their own individual (and often informed) views of events.
Complain about this comment
#167 Skiptic,
#172 oldnat &
#179 Online_Ed
"It is probable that the security implications might serve to compel a justice secretary to deny such a request ... If however a sufficient time had elapsed and there was no fear of reprisals, as in the case of the child killer released by Jim Wallace, then it is quite possible a dying man could be released."
I'm with Online_Ed here, in that the fear of reprisal from Scots would likely have been too great.
In the case of al-Megrahi, the fear of reprisal both from Scots and interested parties outwith Scotland would have been huge, and although I commend Aunty Bella for breaking ranks a little from her "state" leader, I think she was ill-advised to say at Holyrood yesterday: "If Mr al-Megrahi's condition is so severe that keeping him in prison is inhumane, why could he not have been released to a secure house, a hospice or a hospital in Scotland?"
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#266
Am sure pro-loco was being sarcastic in his post. cheer yourself up and check his #262
Complain about this comment
Brown to face Lockerbie questions today.
Complain about this comment
250. At 12:11pm on 25 Aug 2009, Online_Ed wrote:
"deanthetory writes [of me]:
It is unbelievably nieve for you to:
a) suggest all opposition to the release comes from 'unionists'
b) suggest that thre has been absolutely no international backlash
Both of the above are out and out lies."
You are guilty of point A. I will not accuse anyone else- just you. And the evidence can be found in your own statements:
"Public opinion is firmly behind MacAskil...where are the unionists to go.."
Now not only are you patently wrong to bluntly assert that the electorate is "begind MacAskil", but you clearly denounce all opposition to MacAskil as unionists- by refering to the opposition to MacAskil as Unionists.
But you do continue your little cybernat campaign with:
"This latest show from Unionists who are again making up allegations un desperation and risk damaging Scottish politics and democracy"
Making up allegations? So you don't believe that Scotlands' repute is damaged as a result of this episode? Which rock have you been living under? The boycot is growing- supported by a US public where 83% of them oppose the release- it is represented by the very fact we were praised by Gadaffi- a dictator. You dont believe its damaging to see Gaddafi thank the Scottish government for releasing a man who killed 270 people?
Unbelievable.
But let me continue- you also refer to opposition to MacAskil as 'unionist' when you wrote:
"They have completely misjudged the fact that the Scottish electorate...saw a Scottish government minister represent the nation....they didnt see an SNP politican only unionists saw that"
Clearly the 'they' you constantly refer to is named at the end- 'unionist'. The last time I checked up on Holyrood MSPs Margo MacDonald wasn't a unionist, nor was she unable to see a 'Scottish government minister'. This is very weak of you. But let me continue:
"Labour and the other unionists in Scotland have seriously misjudged this one, there appears to be growing support for MacAskil"
Ah, so the opposition to MacAskil are now merely misjudging 'growing' support for the Justice Minister? What happened to the 'firmly behind'?
It is very clear that the majority of the electorate aren't in favour of Megrahi bein released in this manner- and this doesnt make them all unionists. This is merely your ultra-nationalist sentiment seeking to paint all opposition into the fantasmal 'other' as every nationalist movement seeks to create- the seperation of 'us' the righteous and 'the other' the ones dedicated to destroying the nation. Its all incredibly pathetic.
And the only poll we have to judge Scottish public opinion is hardly showing the electorate 'firmly' behind any MacAskil decision- not least becuase 11% supported compassionate release when asked in June/July. I understand that this doesnt mean they havent changed their views since then, but you have no grounds to turn 11% into a 'majority firmly behind MacAskil'. You have no basis in fact for this.
Complain about this comment
Sorry oldbuthopeful (# 266 ) my sarcasm in saying 'we're just not good enough' at #243 was perhaps not made clear. I don't agree with that at all - I was just trying to point out that that is what the opposition to the SNP government are saying constantly - and is what in effect Ian Gray, Jack McConnell, Tavish Scott and Annabell Goldie are saying when they say 'not in our name'.
Complain about this comment
259. At 12:36pm on 25 Aug 2009, bighullabaloo wrote:
"I gather from what you have written - and I have no reason to doubt it - that recall of Parliament is "solely a matter for the Presiding Officer".
Yet when he does so, he doesn't act alone. A logical contradiction if ever there was one!"
The final decision on recall of Parliament rests with the Presiding Officer who may consult with the Parliamentary Bureau in reaching such decision. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The Presiding Officer is elected by the whole Parliament precisely because he or she is regarded by members as an individual who can be trusted with such decisions.
It is hardly news that there is an ongoing "old Labour attempt to stitch up Kenny MacAskill". But there is absolutely no reason to suppose that Alex Fergusson is conspiring with the British Labour Party's placemen in Holyrood. The recall of the Scottish Parliament was self-evidently justified by the circumstances. It was always going to happen. Why would even someone as compulsively devious as Iain Gray seek to contrive something that was inevitable in any case?
Complain about this comment
#184 sir_mord
"All the indications from polls are that there is no majority for independence."
We were not discussing independence but home rule, for which there is a majority in the polls. Note that this is increasing as discovered by the ICM poll in late June for BBC Scotland, with 62% wanting more fiscal control.
For independence, the current "don't knows" will most likely be decisive if they can be allowed to have their say in the referendum, which the same ICM poll shows that 58% of Scots want.
"The families of the Lockerbie victims and Mr Mehgrahi are pawns in so many "games" right now."
There I agree with you, but they always have been. Perhaps part of the anger of the FBI Director is due to the fact that as a US government lawyer at the time the 1998 pre-trial agreements were negotiated he was part of the team that failed to spot the 1993 law under which MacAskill was compelled to consider the application for compassionate release. He and Mr Clinton had every chance to demand that this be treated as a special case more than a decade ago but appear to have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
261. At 12:37pm on 25 Aug 2009, TripleRLtd wrote:
"...some of you lot have extreme views..."
For example?
Complain about this comment
Angus Reid poll on Megrahi release:
As reported on Polling Report "15% said they wanted him to be released, 31% transferred to Libya and 48% kept in a Scottish gaol.
There was a cross-break for Scotland, which suggested 22% of Scots supported his release, though given that there would have been very few Scots in a representative UK sample of 1,133 the crossbreak should probably be taken with a pinch of salt."
Seems the majority of Scots are still firmly opposed to MacAskils' decision- so much for onlineEDs' claims that the 'majority' of the Scottish electorate where 'firmly' behind MacAskil.
Even if we take this and the June/July poll with a pinch of salt (or a rather large pinch) we still have no evidence at all in the numbers of MacAskil commanding the support of the 'majority' of the electorate.
OnlineEd among others I would like to see your basis for claiming that the 'majority' of our Scottish electorate are 'firmly' behind MacAskil?
Complain about this comment
Regarding the support out in the public which seems to be exercising the minds of some on her. I think that the letters page from one of the most widely read, cross-demographic papers is instructive.
The Metro once again today had a letters page dominated by those voicing support for MacAskill.
Again, this is only anecdotal evidence, but, given it is ready by everyone on their way to work, it is a useful tool for reflecting and informing public opinion.
I would say to Deanthetory: the fact that the opposition parties have backed off from their no confidence vote shows that they know very well which way the wind is blowing.
Complain about this comment
#274. deanthetory
What a pap.
Complain about this comment
Every media event of this nature invariably branches off in one or more directions. The usual catalyst for this would be a departure from party line by one or more members of a party - recall the Conservative Euro MEP who caused Cameron no little discomfort recently.
The story now is surely the thinly veiled attack on Iain Gray by a former Labour cabinet minister, Malcolm Chisholm, the latest in a series of public announcements of support from Unionist figures. This constitutes a very real story in that the biggest political event in Scotland has resulted in fault lines appearing within Labour over their leadership's handling of it.
As I have said, the media coverage usually changes tac when something this significant takes place. I am not aware of any journalists making much of this very serious and damaging intervention from Chisholm.
This is where the story has led us, it is worthy of pursuit and examination surely?
A failure to cover this part of the saga will be a deriliction of duty and will provide further proof of selective reporting by the media in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#274.deanthetory
"The boycot is growing- supported by a US public where 83% of them oppose the release"
Any link to support that wild assertion?
Complain about this comment
Why aren't the tories pushing for a no-confidence vote on MacAskill, or the government?
Annabelle Goldie stated in the parliament's debate that the decision was not made in the name of Scotland!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that the Kenny MacAskill as Cabinet Secretary for Justice embodies the final decision-making point of this process according to our current laws? He does in a very real sense in this case speak for Scotland! I thought that was one of the reasons why the people who were against it were so up in arms.
If she believes it wasn't made in the name of Scotland, she must either be questioning legitimacy of the current legal framework in Scotland, or the legitimacy of the post of Cabinet Secretary for Justice to be competent with regard to this decision, or that Kenny MacAskill has abused his position and and in some way violated the current legal framework.
Indeed her next words hint that she feels it has been politically abused - surely as strong a case as any could make for no-confidence at least in MacAskill, but going by her following words actually the SNP government.
I'd like to see her put up, or explain her very bold statement!
Complain about this comment
I regret Mr MacAskill's continuing references to the sentence imposed by a higher power, a thought echoed by the Rev Ian Galloway of the Church of Scotland in yesterday's Herald. Not only is it inapproppriate for a Justice Secretary to go beyond that which it is within the competence of courts to determimne, but there is no correlation between cancer and evil actions. Would he have dared make such remarks were the prisoner a woman suffering from breast cancer?
On the conclusion which he reached, I support compassionate release but not for his reasons nor to Libya. My concern is that while it is correct in law to describe Megrahi as guilty, in fact it is open to debate and he may yet be shown to be innocent. I accept that there are strongly held views on both sides. Had he not dropped his appeal, MacAskill could not have asserted guilt because that would have involved passing comment on a case before the Court. What is certain is that it was essential for the reputation of Scottish justice that any wrong be righted by the Court. We are now in the position that our legal system has been unable to reach a timeous conclusion to a case which required urgent consideration. I am not trying to allege fault on behalf of the judges, but we must acknoweldge that our system of criminal justice, which encompasses more than judges, has not been equal to the task.
It would have been better had MacAskill allowed compassionate release before the appeal was abandoned, even if that meant that he could not launch his attack on Megrahi. We are left with the horrible possibilities that there may yet be shown to have been a miscarriage of justice which our courts were unable to correct or that our courts, police and Crown Office will become the butt of conspiracy theorists' condemnation. We do not need an international Oscar Slater case and that is what we have got.
My second concern is that I think that he should either have been transferred under the prisoner transfer agreement so that he would remain in jail, which would be consistent with MacAskill's assertion of guilt, or released on compassionate grounds to remain in Scotland.
Either of those options would have shown more understanding of the feelings of relatives of the victims than the option chosen by MacAskill. In considering the option to release within Scotland, MacAskill should have told the police to provide what was required rather than buckle to their objections. It is the job of the police to arrange operational matters not to object to a necessary operation.
It might be said in MacAskill's defence that he had no control over the abandonment of the appeal. That is why it is important that there is an inquiry into the allegation made by Megrahi's counsel that Megrahi thought that abandoning the appeal would help him get to Libya. It is also why MacAskill had to make a good but speedy decision which he failed to do.
Although I applaud MacAskill's preparedness to grant compassionate release, I believe that he has helped to give us the worst possible solution and await to see whether some of his assertions may yet prove his undoing. That would be unfortunate because MacAskill has been a very good Justice Secretary with a real understanding of some of the problems of the criminal justice system.
Complain about this comment
Message to deanthetory:
Editing comments made by me in order to misrepresent meaning is as bad as lying.
I will provide an example just this once with that part of the paragraph you removed now shown in bold.
Labour in Scotland believed that the petty politics and smears that are the trademark of their election campaigns would work in their favour here. They have completely misjudged the fact that the Scottish electorate, of all hues, saw a Scottish Government Minister represent the nation last Thursday - they didn't see an SNP politician, only Unionists saw that.
The context of this and many other posts make clear to any objective reader that it is politicians who are being referred to. To qualify phrases in every sentence would render the drafting of comments completely impractical. It is usually assumed that the reader will have the necessary skills to discern real meaning - of course there will always be someone who, for whatever reason, replaces intended meaning with an altogether different subjective one.
This episode has demonstrated to me that there are some Unionist politicians who have taken a very principled stance on this - Malcolm Chisholm is but one.
However, the vast majority of Unionists at Holyrood have behaved disgracefully and it is they who are the target of my ire. The last sentence used the word 'Unionist' and I would expect every reader of the sentence to know immediately who I am referring to.
I wrote:
"Labour and the other unionists in Scotland have seriously misjudged this one, there appears to be growing support for MacAskil"
You replied:
Ah, so the opposition to MacAskil are now merely misjudging 'growing' support for the Justice Minister? What happened to the 'firmly behind'?
I repeat that Labour and the other Unionists have indeed misjudged this one. They did not expect the level of support MacAskill has garnered to materialise. The support can be exttrapolated by looking at letters in newspapers, listening to radio callers and texts. It can also be guessed at by the number of opposition figures supporting MacAskill.
Much of this support has been vocalised as a result of Unionist politicians who have politicised the affair.
Of course, there is no way to definitively prove this support either way, however what evidence we have seems to suggest a majority in favour of MacAskill.
You wrote:
It is very clear that the majority of the electorate aren't in favour of Megrahi bein released in this manner
I know of no evidence published since MacAskill's announcement that supports this opinion.
As has been pointed out already, the BBC have two days running made announcements live on air imploring those who disagree to contact them. This does not suggest a majority against the decision at all but rather the opposite.
Feel free to have the last word on this exchange.
Complain about this comment
# 276 Electric Hermit
"The final decision on recall of Parliament rests with the Presiding Officer who may consult with the Parliamentary Bureau in reaching such decision. What is so difficult to understand about that?"
Nothing difficult to understand about that and, not surprisingly, nothing I've written suggests a lack of understanding about that.
I've just asked why is it so difficult for all you self-styled political "experts" to answer a simple question now asked for the third time: on what basis does the Presiding Officer decide that an issue is sufficiently "serious" to recall Parliament?
What material yardstick does he use to make that judgement? If it is a number of requests from MSPs, how many requests were made and what are the names of those who made them?
If it so easy to obtain this information then where is it? You have not provided it. I didn't ask for, and do not see the relevance of, the names of the MSPs who consult with the Presiding Officer on the decision to recall, which is what you provided.
I asked for the names of those who requested that the Presiding Officer consider a recall. That is not the same thing.
None of your posts supply a single fact that answers any of these simple questions, yet you insist all is "open" government.
If, as you claim, the answers are so easily accessible (and I am to be condemned as "lazy" for not being able to find them), then why is it that you cannot reply with the names of those who made the requests?
The answer is: because none of this information is as you claim it to be - either open or accessible.
So unless you are prepared to provide answers to the simple questions I've asked, rather than doling out put-downs about people not being able to "understand", then don't try to tell me otherwise.
Complain about this comment
186. Oldnat
It would appear that you have no answer to my argument, so you'll just resort to a personal attack. Or, alternatively, the legal rights of people who actually live in Scotland are completely worthless in your drive for independence.
188. DerekBarker.
Oh, so I made it all up. I take it you're like most of the other nats. on this blog, you love Scotland so much, you could not get out fast enough. In the meantime, we who actually live here have to have our opinions denigrated, our lives trashed and our security compromised by a bunch of nitwits who don't pay one red cent in tax here, don't live here and don't want to live here.
200. DerekBarker
The word is revoked, not rebuked. Suggest you start attending English as a foreign langauge classes in your current foreign domicile.
212. Electric Hermit
I've already answered these questions, though I wouldn't expect someone with attention deficit disorder to remember that.
Complain about this comment
#279 deanthetory
Statistics - though I'm sure if you agreed with MacAskill you'd have a nice bunch of statistics to back that up!
versus
Radio Scotland phone ins practically bereft of MacAskill critics. Why are those so outraged so silent?
If another European country's MP made the same announcement as MacAskill, we'd just accept that that was that (as is the general foreign consensus), and accept opinion would be split in that country, as it is anywhere when these difficult issues come up. No such hysteria.
Your backing yourself up, no objectivity. For petty political gain.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I see the most recommended comment in todays Times article about Libya breaking their promise of a low key welcome is that we should mount aa operation to invade Libya and grab Al-Megrahi back. ..... unbelievable.
Complain about this comment
#284 mrbfaethedee
"Why aren't the tories pushing for a no-confidence vote on MacAskill, or the government?"
Because, as we all know, they're terrified that Salmond will call their bluff and call a Holyrood election.
That election would see Labour and the Tories in Scotland being totally gubbed.
Complain about this comment
284. At 1:47pm on 25 Aug 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"Why aren't the tories pushing for a no-confidence vote on MacAskill, or the government?"
Not the first time the Tory/BLP alliance has gone after MacAskill only to back down when they realised they could not touch him.
Complain about this comment
Leaving to one side the opinions of the public at large for the moment, I haven't seen any other surveys like this - Two thirds of respondents to Scottish Legal News support the decision
Anyone else got any sources for surveys of opinons from the legal profession?
Complain about this comment
#279 - dean. dearie dearie me . are things so desperate that you are clinging to an opinion poll of 1,133 UK citizen's with at best 50 - 100 people in Scotland included.
After yesterdays trouncing on radio Scotland's phone in ,they tried again today and despite numerous requests for anyone from Mr Gray's silent majority to come forward ,those supporting Mr MacAskill still outnumbered the unionist callers around 3 to 1 and we were treated to lectures from Mrs Curran , Mr Rumbles and an SNP MSP who got interrupted a good few times unlike the other 2. i know that a fair few like my self who phoned and e- mailed weren't called back due to lack of time .An interesting tactic - you don't like what the public is saying so fill the time with party political broadcasts instead!
the BBC news at 10 was absolutely shocking last night , sorry but you didn't exactly cover yourself in glory Brian. As has been said elsewhere we have come to expect an awful lot better from you. The UK Newsnight was horrendous and i just could not even contemplate the Scottish bit at the end
I have heard and read that those helpful diplomats in the British Embassy in Tripoli were the source for the St Andrews crosses - don't know if they gave them out free!!
Yet another question for the Invisible Man
Sid
Complain about this comment
Why is all the suspicion that pressure may have been applied on Megrahi to drop his appeal resting on MacAskill. Is he the only one with access to Megrahi's advisers? If pressure was put on Megrahi, why do we assume that it was put on him by MacAskill at THAT meeting? It would make no sense for MacAskill to have done that, but then, I suppose that MacAskill was the only one who could offer a deal.
Complain about this comment
283. At 1:46pm on 25 Aug 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
#274.deanthetory
"The boycot is growing- supported by a US public where 83% of them oppose the release"
Any link to support that wild assertion?
---
Yep sure thing- you'll find John Bolton make reference to this poll, and give this percentage on Newsnight (if you watched it, you'd have known this).
Complain about this comment
280. At 1:31pm on 25 Aug 2009, HumeDavid wrote:
"Regarding the support out in the public which seems to be exercising the minds of some on here."
The fact is that none of us really know. There are no authoritative numbers on this as yet. One thing we do know, however, is that the claims from the anti-Scottish government lobby of massive opposition to the decision in Scotland are just blatant propaganda lies.
While we can say little meaningful about the numbers, what we can say is that there is a massive qualitative difference between those supporting the decision and those condemning it. The former are almost exclusively reasoned positions based on regard for the law and due process as well as the more noble human sentiments.
The latter are almost entirely characterised by abrogation of principle in favour of political expediency and/or abandonment of the intellect to the basest of human urges.
Regardless of the numerical strengths of the two camps, I will always favour reason and decency over self-serving contrivance and mindless barbarism.
Complain about this comment
286. At 2:04pm on 25 Aug 2009, Online_Ed
"I repeat that Labour and the other Unionists have indeed misjudged this one. They did not expect the level of support MacAskill has garnered to materialise"
You havent seen the polls then? 11% and 15% respectively is not at all representative of a 'majority' as you claimed- materialised support? 11% and 15% is hardly a 'majority'.
Grow up and stop claimning the 'majority' support MacAskil when the numbers clearly show they currently dont.
You cant lie and expect to get away with it.
Complain about this comment
http://www.raithroversfc.com/cgi-bin/latestnews.cgi?id=3032
PM's been doing his bit for the Community, his consituents are clearly more important.
Complain about this comment
285. At 1:58pm on 25 Aug 2009, Justconsidering wrote:
"My second concern is that I think that he should either have been transferred under the prisoner transfer agreement so that he would remain in jail, which would be consistent with MacAskill's assertion of guilt, or released on compassionate grounds to remain in Scotland."
Neither of these was a viable option. For the reasons which the Justice Secretary explained in his original statement announcing al-Megrahi's release on licence.
Complain about this comment
LAWYERS BACK DECISION TO FREE LOCKERBIE BOMBER – POLL
If your no happy consult a lawyer.
Special Relationship Fretting: Cui Bono?
"But Lockerbie has nto, to put it mildly, been the talk of the American blogosphere. Nor has "old media" been much exercised by it. for instance, the word Lockerbie has not appeared on the New York Times' editorial or opinion pages since Megrahi was released."
Some need to get the real perspective before making proclamations.
The Unionist parties are talking from the wrong orifice and only making themselves look more and more like puppets.
Complain about this comment
Now that we have all seen the distasteful Libyan celebrations and realise that the interests of compassion could also have been served by keeping this convicted mass murderer on Scottish soil, we need to ask why these dangers were not allowed for by the administration.
MacAskill says he took police advice on the question of Megrahi remaining in Scotland. We need to know how seriously he considered that option and to what extent he challenged the police advice.
Was MacAskill left with no other option , by the police, but to send Megrahi to Libya?
Complain about this comment
#277 Brownedov
I think it really is too much to blame the Americans for this, for not foreseeing a legal loophole that Mr MacAskill the lawyer then exploits. I don't know the history of the agreement, but if a legally binding contract were being negotiated then every effort would be made to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's and make sure there were no loopholes. I think that what happened between America and the UK was not such a detailed and binding contract, but an agreement, between willing partners, in good will and mutual trust, that included the assurance that anyone found guilty would serve the full sentence as handed down by the court in Scotland. Mr MacAskill may have kept to the letter of the agreement, but has breached that trust and that is why there is such a outburst of anger and hurt. While he was compelled to consider the application he was not compelled to grant it. He could have said that while he would like to grant release on compassionate grounds, the prior agreement with the families prevented him from doing so.
Complain about this comment
#279 deanthetory
Thanks for the info on the new poll. Others make care to note that the UK Polling Report home page has a direct link to the full PDF, as well as all the detail available of the June poll.
As you say, any comparison of the two polls must be taken with a pinch of salt due to the very different sample sizes. The new poll has also to be adjusted to eliminate the "don't knows", since they were not published for the earlier poll.
This gives us the following, very interesting, table:
August, June, Outcome
23.2%, 11%, Compassionate release
27.4%, 40%, Libyan jail
49.5%, 49%, Scottish jail
You'll note that the split between those wanting him in Libya vs Scotland remains 50/50 within polling error.
All that really seems to have changed is that about a third of those supporting transfer seem to recognise that MacAskill ultimately did not have that option.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#285 Justconsidering
It's important in a case like this to use words correctly.
I have not seen the quotation you refer to (as opposed to references to it), but a statement from the counsel for someone is not an "allegation". Counsel speak on behalf of their clients, so this is the same as if Megrahi had said this himself.
The timeline is important, as the Lib-Dems pointed out, but not for purposes of conspiracy as they seem to imagine.
The Megrahi visit was wholly in connection with the prisoner transfer arrangement. At the time of Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal, neither he nor his counsel were in any way able to double guess whether MacAskill would grant either or neither of the Prisoner Transfer or Compassionate Release appeal.
Imagine how his counsel would have felt if MacAskill's subsequent announcement had turned out to be refusing the compassionate leave due to public risk, and that he would have granted the Prisoner Transfer had there been no outstanding legal actions!
As RockyCoast has already pointed out to us on this thread, there are simpler ways to examine a problem. If there is no clear evidence of a more complex explanation then employing Occam's razor is the most sensible approach. (When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better)
Complain about this comment
287. At 2:06pm on 25 Aug 2009, bighullabaloo wrote:
"Nothing difficult to understand about that and, not surprisingly, nothing I've written suggests a lack of understanding about that."
You are behaving like a petulant child.
"...on what basis does the Presiding Officer decide that an issue is sufficiently "serious" to recall Parliament?"
As has already been made clear, it is a matter for the Presiding Officer's personal judgement. That is the job he is appointed to do by the Scottish Parliament.
"What material yardstick does he use to make that judgement?"
Why does there have to be a set of instructions? He is not building an Ikea wardrobe!
"If it is a number of requests from MSPs, how many requests were made and what are the names of those who made them?"
You have already been told that the Presiding Officer consults with the Parliamentary Bureau. You have been given the names, offices and party affiliations of the members of the Parliamentary Bureau. All representations to the Presiding Officer are made through theParliamentary Bureau.
If it so easy to obtain this information then where is it? You have not provided it. I didn't ask for, and do not see the relevance of, the names of the MSPs who consult with the Presiding Officer on the decision to recall, which is what you provided.
I asked for the names of those who requested that the Presiding Officer consider a recall. That is not the same thing.
None of your posts supply a single fact that answers any of these simple questions, yet you insist all is "open" government.
If, as you claim, the answers are so easily accessible (and I am to be condemned as "lazy" for not being able to find them), then why is it that you cannot reply with the names of those who made the requests?
The answer is: because none of this information is as you claim it to be - either open or accessible.
So unless you are prepared to provide answers to the simple questions I've asked, rather than doling out put-downs about people not being able to "understand", then don't try to tell me otherwise.
Complain about this comment
You can tell how worried the nail the SNP at every turn camp are getting by some of the more outlandish posts on this thread.
Please can anyone tell me where within the Laws of Scotland MacAskill has not followed due process in this case?
Can anyone tell me where MacAskill failed to inform and consider the views of all aggrieved parties?
Can anyone tell me why Milliband has not released the information requested of him by MacAskill to inform his decision?
Can anyone tell why it is in the interest of Westminster and Washington to have the Libyan drop his appeal?
The point is this post decision feeding frenzy stinks of Washington and Westminster not getting the prisoner exchange they wanted so they could sell it as the Libyan still doing the 'time'. Instead they got a decision that kept the Scottish promise not to transfer the prisoner which Westminster were encouraging MacAskill to break and reinforced the sovereignty and primacy of 700 years of Scots Law.
I wonder if Brown is giving the US permission to bomb Holyrood for giving succour to terrorists, as we speak?
Complain about this comment
286. OnlineED
"Much of this support has been vocalised as a result of Unionist politicians who have politicised the affair"
Ah, so not content with claiming that the 'firm majority' of Scottish electors support MacAskil (when the only two polls show only 11% and 15% respectively), you are now claiming that the motivation for the majority of MSPs is political gain?
If you refered to specific people like Tavish or Grey I'd agree- but it is simply desperate to claim that the only rationale for the majority of MSPs, and Scottish people in opposing MacAskils release as partisan, is pathetic.
Your claims that MacAskil had the backing of the 'firm majority' of the Scottish electorate has been revealed as lies.
Your claims that all opposition to MacAskil is from unionists has been proven lies
Your now claiming that the only reason the majority of people who opposte the release do so is because they are partisan.
..what other lies, half truths and cybernat rubbish will you claim next?
Complain about this comment
So are the opposition leaders in favour of the American boycott? Just what Scotland needs in the middle of a recession - numpties talking our country and our legal system down to make cheap political points. Either you are in favour of the Scottish legal system's independence or you're not. You can't say "I only believe in it until it offends American opinion".
Exactly what alternatives did opponents of the decision to release envisage for a dying man - Making him really suffer by withholding morphine? Making his family travel a few thousand miles to see him whilst spending a fortune of public money on "security"?
Anyone who doesn't know that al-Megrahi was originally just a convenient scapegoat in an international deal to let Libya end its rogue state status simply hasn't been paying attention.
Complain about this comment
#290 deanthetory
To be fair to vere_scribo, he's right. You are a pap.
Complain about this comment
onlineED
"support can be exttrapolated by looking at letters in newspapers, listening to radio callers and texts."
So your position is that listening to a couple of radio shows, reading the Metro letters page provides you with a representative, clear and scientific insight into the views of the Scottish electorate and what they think on this matter?
Looks silly, reads as if its silly, it patently is silly.
Go onto Polling report and read the actual figures:
June/July - 11% supported Compassionate Release
The Angus Reid poll from 20th and 23rd of August show just 15%.
In what way can you possibly construde this as meaning the 'firm majority' of Scottish voters? Are you numerically challenged or just blinded by cybernat coloured vision?
Here is the link to Polling report- you might find it is a tad more scientific than the BBC radio phone its you cite!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
Complain about this comment
#288 MagisterIlluminatus
Which argument? The one that I originally replied to showing that you were inconsistent, and that there were clear solutions to the problem? Or the subsequent one. If you promise not to run away from actually debating whatever your new one is, then I'm happy to respond.
Complain about this comment
I've found a few polls and they don't support the view that the majority agree with Mr MacAskill.
The Scotsman has a narrow margin opposing the release, 51% against to 49% for, with 2833 votes;
Scotsman poll
The Scotsman poll also shows 50% think it will damage relations with the US, 18% do not and 31% think it will have not effect.
A UK wide poll has 53% opposed to release, 35% for, based on 1204 votes;
Politics Home poll
And the Daily Mail (I hesitate to include this one, but for completeness it's only fair) has 83% opposed to release, 17% for;
Daily Mail article and poll
The Scotsman poll is obviously the most representative of online middle-class Scotland, but will not be perfect.
Complain about this comment
287. At 2:06pm on 25 Aug 2009, bighullabaloo wrote:
APOLOGIES FOR THE SLIGHT MISHAP. HERE IS THE REMAINDER OF MY POST.
"If it is a number of requests from MSPs, how many requests were made and what are the names of those who made them?"
All representations to the Presiding Officer are made through the Parliamentary Bureau.
"If it so easy to obtain this information then where is it? You have not provided it."
I provided links to the relevant information on Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Bureau. It took me around three seconds to find it. all you had to do was click on a hyper-link.
"I asked for the names of those who requested that the Presiding Officer consider a recall. That is not the same thing."
All representations on such matters are made through the Parliamentary Bureau. Perhaps repeating this yet again will help you to grasp the point.
I would think that approaches to the Parliamentary Bureau by members of the various parties would be on a fairly informal basis. If any record is kept of such approaches it will be available on application using the standard FoI procedures. If you want the information, do something about it yourself instead of stamping your feet like a spoiled brat and demanding that others spoon-feed you every detail.
Complain about this comment
#288 MagisterIlluminatus
I well remember making a similar comment to the one you made to derek to someone. I was quite rightly rebuked by those on my side as well as others.
I apologised immediately, as I had realised that it was inappropriate, condescending and insulting just after I had pressed the Submit button.
You should also be aware that the BBC code of conduct strongly discourages such posts.
Complain about this comment
288. At 2:08pm on 25 Aug 2009, MagisterIlluminatus wrote:
"I've already answered these questions, though I wouldn't expect someone with attention deficit disorder to remember that."
I'm sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition. Does it explain your incivility as well as your inability to answer a simple question?
Complain about this comment
#288 MagisterIlluminatus
I have only referred 2 people for breach of House Rules. Now that I have seen your 3rd comment, I give you fair warning that a repetition of these vicious personal insulting remarks will result in your being referred.
Complain about this comment
293. At 2:28pm on 25 Aug 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
"Not the first time the Tory/BLP alliance has gone after MacAskill only to back down when they realised they could not touch him"
Tory -Labour alliance? You really do live in your own little world!
Bill Aitken, Annabel Goldie have all demanded that Labour answer the questions put to them- and if you'd seen newsnight you'd have noticed that Grey and Goldie weren't exactly chums over the determination of Scottish Conservatives to get to the truth about Brown, Mandelsons interventions and stony silences on this matter.
Tory labour alliance? Your so paranoid your seeing anti-MacAskil alliances all over the shop!
Complain about this comment
#295 sidthesceptic
These rumours about the embassy being the source of the saltires have been circulating for a couple of days.
Unless there is any supporting evidence, I think they should be ignored. They don't help.
Complain about this comment
#288 MagisterIlluminatus
"In the meantime, we who actually live here have to have our opinions denigrated, our lives trashed and our security compromised by a bunch of nitwits who don't pay one red cent in tax here, don't live here and don't want to live here."
I haven't read enough of Electric Hermit's posts to have formed a view about his or her residence status, but oldnat and derekbarker are no expats. OTOH, I'm one myself and take great exception at your statement.
Most expats retain UK domicile and thus liability to UK income tax, which I have been paying - with a brief "holiday" whilst at Uni - for more than 40 years. I and many others have also paid voluntary National Insurance contributions whilst abroad to retain UK pension rights - which do not give access to NHS health care when non-resident, BTW. As I'm now over 60 and semi-retired from a UN agency, I'll be coming back "onshore" within the next few years and have as much right as any other citizen to comment on domestic polity.
And, BTW, you seem to be jumping the gun on the euro - sensible move though it will be - my tax bills are still in £££s and pence not €€€s and cents (red or otherwise).
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#288 magister,(the court jester)
Many subjects and much anger.If you want to debate and negotiate your point, then by all means do so, however, be clear and precise and don't move the goal posts.
You will all so find that the majority of blogger do indeed "live here"
in Scotland.
Can you define the definition of rebuked?
So for now! Confucius! abide with the truth.
Complain about this comment
#290 deanthetory
LOL :-)
Complain about this comment
Its sad to see that Scotland's Newspaper, the Record is behaving in a very un-Scottish manner. Very biased reporting.
Complain about this comment
297. At 2:43pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"Yep sure thing- you'll find John Bolton make reference to this poll, and give this percentage on Newsnight (if you watched it, you'd have known this)."
You simply took the figure for those opposed to the release of al-Megrahi and re-labelled it as support for the "boycott". Even for a very amateurish propagandist like yourself, this was clumsy.
Complain about this comment
#297 deanthet
re: Your defence of 83% of all Americans.
Who is this john bolton? What makes his assertion that there is a poll in the US of A believable? Did he mention who polled whom and where? Was it all people living in the Americas or was it just people living in the USA? What I'm getting at is how believable is this assertion. If you polled the NRA you'ld probably get a different answer than if you polled the members of ACLU so I'm really after a bit better than a man on the telly said so.
Complain about this comment
#303 Citizen56
That is the only serious question. We do not know the full extent of the police advice to MacAskill.
I know that the Scottish government gets confidential security briefings. If it is not already the case then we need some kind of system for including the other party leaders in this. Perhaps some Scottish version of the Privy Council? Clearly there are some security issues which should not be in the public domain, but there needs to be some knowledge of them among opposition party leaders.
Complain about this comment
304. sir_mord
"Mr MacAskill may have kept to the letter of the agreement, but has breached that trust and that is why there is such a outburst of anger and hurt. While he was compelled to consider the application he was not compelled to grant it."
Well said. I firmly support these sentiments.
Complain about this comment
I've just got to this blog and a lot appears to have been said.
I listened to the events in the Parliament live on the radio while polishing a wooden floor. I found it all very much as I expected it to be; MacAskill reasonably assured, deliberately to the point and with no histrionics.
What really annoyed me was the total lack of civility and manners displayed by Tavish Scott and Nichol Stephen. It evidenced their complete lack of substance; totally and completely one dimensional. All volume and soundbite, all vitriol and mock anger. What absolute fools they sounded. This is the ingredient that makes Scottish democracy look wanting to the watching world - the lack of a decent opposition.
Now I'm an SNP supporter; but to be associated with such shallow, feeble and empty people as Tavish and Nichol, makes me cringe. They are the Shame of Scotland. Why do they bother? I'd rather polish a wooden floor than listen to those buffoons.
Complain about this comment
#304 sir_mord
You seem to have completely missed the point that the families had no prior agreement on compassionate grounds, only the supposed agreement that he would serve his sentence only in Scotland.
Interestingly on the 2pm Radio Scotland News it was announced that the Scottish Government were hoping to publish all papers prior to next weeks debate but were waiting in approval/permission from the interested parties. It also stated that despite previously having been refused access to docs on the PTA from the UK govt they were asking again for that information. By the time the 3pm news came on that part was no longer mentioned - BBC Scotland been hauled over the coals for daring to suggest that the UK Authorities have something to hide?
Complain about this comment
#304 sir_mord
"I don't know the history of the agreement"
That's the trouble. None of us do - even Kenny MacAskill. The UK Government not only refused to supply any details, but denied that any such agreement existed.
The UK Government are accusing the US Government and the US families either of lying or distorting the truth. Either is an extremely distasteful way for the UK Government to treat the American families.
Complain about this comment
I thought Kenny MacAskill coped admirably, considering the pressures. I also thought none of his opponents landed anything approaching a blow; testament to either their paucity of original thought, or their sneaking suspicion that the Justice Secretary is bang on the money in everything he has done. No, I'm not a Nat.
Just one thing: if Jack McConnell had to pop up to offer his tuppenceworth in his BBC interview (and that's a moot point), couldn't he at least have managed a shave? To be blunt, the man looked like a vagrant. Having that image go worldwide of a former First Minister has done just as much damage to Scotland's image abroad than any supposedly misjudged political decision.
The one light spot in this whole mess is the squealing of many of our English cousins on the main Have Your Say bulletin board as they try to try to draw distinctions between Scotland and the rest of the UK, fearful that anyone should give them a spanking by default. This is a bit like those panic-stricken fearties you used to find in the playground, quivering in front of the teacher and wailing: "Please sir, please sir. The big boys did it."
Calm down, dears. We'll cope.
Complain about this comment
304. At 2:52pm on 25 Aug 2009, sir_mord wrote:
"I think it really is too much to blame the Americans for this, for not foreseeing a legal loophole that Mr MacAskill the lawyer then exploits."
You make it sound like MacAskill went about looking for a device by which to release al-Megarhi. Which, even by the deplorable standards of the current anti-Scottish government smear campaign, is pretty ludicrous.
Complain about this comment
If you're a Facebook member - search for the "Boycott Scotland" group. It's very amusing.
Complain about this comment
305. Brownedov
It does make interesting reading.
It shows one thing: OnlineED had no basis at all to claim that the 'firm majority' of Scots supported Compassionate Release. The figures clearly show that MacAskil has done well to increase his support base from the shockingly low 11% to a more reasonable (but still hardly any 'firm majorty') of 23.2%
Complain about this comment
#302 sir_mord
Are you accusing the UK govt of incompetence in that they did not ascertain that our ally understood what they were agreeing to or duplicitousness in that they knew and didn't tell? Like you I don't think it was the Yanks fault; its hard enough for us to know what the law is and we live here. They, UK + USA, are both at fault for not thinking long term, the threat of the SNP was apparent even in 2000, but then Saint Tone was never one for anything beyond the next main news broadcast.
Complain about this comment
#307 Electric Hermit
Yet again, you fail to answer a single point I've made, resorting instead to childish insult.
Expecting rational adults to believe parliament was recalled without political pressure from the Old Labour mafia is an insult to my intelligence.
Complain about this comment
Just to chuck a little something else into the debate: I was passing through Dubai on Monday (as you do) and picked up an editorial in the national newspaper. This was before the debate in parliment. In summary it said the following:
1: the decision was right, shows humanity and to be commended.
2: Macaskill was to be commended on the decision and the way he took it.
3: Some SNP politicians were harming their cause by appearing to gloat in the ability to make the decision
4: The rush to do trade deals after the announcement of the release insulted the memory of the victims.
I read two other UAE newspapers (gulf news and Khaleej times). their front pages had stories on the possible trade reasons for the release.
John
Complain about this comment
I have to add that I have been disgusted by the "impartial" coverage of the whole story. I watched the whole session in parliment, and what appeared on the news after and on the web today in the guise of knowledgeable coverage is nauseating.
John
Complain about this comment
Has anyone else noticed the following point:
one of the major lines of attack on Macaskill was the question of how some news sources (BBC) were able to report his decision days before he made the announcement.
Macaskill's defense was that he only made the decision the day before announcing it.
So given that the BBC are now very quiet on this and given that they are not highlighting this as a potential line of attack, are they basically admitting that their preempting stories were actually in reality speculation?
This conclusion does not sit favourably with my reading of how the BBC should operate. Is there any other conclusion that I cannot see?
John
Complain about this comment
#311 bighullabaloo
It's she's right... 8-)
Complain about this comment
Apologies if noticed already - moderation being diabolically slow this afternoon, but our friend Magisterilluminatus appears at #288 to know something the rest of us never suspected, at least until recently:
"188. DerekBarker.
...I take it you're like most of the other nats. on this blog..."
Complain about this comment
312. At 3:13pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"So your position is that listening to a couple of radio shows, reading the Metro letters page provides you with a representative, clear and scientific insight into the views of the Scottish electorate and what they think on this matter?"
Make an effort, at least, to avoid making yourself look any more ridiculous than is inevitable. Your use of the phrase "clear and scientific insight" is patently idiotic when what was clearly meant was the kind of impression any of us might get from a reasonably broad perusal of the media.
The point you are desperately and clumsily trying to conceal is that the claims of overwhelming disapproval of the decision being peddled by the Tory/BLP alliance are no more than propaganda of a marginally less amateurish variety than your own sad efforts.
Complain about this comment
Re 305
Brownedov
Your interpretation of poll results to suit your ends is limitless, but the result of this poll is quite clear 75% of those surveyed think the compassionate release decision was wrong.
Greenockboy
I think even by your standards it is a bit of a stretch to say that the majority of the population support the release of Magrahi. It is quite clear if you look that the vast majority don't support the decision. Everyone accepts that it is a decision that divides opinion, not just down party lines either.
Most people feel it was wrong and that the scenes in Libya were disgusting (except Snecked again who for some absurd reason enjoyed them) and the victims were not considered fully.
So it would be better if you just accepted that your man made an unpopular decision and is standing by it. That in itself has some merit if he did make the decision for purely compassionate reasons.
But please stop trying to imply that this is a decision that is supported by the majority it plainly is not.
I also caught a bit of Gordon Brown on a TV while waiting for my train, I note he didn't make a party political point and attack the SNP.
Complain about this comment
319. At 3:23pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"Grey and Goldie weren't exactly chums..."
So they put on a show sufficient to convince you. Not an onerous task considering your blind devotion to the Tory/BLP alliance.
Complain about this comment
Following yesterday's 'developments', it now distinctly looks if the ill-conceived attempt to use the Megrahi release as an unsavoury battering ram against the Scottish Government has already floundered, and will run aground before it achieves its distastefully partisan objectives.
Despite the unionist parties clearly fancying the smell of blood over this issue, and an opportunity to inflict liberal damage on our elected administration, these parties are all over the place with their desperate insinuations, glaring lack of principled leadership and, perhaps most tellingly, the hypocrisy inherent to their stance and so many of their accusations.
With Iain Gray making his characteristic dog's breakfast of trying, and as ever failing, to exploit the situation to his party's advantage, his proclaimed 'silent majority' of Scots 'outraged' by Mr MacAskill's decision are proving decidedly elusive - almost as elusive as the invisible Gordon, whose preferred self-alignment with the England cricket team, but apparent inability to speak on his own government's responsibility for Foreign Affairs, significantly contributes to his self-made image as as inherently weak and incompetent leader.
The feeble attempts by Labour members to excuse Brown's inept silence whilst pursuing Kenny MacAskill over their speculated assertions, or the allegations of deals done to free Megrahi when the world can see it was London Labour who made those deals - beggars belief.
Nicol Stephen surpassed himself in a rant that came down hard on MacAskill's "bizarre reference to some higher power". Aside from the fact that the laws and forces of nature themselves are an inescapable higher power, can we take it from this demonstration that Stephen is a confirmed aetheist who only sees the church as convenient for 'hatches, matches and dispatches'?? Either way, there can scarcely be an interpretation of his outburst that does not further betray sanctimonious hypocrisy.
And while I believe Kenny MacAskill's actions and decision, founded on the best rather than the worst of human qualities, have raised him head and shoulders above his herd of dismal detractors, the most refreshing and commendable interpretation of the situation surely came from Malcolm Chisholm, whose comments have credited and clearly distinguished him, not least from the Labour pack of baying hounds.
Likewise, there can be scant credibility in any projected 'boycott' of Scotland or Scottish goods, inherently flawed by both the sheer hypocrisy of the US government and the long-term indifference of the American people - with the possible exception of those who require Scotland to be the 'villain' (aka 'patsy') of the piece to safisfy their own inner rage. Are these the kind of people we really want to appease??
I believe that history will clearly judge Kenny MacAskill's decision to be the strong one, not the wrong one, as is already becoming evident in the voicing of substantial public and international support, contrasted with the abject absence of Gray's delusional 'silent majority' - and one that will strengthen rather than undermine our international standing.
Among the many questions demanding answers, one of the most basic and direct must be 'Who arranged the planting of the Saltires in the hands of the Libyans for Megrahi's reception?' A question, one would imagine, that should not require intensive investigation.
Beyond that, questions relating to pre-arranged deals or dubious negotiations with the Libyans or anyone else should properly be addressed to the UK Government.
Over to you, Bungler Brown!
Complain about this comment
321. At 3:28pm on 25 Aug 2009, Brownedov wrote:
"I haven't read enough of Electric Hermit's posts to have formed a view about his or her residence status..."
Scottish citizen resident in Scotland paying tax in accordance with the same rules as apply to everybody else. Quite content with the arrangement. But looking forward to the day when those taxes will be paid in euros to the government of an independent Scotland. Even if it means paying more.
Complain about this comment
#315 Electric Hermit
More insults from you merely proves how an ingrate handles legitimate argument.
People who have been on this board for more than five minutes know me as someone who has researched and presented actual facts here many, many times.
These facts thwarted several attempts by the Unionist mafia to try to peddle their lies and distortions to the Scottish public.
When I ask for a few facts in return all I get from you is a repetition ad infintum of answers I didn't ask for, and childish insults to try to distract attention from the fact you are not answering the questions I did ask.
How stupid that makes you look!
Complain about this comment
I've read deanthetory's remarks aimed at myself and have decided not to respond to him. The blog all too easily descends into abuse filled nonsense.
I have though referred dean's comment at 290 to the mods.
****************************************************************
One of the interesting things regarding the level of support or otherwise waere the remarks made by the SNP's Michael Mathieson this morning. Mathieson actually conceded that there weren't many people contacting him immediately after the public announcement from MacAskill but of those who did more were opposed to MacAskill's decision than for.
However, this was reversed as the Unionist parties decided to politicise it. Mathieson explained that from then on the overwhelming number of people who contacted him were supportive. I know, not scientific just anecdotal.
The Scotsman poll apparently shows a clear split - suggesting that neither 'side' has a majority - again not scientific.
We all know the trend that the radio phone in's and newspaper letter writers suggest - clear majority in support.
Respected establishment figures may also tend to suggest more in favour than against given that these figures have influence over many Scots.
So, it seems that one thing is not being demonstrated by figures and anecdotal evidence since the decision was made public - a clear majority against the decision.
Lastly, just heard Labour's Richard Baker turn his attention to Christine Graham accusing her of spouting conspiracy theories. Is this the beginning of yet another clumsy faux pas by Labour? There are very many families of victims and indeed members of the public who believe evidence exists that will render Megrahi's conviction unsafe.
Perhaps Baker will now support calls for Milliband to make public the new evidence.
Is this also a sign that Labour are beginning to panic and are turning their fire on any SNP politician that moves?
Complain about this comment
Y'know, I'm getting very sick of American comments on here and elsewhere about boycotting our goods. Aside from whisky, what do we actually make? Could we sell them a call-centre or two perhaps? So, they'll stop drinking our whisky? Who cares, the US long ceased to be the biggest consumer.
I'm heartedly fed up with all this bilge from Obama, Mrs Bubba, the FBI character and that loathsome man, John Bolton. I couldn't give a damn about America. Their companies have pulled out of Scotland leaving thousands of loyal workers to rot. They funded the IRA for 4 decades and didn't bat an eyelid when our cities were bombed and innocent people were maimed and killed. All they saw was John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in the "owld country".
So let them boycott us and let them call us nasty names and let them wallow in their vengeful bloodlust. Scotland stands for right and justice not cash and vengeance.
Oh and to the Episcopalian priest who gave us the benefit of his opinion, were you off the day they discussed the new testament?
And karenm...right on about the flags. Could anyone here just pop out and buy a large Saltire just like those, let alone Libya? Do they sell them in the soukhs? Maybe Jim Murphy took them over on his way through the desert???
Complain about this comment
Deathetory Writes:
"So your position is that listening to a couple of radio shows, reading the Metro letters page provides you with a representative, clear and scientific insight into the views of the Scottish electorate and what they think on this matter?"
I know you aimed this at onlinEd, but the Metro jibe is obviously directed at me.
Who said anything about scientific insight? As an avowed postmoderist, I am much more interested in the circulating language and the political and social climate which is revealed by that language. Adding up numbers in a bid to get to the truth is a pointless exercise in this case (we will never, ever know what the view of the general public is. The concept 'general public' is itself nebulous; their views can be dressed in whatever way the person creating the narrative decided - through suppression and ommission).
What we should be interested, if we really want to know something meaningful about the impact of poltical phenomena is: how are the protagonists reacting to it? What or who gains from the discourse which they are circulating? Who or what is diminished by that discourse?
What we know for sure: the opposition in Holyrood want the SNP to go away. They wanted to use this issue to make it happen. They made noises that this was what they were going to do. They did not do it.
It is my opinion, based upon the circumstances which occurred from the 'we-are-going-to-bring-them-down' period to the 'we-are-not-going-to-bring-them-down' period (where public support of the decision has increasingly been manifest in all the usual media used to gauge public opinion), that support for MacAskill's decision is increasing. This informed the decision-making process in my opinion.
Does this mean that it is a majority view? I would say that apathy is the only view that we can establish with any sort of certainty. However, the view that the decision was informed by laudable values, which people like to think of themselves as having is widespread (this, I would suggest, was the purpose of this very particular narrative articulated by MacAskill).
It does not take a great intellect to see that the fusion of all these variables creates a certain type of envirnoment - one I would suggest that is not hostile to the man or the principles which informed the decision.
There is a political discourses circulating out there. It is going through the process of validation. The sign has been created (Scottish compassion); the statement articulated (governmental action - release of Megrahi); positively endorsed through relevant bodies (Law Society and Ecclesiastical endorsement); and discourse created (liberal newspaper reaffirmation of sign and statement - using the positive endorsement as justification of argument).
No such process has been undertaken by those attacking the decision. It simply seems to be a disjointed and chaotic response based upon reaction (conservative with a small 'c'), fear (repercussions), opportunism ('bring them down'), and hatred (Labour party's for the SNP).
Which discourse would you back surviving?
Complain about this comment
The last I saw of the Scotsman poll was 63% in favour.
I have noted before the strange turn around of polls which don't suit their agenda , not to mention one on independence about which I had forgotten.
Someone else brought it to mind.
There are some on here who are turning into voluble arrogant ,condescending little brats.
Not a pretty sight.
Complain about this comment
#304 sir_mord
"I think it really is too much to blame the Americans for this, for not foreseeing a legal loophole that Mr MacAskill the lawyer then exploits."
As in all negotiations, the first consideration must always be caveat emptor. The US and UK governments were concerned enough to insist that any sentence should be served in Scotland, delaying the handover for a year as a result. If the US had cared to, they would have had plenty of time to check with a Scottish lawyer re post-trial matters. Had they asked, do you doubt that the 1993 Act would have been mentioned?
Your use of the word "loophole" seems somewhat emotive. Did Straw exploit a legal loophole in releasing Biggs? Did Wallace in releasing a child killer? I suspect all three were uncomfortable in so doing, but that all three did so because it is the law for such action to be taken if the individual is not a threat to the public.
"I think that what happened between America and the UK was not such a detailed and binding contract, but an agreement, between willing partners, in good will and mutual trust, that included the assurance that anyone found guilty would serve the full sentence as handed down by the court in Scotland."
It would be nice to have some evidence of that. At the very least, any US citizen based in their London embassy would have known from picking up a newspaper that "life does not mean life" in the UK. A concerned one would have suggested asking a lawyer what rules would apply.
A little background is always worth having. This website's UN reassures Libya on Lockerbie of 17 February 1999 is a pretty good summary of "the story so far". Two passages seem relevant here: "The Libyan leader agreed in principle last August to a trial at a court in the Netherlands under Scottish law, but had refused their imprisonment in Scotland if convicted" and "Under a compromise deal, the pair would serve their jail terms in Scotland, but would be housed in a prison wing supervised by UN monitors". Plenty of spare time for the US legal team, I'd have thought.
"He could have said that while he would like to grant release on compassionate grounds, the prior agreement with the families prevented him from doing so."
That's a better argument but not a "killer" one, I think. First the UK government have never released details of such a deal and tend to be in denial much of the time over whether any "deals" exist. Had such a deal been formalised, the Bliar government could easily have passed a law excluding any convicted from compassion or other early release grounds. More importantly, the law as it exists makes no mention of victims or their families that I spotted. You can read the entire Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993here. If you can find anything in it to suggest I'm wrong, please post the reference on these threads.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
326. At 3:46pm on 25 Aug 2009, handclapping wrote:
"Who is this john bolton?"
A leading member of the Bush War Cult who used to provide entertainment by being torn to shreds on live TV in the UK by the likes of Tony Benn.
Complain about this comment
An interesting comment from a Welshman about one of our party leaders.
http://miserableoldfart.blogspot.com/2009/08/shame-of-annabel-goldie.html
Complain about this comment
303. At 2:52pm on 25 Aug 2009, Citizen56 wrote:
"MacAskill says he took police advice on the question of Megrahi remaining in Scotland."
So he did. And what was clear was that the security implications included inevitable disruption to other users of whatever facility al-Megrahi might be moved to. Mr MacAskill quite rightly deemed that such an imposition on dying people and their families was totally unacceptable.
By contrast, Annabel Goldie's callous disregard for these people is yet another blemish on her once impeccable reputation. It has all been downhill for her since she got into bed with the likes of Gray and Foulkes. A sad loss to Scottish politics.
Complain about this comment
326. At 3:46pm on 25 Aug 2009, handclapping
You dont know who John Bolton is? If you did youd know he is a man that knows what he is talking about.
To dismiss John Bolton as just 'some man on the tele' is remarkable- if not a really good incite into your ignorance.
Complain about this comment
#126 - " Prima facie, it certainly doesn't sound to have been a "killer question"."
I agree, Browndov, and I think MagisterIlluminatus really should speak to his people that brought him this gem as it really is a damp squid rather than a killer, knock-out blow.
Unless, of course, Jackson Carlaw was expecting Scottish law to be re-written on the fly to ensure that it was no longer prescribed that the responsibility to adminster the licence agreements fell to East Renfrewshire council.
Complain about this comment
brown quoted alex salmonds statement
repulsed at scenes in libya when megrahi returned
so UK PM is now locked hand in hand with SNP
SNP are calling the shots
PM is made too look very weak
Complain about this comment
357 Deanthe story maker.
There's no doubt at some time the Scottish government will re-shuffle, as all governments do.
Most people do recognise that the Tories played an underhand card on this issue (Megrahi's release) and have more or less resigned themselves to a negative role in the future of Scottish politics.
Complain about this comment
#330 skintybroko
#331 oldnat
Again (and for the last time) in MacAkill's own words in refusing the prisoner transfer;
"Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.
It is for that reason that the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject."
They had an expectation the "sentence would be served in Scotland". I doubt for one minute any of the families ever thought Megrahi would be released due to terminal illness, allowing MacAskill a loophole out of the literal interpretation of those words but completely breaking the spirit of them.
Not only that but by going on about the need to show compassion and mercy and so to release Megrahi, he has denied that there is any compassion or mercy built into out judicial or prison systems.
Complain about this comment
304. At 2:52pm on 25 Aug 2009, sir_mord wrote:
"While he was compelled to consider the application he was not compelled to grant it."
He self-evidently was compelled - by his own conscience.
You appear to fall into the camp of those less reflective commentators who imagine that compassion is a zero sum game. That granting compassion to al-Megrahi necessarily subtracts from the compassion granted to the families of the victims. Being generous, I can only describe this as a rather sad failure to comprehend the true nature of compassion.
As Shakespeare said, "The quality of mercy is not strained". The only constraint upon compassion is lack or defect of that innate empathy which is the essence of our shared humanity.
In showing compassion to a man convicted of such a heinous crime Kenny MacAskill demonstrated that he has no lack or defect of empathy. There is, therefore, no cause to doubt that his compassion for the families of the victims is anything other than totally genuine and undiminished by his actions.
Complain about this comment
#161 - "Anybody with a drop of intelligence understood what the topic of my point was. I'm quite sure you probably did as well."
Yes, NCA, you were creating a hypothetical to hit MacAskill over the head with. Tactics "like that just make you look daft, nobody else."
Complain about this comment
#167 - "If the gunman from Dunblane had been taken alive, and was now in a Scottish jail dying of prostate cancer would a compassionate Justice Secretary be announcing his release to go and die peacefully at home with his family?"
Yes. Next.
Complain about this comment
337. At 4:04pm on 25 Aug 2009, bighullabaloo wrote:
"Expecting rational adults to believe parliament was recalled without political pressure from the Old Labour mafia is an insult to my intelligence."
No real harm done then.
Complain about this comment
#335 deanthetory
"OnlineED had no basis at all to claim that the 'firm majority' of Scots supported Compassionate Release."
You're right there, but I make some allowance for the frustration that builds up when the mainstream media cover events in a biased way - ie always. Still, nil carborundum illegitimi and all that.
"The figures clearly show that MacAskil has done well to increase his support base from the shockingly low 11% to a more reasonable (but still hardly any 'firm majorty') of 23.2%"
There, as you doubtless would expect, I think the key is the 50/50 split between wanting him in Libya and Scotland. You have already mentioned that NuLab and the unLib unDems hardly covered themselves in glory yesterday, but that barely shows through in the media coverage.
If proper Scottish polling is carried out at the week-end, I will be surprised if a clear balance isn't in favour of al Megrahi being in Libya.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#180 - "Most people don't support independence, it's highly unlikely that all of those people disagree with MacAskill's decision. Equally it's unlikely that the minority of people who do support your cause all agree or disagree with the decision."
You claim, NCA, that this is nothing to do with being opposed to the SNP or their goal. Yet you assert that every single person who doesn't support independence is united against MacAskill's decision whilst those who do support an independent Scotland are split.
Mmmmm - I take you've spoken to every single person who opposes independence to get their view on Megrahi's release or are those who oppose a country standing on its own two feet all sheet who have to have their opinions handed to them.
Wait a mo....
Complain about this comment
#333 Electric Hermit
"You make it sound like MacAskill went about looking for a device by which to release al-Megarhi."
Not at all. As far as I remember the SNP objected to the PTA right from the start and I respect them for that. But there is no logic in the decision, there were perfectly good grounds to reject it and it has caused great anguish to the families involved. Mr MacAskill is an Edinburgh solicitor, that's as near salt of the earth as you can get (and these days several miles ahead of an Edinburgh banker). I think he was misguided.
I certainly would take no pleasure from seeing anyone die in jail. But remember he put himself there by his actions and not you or I. I can't believe that a compromise solution could not have been arrived at, with him staying in Scotland under supervision with his family present.
This was in many ways a no win situation. But I think we've got one of the worst outcomes possible.
Complain about this comment
#190 - "we can sure as hell turn our backs when you want our help again. And trust me, you will need our support again one day."
Remind me please, radio controlled cowboy, of 2 things?
1 - when did we need your help previously (don't mention WW2, the Ruskies did more damage to the thrid Reicht than America ever did and Britain was still paying for America's "help" well into this century)
2 - How many wars has America won on its own? Oh, actually I know this one. None.
I think you'll be calling for our help before we're calling for yours.
Complain about this comment
@deanthetory 279
"Seems the majority of Scots are still firmly opposed to MacAskils' decision"
Dean you should really have posted the question. This is not what was asked.
Opinion on what people believed was appropriate in the case does not (and cannot) automatically lead to an assumption that if asked on the merits of the decision taken by MacAskill the results would be the same.
Complain about this comment
344. At 4:23pm on 25 Aug 2009, northhighlander wrote:
"It is quite clear if you look that the vast majority don't support the decision."
We can't look inside your imagination. We can only look at the real world. That the Tory/BLP propagandists endlessly repeat the line about a "vast majority" does not make it any less false. And your parroting of their propaganda doesn't make it any more true.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit
You believe:
1. there is a Conservative - Labour plot to bring down the SNP governmnet
2. That Annabel Goldie and Grey are best chums.
3. That only SNP supporters are capable of being patriotic
This looks silly, it is silly, and even the most idiotic lunatic would understand that your a platform is non-existant.
I suggest you grow up. And quickly.
Complain about this comment
#312 deanthetory
"So your position is that listening to a couple of radio shows, reading the Metro letters page provides you with a representative, clear and scientific insight into the views of the Scottish electorate and what they think on this matter?
Your 83% of Americans were against!
Poll: 82 Percent of Americans Oppose Decision to Release Lockerbie Bomber
"The survey, taken Saturday and Sunday, was based on interviews with 1,000 adults. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points."
Out of 350+ million! (could do better)
Complain about this comment
sir_mord, I think that the Scotsman poll has no validity at all. I know for a fact that it allows re-votes which totally invalidates it. In fact, all online polls are subject to that by simply switching either computers or email addresses. Since I find it very hard to believe that MacAskill supporters are that much more vocal than MacAskill detractors, in fact I'd expect the opposite since detractors would be angrier, observation leads me to believe that a majority do support MacAskill. Amongst the people I know, hardly representative since we're an independence-minded lot I will admit, I have seen nothing but support and wide-spread outrage at the blatant interference by foreigners in our internal affairs.
Complain about this comment
346. Dougie-Dubh
"his proclaimed 'silent majority' of Scots 'outraged' by Mr MacAskill's decision are proving decidedly elusive"
You may not be able to find them but the majority of Scottish voters ARE against the Compassionate Release of Megrahi:
11% for Compassionate Release June/July
23.2% in favour August Poll
Since when does either of these stats constitute a 'firm majority' (as OnlineEd seems to think they do, lets hope he isnt anyones maths teacher).
The truth is that the majority of Scottish voters stand firmly in opposition to MacAskils' decision. The polls are more scientific and accurate than any radio show you've listened to, or even the letters page of the metro!
You dont have to like it, but you cant go on denying that the Unionist parties are on the right side of public opinion in their unified abhorrance at the decision to release the mass murdering terrorist to de facto freedom.
No amounts of cybernat ignorants like OnlineEd can deny this. The statistics are available to anyone with an OPEN MIND- have a gander over to polling report and be enlightened as to what the public actually thinks eh?
Complain about this comment
#344 northhighlander
"Your interpretation of poll results to suit your ends is limitless, but the result of this poll is quite clear 75% of those surveyed think the compassionate release decision was wrong."
Obviously the 23.2%, in favour of compassionate release are "happy", but if they think it was wrong, why do you think another 27.4% of those polled think he should be in Libya? Do you or they really think that he would be held in similar conditions to those he has "enjoyed" in Greenock?
As I've already said, the small Scottish sample is not statistically relevant, but if it tells us anything it shows the public is still split roughly 50/50 between wanting him to be in Libya vs Scotland.
From my own personal point of view that hardly suits my own "ends" as I strongly believe that MacAskill made the right decision in very difficult circumstances and hoped it would be more widely recognised.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#347 Electric Hermit
"Scottish citizen resident in Scotland paying tax in accordance with the same rules as apply to everybody else."
Er, everybody else except those tax rules we recently discovered don't apply to MPs, obviously.
Complain about this comment
348. At 4:42pm on 25 Aug 2009, bighullabaloo wrote:
"People who have been on this board for more than five minutes know me as someone who has researched and presented actual facts here many, many times."
Then go do some of this research that you claim to be so good at. I answered all your questions to the extent that there are answers. And all you have done is whine like an ill-bred brat because these answers failed to feed your pet conspiracy theory.
Try to get your silly wee head around this simple and glaringly obvious truth. Parliament was always going to be recalled to hear the Justice Minister's account of such a momentous decision. It was inevitable. Nobody needed to conspire to make it happen.
And if the massed ranks of "old Labour" at Holyrood did press for a recall through the agency of the Parliamentary Bureau, so what!? They are perfectly entitled to do so. That is what the Parliamentary Bureau is for.
Complain about this comment
#341 vere_scribo
My apologies.
Whilst I have many talents determining gender from posts on an internet message board isn't one of them. ;-)
Complain about this comment
#347 Electric Hermit
Fine, thanks. I was in no way intending to pry but am quietly pleased that MagisterIlluminatus completed a clean sweep in getting his expat jibe 100% wrong.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
slow, slow, slow, slow, slow - these mods wont get on Strictly
Complain about this comment
351. At 4:47pm on 25 Aug 2009, HumeDavid
Good post, be interesting to see what young Dean has to say about it.
Complain about this comment
Scottish Lawmakers Reamed at Emergency Meeting on Lockerbie Release
"A crowd hissed along from the packed public section during the emergency debate Monday in Edinburgh, as MacAskill was once again called on to defend freeing the convicted bomber after only eight years of his life sentence. Al-Megrahi served just 11 days in prison for each of the 270 victims of the bombing."
No wonder there are problems in the wider World when the public is dished this standard of reporting from outwith their borders.
Complain about this comment
353. At 4:50pm on 25 Aug 2009, Brownedov wrote:
"If the US had cared to, they would have had plenty of time to check with a Scottish lawyer re post-trial matters. Had they asked, do you doubt that the 1993 Act would have been mentioned?"
I suspect that, in their arrogance, the US administration simply assumed that they would be able sweep aside "local" legislation and dictate the conduct of al-Megrahi's incarceration to a Scottish government as susceptible to such bullying as its UK counterpart. It would be good to think that, having been disabused of this notion, they might learn a little humility. But they'll have to get someone to look up the term first.
Complain about this comment
Woodmason, the USA Episcopal priest returning to make some observations, offer one apology and ask a question.
It is good to see that venom is not limited to citizens of the United States. Several comments suggested I was neither a fit Christian nor a proper priest. What is unChristian about asking that a man complete his sentence for a heinous crime? I have no problem with him returning home as a prisoner, to be close to his family. He could easily be given comfortable quarters, access to the best palliative care Libya can offer and see his family everyday. Why does he need to leave as a free man? And why not consider bringing his family to Scotland? I can attest that it is a wonderful country full of kind, hospitable people, some of the most gracious I have ever met. Scotland has citizens of Arabic descent who practice Islam who could surround the family with loving care during their time in Scotland. I suspect the family would be amazed at the freedom they would experience amongst a great and noble people.
I do hope God will help my congregation, and I try to preach a message that is positive and upbeat and filled with hope and love.
I was startled that a high power was invoked as the source of Megrahi's current, cancerous condition. As much as the crime he committed angers me I don't believe God gave him cancer. I don't believe God goes around giving people cancer. Do all the kind, gracious people in Scotland who are currently battling cancer have God to blame for their condition? Heaven's forbid. I certainly hope that was not what Mr. MacAskill meant to imply. I do wish he had thought that comment through just a little more carefully. God gets a bad enough rap as it is without having him the dispenser of cancer as a means of justice.
Boycott, well that was silly of me. I LOVE Scotland. How could I turn my heart from so wonderful a country. And, its not just the whiskey and the shortbread I love either. I apologize for saying such a thing.
Flags - Folks, remember flags can be secured easily from any of a number of sources and that right quickly.
I would agree to Scots troops, and all troops, being withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. As Britain learned to her sorrow many years ago, neither is a place where outsiders need to be meddling. I was sorry Bush undertook his adventure in the middle east, and sad Tony Blair joined him.
I am proud of the richness of the heritage of Scots in America. In fact, there are more "Scots" if we count descent, in America and Canada than there are in Scotland. I am proud of that fact.
Now, about further devolution or independence for Scotland
I have noticed that the SNP calls for the retention of the Royal Family. This is a sincere curiosity question,not an ugly American jibe - Why?
I like the Royal Family well enough, and I think the Queen is a remarkable woman I would be glad to have as my head of state (she'd be a heck of alot better than some of the Presidents we've elected over here during the time she has reigned)
But, help a yank understand the appeal of ditching Westminster while keeping Buckingham Palace? I really do want to know.
And, finally, I hope Scotland will change its tourist motto from "Scotland A great little country" to "The Stars Shine Brighter in Scotland"
Last time I was in the land of me ancestors, I was spending a week on the Island of Iona in prayer and reflection. I commented to the group I was with on how beautiful the night sky was. One of them replied, "Yes, the stars shine brighter in Scotland." Now That is great motto for a beautiful country.
Oh, one final final question - If Megrahi is innocent, when does the investigation resume to find the real killers?
Thanks
Complain about this comment
351. HumeDavid
"I am much more interested in the circulating language and the political and social climate which is revealed by that language. Adding up numbers in a bid to get to the truth is a pointless exercise in this case (we will never, ever know what the view of the general public is. The concept 'general public' is itself nebulous; their views can be dressed in whatever way the person creating the narrative decided - through suppression and ommission)."
Your point is a really good one. Especially the point that poll findings depend upon how the questions are posed by those asking. This is true- and why I always consider to:
i] margins of error,
ii] the requirement to have more than one poll, from different polsters.
In both cases here we enjoy this, so I would argue that the polling numbers are worthy of more consideration than your willing to grant them. They meet the technical requirements to be worthwhile for consideration; so long as one remembers to take them both with 'pinches of salt'.
However your point about currently employed language and the Scotlands' political climate:
this is why we must trust polling findings over and above the emotive expressions people are all too ready to employ over issues like this.
But the wording used by men like Grey and Tavish Scott does provide an incite into their motivations- but ultimately this will always be reliant upon supposition and interpretation of what their motives 'might actually be'.
This is ultimately why I prefer the cold, hard, and more reliable and coherent world of polls and stats, when judging public moods around this issue.
Complain about this comment
349. Online_Ed wrote:
"I've read deanthetory's remarks aimed at myself and have decided not to respond to him."
This is because I asked him to justify his claim when he said "the firm majority of Scots" support MacAskils decision on compassionate release.
I pointed out the two polls in the public arena showing real measured support for MacAskil resting at 11% and 23.2% respectively. This doesnt constitute a "firm majority"
OnlineEd is playing politics and lying over such an important issue, and is unable to respond.
Complain about this comment
357. At 5:08pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"To dismiss John Bolton as just 'some man on the tele' is remarkable..."
Bolton is a neo-con and a clown. (A neo-clown?) When he and the rest of the Bush War Cult were in power, they were dangerous clowns. Now they are just sad clowns.
You want to see what your loony hero will be remembered for? Google the clown's name. Right there below his Wikipedia entry your will find his "place in history". A collection of YouTube clips of him being a clown on TV.
Complain about this comment
Dean, do I detect some kind of sympathy with that man, Bolton????? What would Aunty say? Bolton is a warmongering, nasty piece of work who should have crawled back under a wet stone when Bush got the push. Seriously, you have gone down in my estimation if you think that this guy is worth listening to.
Complain about this comment
#356 Electric Hermit
"It has all been downhill for her (Annabel Goldie) since she got into bed with the likes of Gray and Foulkes."
Could you go easy on the vividly evocative metaphors? I'm trying to eat my dinner. Thanks!
Complain about this comment
#357 deanthetory
As an incite into your ignorance you are a student at Stirling. No I don't know who John Bolton is so he remains from your description a man on the telly. I have found over the years that most men who know what they are talking about are bullies. Those that know what they are talking about are generally the quiet ones as they know how much they dont know. Please tell me which of the hundreds of John Boltons that exist was the one on the telly and his profile as if he knows what he is talking about he will be on the internet somewhere.
Complain about this comment
#344
Gordon Brown didn't make any point at all. As usual. The silence of cowardice and expediency
Why shouldn't I enjoy watching Libyans freely expressing their gratitude to a Scottish Government for an act of generous clememncy to a dying Libyan? (Thank you, brothers. I hope you can do the same for one of ours sometime).
Give me a good reason, please.
There is no outrage about this except that simulated by the media and now seized on by Macavity to get him out of a hole.
Doesn't anybody else wonder why most of the "huge" crowd at Tripoli Airport (seems to have been even more than 50 - wow!) appear to be wearing some form of uniform or perhaps embassy employees outfits?
Complain about this comment
"360. At 5:18pm on 25 Aug 2009, derekbarker wrote:
357 Deanthe story maker.
Most people do recognise that the Tories played an underhand card on this issue"
Your need to reduce your points to abuse indicate you are devoid of firm grounding.
Tories played 'underhand card'- oh please, the more you repeat you and Electric Hermits little lies doesnt make it anymore true.
1. there is no tory-labour alliance, to suggest there is one is sheer ignorance.
2. your and Hermits needs to reduce your points to name calling tells it all- you have no answers when I have asked for Hermit to prove the nonsense claim about 'tory-labour alliances'.
It is stuped, and I am surprised that someone as intellegent as you would seek to defend such ignorant people.
Complain about this comment
FAO Dean,
John Bolton is among the most loathsome public figures alive today and one of the weakest intellectually. But he's funny. I always get a laugh out of seeing him being torn to shreds or losing his temper.
Did you see his performance on Newsnight last night? It was hilarious and at the same time a little chilling.
Anyone giving credence to John Bolton debases themselves. I think you should reconsider your seeming admiration for the guy.
Complain about this comment
361. At 5:19pm on 25 Aug 2009, sir_mord wrote:
""...allowing MacAskill a loophole out of the literal interpretation..."
Again, this was not a loophole. It is the law of the land. It was the law of the land at the time these "expectations" were made. It was a fact then, as it is now, that any prisoner in Scotland who developed a terminal disease would qualify to apply for compassionate release under licence to die.
The fact that the US authorities insisted on al-Megrahi serve his sentence in Scotland necessarily implies acceptance of the legislative and regulatory framework that would govern his incarceration in Scotland. If the US authorities imagined they could ride roughshod over the Scottish judicial and prison systems, they were very, very wrong.
It is time those authorities learned to live with the deal they made. And it is time the families learned to live with the deal made on their behalf.
Complain about this comment
366. Brownedov
It is deeply frustrating when the BBC fail to fulfil their obligations to be impartial. I understand and empathise, but it still doesnt allow him to make up lies and continue to spread them.
He cannot claim, as you and any sensible reader can, that "the firm majority" of Scots favour MacAskils decision; the polls simply do not support this. Yet he continues to perpetuate this lie- even after I have provided him with links.
This is patently unacceptable, and blether with brian demands higher standards than OnlineEd seems able to offer.
But as I say it is unbelievable the behaviour of BBC interviewers, they totally ignore the Brown silence on the issue (even now, he still doesnt say if he agreed personally with the release- just talks about the reception in Libya).
Complain about this comment
@deanthetory - various posts
You havent seen the polls then? 11% and 15% respectively is not at all representative of a 'majority' as you claimed- materialised support? 11% and 15% is hardly a 'majority'.
Dean you need to stop this relentless use of a poll (conducted in part ahead of MacAskill's decision) which does not ask for opinions on the decision itself but rather what would be the preferred outcome for the individual polled as evidence for or against the decision itself. the two are not the same.
For instance my mother is/was of the hang em and flog em mindset so was interested in her opinion on this. When asked what she thought should have happened she was of the opinion that in an ideal world Megrahi would have stayed in Scotland. When asked her opinion on the decision taken she was of the view that in the circumstances it was the correct decision.
You are smart enough to make this distinction yet choose not to and seemed determined to raise the figures as often as you can.
Complain about this comment
#361 sir_mord
I think you are wrong. The Crown always had a perogative of mercy which was codified in the 1990's by the Tories after they had done something similar for the English penal system. So Megrahi's release was no different to Biggs and was in part due to the codification in revulsion to the scandal that was Pinochet's release.
Complain about this comment
368. At 5:43pm on 25 Aug 2009, sir_mord wrote:
#333 Electric Hermit
"...there were perfectly good grounds to reject it..."
Not in the view of the man whose evaluation matters. The man who had access to far more detailed information than you.
"...and it has caused great anguish to the families involved."
I heartily detest the way the grief of the families is used in this despicable fashion.
Complain about this comment
#365 Electric Hermit
I suspected as much and that latest unfunny jibe confirms it beyond doubt.
You've changed the name but not the tune. The same old boring abuse, no proof, no arguments, nothing worthwhile to say.
Where have we all seen that before I wonder? Oh yes. And what a waste of time he was.
Complain about this comment
371. At 5:54pm on 25 Aug 2009, Electric Hermit
"It is quite clear if you look that the vast majority don't support the decision."
We can't look inside your imagination. We can only look at the real world. That the Tory/BLP propagandists endlessly repeat the line about a "vast majority" does not make it any less false. And your parroting of their propaganda doesn't make it any more true.
You will find that NorthHighlander was correct in his statement:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
It shows that 11%, and 23.2% subsequently agree with MacAskils decision on Compassionate release. You cannot turn this into a "firm majority" as OnlineEd is dedicated to doing.
Complain about this comment
357. At 5:08pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
326. At 3:46pm on 25 Aug 2009, handclapping
You dont know who John Bolton is? If you did youd know he is a man that knows what he is talking about.
To dismiss John Bolton as just 'some man on the tele' is remarkable- if not a really good incite into your ignorance.
You're thinking of Roger Mellie ;)
John Bolton represents the very worst in Bush era place men - appointed as interim US Ambassador under Bush/Cheney Inc., even the Senate under Bush couldn't be made to confirm his appoitnment and he had to resign.
Apart from the fact his only interest is US interests (in the Bush/Cheney style) at any cost - he is a spanner in any works to which he is thrown, and of course blustering comedy gold!
Complain about this comment
372. At 6:02pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"Electric Hermit
You believe..."
Now you presume to pontificate on what I believe. Seems you failed to heed my advice about reducing your efforts to look foolish. You really have no need to try so hard.
Complain about this comment
373. cynicalHighlander
"Could do better"
Yes, the pollsters could- but it is still a damn better insight you'd ever find on Fox news, or anything like it.
When it comes to measuring public opinion we cannot rely on broadcasters! If we did this then the BBC would be representing exactly what the public think!
It isnt best, but it is one heck of a lot better than Fox news, ABC news or Murdocks media empire (or the BBC for this matter).
Complain about this comment
#357 Deanthetory
Dean I don't wish to be seen to be targeting you, and I'm not a regular blogger here but often quite enjoy your input when reading them. I note your post on the previous blog regards how your view has been influenced on this by personal circumstances and I respect your honesty in that regard but... you seem to have lost your way a bit on this. Whether personal motivations or political allegiance is responsible you seem to be casting blindly.
"You dont know who John Bolton is? If you did youd know he is a man that knows what he is talking about."
Like Mueller et al.?
Bolton stated his case clearly, he'd have had Megrahi strung up/gassed/shot from the get go. His considerations on the outcome of due process within the Scottish legal system (that doesn't offer up his preferred solution) in light of the requests handed down from Libya and Megrahi was never likely to be best balanced.
Complain about this comment
375. At 6:16pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"...the Unionist parties are on the right side of public opinion in their unified abhorrance at the decision..."
That would be the Tory/BLP alliance in action.
Hardly "unified". Or does Malcolm Chisholm's principled stance disqualify him from inclusion in the unionist cabal?
Does that mean he will no longer feel the need of a hot shower every twenty minutes?
Complain about this comment
#373 cynical
Fox News and 63% said they had followed it in the news. So at least 19% had objected without knowing anything about it and, more likely, 30%.
The ignorance of the outside world that afflicts the average USA citizen must be a real worry for the rest of the world. These are the people who voted for Dubbya, who took us to war in Iraq. And yet most are the kindest, friendliest people. It's shocking, but I've learnt not to discuss politics in the States. I just say I don't know enough and when I'm told "Well, I didn't know that before." seems to get me out of it.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory wrote:
"You are being nieve. Incredibly so. You seem to think that DC wouldn't understand and act to aswade Scottish fears. He will, because he understands the political games the SNP will start up once he is PM.
I am not being invcredibly nieve I merely pointed out what successive newspaper polls have shown. In no way did I try and predict what Cameron will do.
It can go 2 ways
1. An independant Scotland gives the Conservatives power for a very very very long time in what is left of the UK. Long enough to complete what ever vision they have for the UK. Depending on what Camerons private view on this is he may want an independent Scotland to allow the Tory plan to be competed.
2.Cameron will fight to keep the Union. If he does how is he going to change Scottish public opinion, if hecuts our Barnet formulae and that is hardly going to endear him. And seing as Osbourne wants to do this with the English departmental budget which will affect services then he's gonna upset a lot of England if he doesnt cut Scotlands money.
Either way we will see within 12 months of him gaining power what he will do.
Complain about this comment
#361 sir_mord
Our difference is legal, because this is a legal case with political ramifications not the other way round.
You describe MacAskill's actions as using a "loophole". I presume we can agree on an acceptable definition of that as "a way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance"?
Had MacAskill broken with precedent and used his powers of compassionate release differently from his predecessors, in order to overturn the appeal and keep Megrahi in jail, then that would have been using a "loophole" for political purposes. Of course, he did not. He followed what every one of his predecessors by examining the reports of his advisers, and having found them accurate, confirmed their decision.
As to your other point, I am sure that the American families assumed that the sentence meant incarceration in a Scottish jail for at least the minimum sentence or till death, whichever came first. Not that many American states don't have the provision for compassionate release. They do, but that is seldom granted. I don't blame the families for not understanding Scots Law - but their lawyers should have.
At any point from the agreement to hold the trial at Camp Zeist in 1999 until recently, and especially since Megrahi's diagnosis last year, the US Government could have asked Tony Blair, or subsequently Gordon Brown to have made a minor change to the 1993 legislation to allow an exception to the 1993 Act and to empower the Secretary of State for Scotland to "call in" such an appeal for release on compassionate grounds, and thus for the tradition of English law in these matters to be applied.
Of course, these families have been let down. But they have been let down by their own and the UK Governments who were party to whatever deal was made.
Complain about this comment
383. At 6:34pm on 25 Aug 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
Scottish Lawmakers Reamed at Emergency Meeting on Lockerbie Release
"A crowd hissed along from the packed public section during the emergency debate Monday in Edinburgh..."
All lies. The public gallery is, quite rightly, subject to controls so stringent as to be almost draconian. You can get chucked out for blinking too loudly.
Complain about this comment
#378 Electric Hermit
"I answered all your questions to the extent that there are answers."
The only question you actually answered with all your childish and abusive posts is whether or not you're an idiot. The answer is clearly yes.
Complain about this comment
Keeping Megrahi on Scottish soil and under Scottish control was always going to be the safest option. MacAskill has only given us the bland information about acting on police advice, which resulted in Megrahi being sent to Libya.
Apparantly providing 40+ police officers for around 3 months was something Strathclyde Police were reluctant to do. Was our Justice Minister powerless in the face of 'The Force'? We need forensic probing by opposition MSPs
This may yet prove to be 'the resignation issue!'
Complain about this comment
Re 371 Electric Hermit
I am referring to the polls that everyone can read and see for themselves. The majority of Scots think the decision to afford Magrahi a heroes return to Libya is wrong, very wrong.
I am not repeating any propaganda just stating a simple fact that is obvious to all.
Also some advice don't try to debate with "big noise about nothing" you can't debate with someone who is incapable of seeing any point of view that does not support his latest wacky plot. You are just giving him encouragement.
Complain about this comment
Given the onward runbling questions regarding how to gauge the balance of support/opposition - does anyone else think it's plausible that the reason that there isn't vehement opposition from the general public visible in the media might be because
1. most of the public didn't see Megrahi's story as a huge one in their lives
2. so even those who were against (who would show up in a poll when asked specifically) are free to decide for themselves that they are content with MacAskill's handling and, as a consequence, his decision despite it not being their own.
As an aside, I'm not hugely concerned if public opinion is split. One of the reasons we have a legal system based on abstract and generalised principles that is difficult to easily change, is precisely to keep it stable in the face of flurries in public opinion.
Complain about this comment
389. crazyislander
He is a clown. Yes. But a very capable and dangerous man.
Someone like John Bolton doesnt achieve and amass the power and immortality; shall we say; without knowing his facts.
I do not like the man, or his interventionist policies abroad- but he is dangerous and this is because he knows his facts. To dismiss the enemy, and underestimate their grasp of issues is to play into their hands.
So Annabel Goldie wouldn't care about my desire to listen to the odious man. Its always worth the effort (even just for a laugh in disbelief at his attitdes!).
Complain about this comment
#358 ForteanJo
"Unless, of course, Jackson Carlaw was expecting Scottish law to be re-written on the fly to ensure that it was no longer prescribed that the responsibility to adminster the licence agreements fell to East Renfrewshire council."
Having now digested the Official Report, that seems to be the least uncharitable view one can take of the intervention, although it was by no means the worst, for which Messrs. Gray and Scott seem to deserve a joint award of the wooden spoon.
As dubbieside's #25 points out, only Malcolm Chisholm from the opposition parties covered himself with much credit, Patrick Harvie deserving a little for wanting a proper enquiry.
What really surpised me, but should not have, was that no MSP came up with a single argument showing MacAskill to have interpreted the law in any way unreasonably.
I did think Aunty Bella's line of compassion but in Scotland was the most promising, but unusually she had not done her homework. Next week she will no doubt have done so, but it will certainly not be an easy job to convince us that the security problems would have been other than horrendous.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit criticises my preferred solutions that Megrahi should have been transferred under the prisoner transfer agreement or released on compassionate to remain in Scotland. I should make it clear that I would not have favoured a transfer under the PTA because it would have required that the appeal be dropped. But I would have preferred it to the present situation. The concern with MacAskill's response to release within Scotland is that he latched on to the suggestion of Miss Goldie that MacAskill should have been transferred to a hospice or hospital. I agree with MacAskill's reply on this point to Miss Goldie. When he was asked a second time about release within Scotland, he thundered out his objection to Megrahi being kept in a hospice or hospital, but the questioner had not mentioned such places. What was less convincing was his response to release to a suitable house within Scotland. It would require 48 police officer to police the house. That would be a small price for maintaining Scotland's reputation.
Oldnat rightly rebukes me for lose phraseology. Thank you, I take your point fairly made. I heard counsel make the statement on behalf of her client setting out his belief in the TV report of the proceedings. I accept that it was not a full report. I propose no theory to explain Megrahi's belief that abandonment of the appeal would help with other matters. But as the statement has raised questions about what was going on, I think that it would be helpful were it clarified. Unless Megrahi authorises his lawyers to issue a statement clarifying the matter, they must remain silent and the conspiracy theorists will have their day. Already, one suggestion is that the appeal was abandoned to facilitate prisoner transfer, another suggestion is that it was thought to be helpful in paving the way to compassionate release. It may have been an expresion of frustration by a dying man. I have no idea. People are therefore left to push for clear answers from Government, UK or Scottish, about what messages were being given to Megrahi whether during a visit or otherwise. Perhaps one day the Libyans will tell us.
Complain about this comment
#361 sir_mord
"They had an expectation the "sentence would be served in Scotland". I doubt for one minute any of the families ever thought Megrahi would be released due to terminal illness, allowing MacAskill a loophole out of the literal interpretation of those words but completely breaking the spirit of them."
I'm sure we all understand that they did have an "expectation", but can you name any other circumstance where you contend that a law officer should feel it his duty to break the law to satisfy a conflicting "expectation"?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Whatever your views on the release, be it right or wrong, whether Megrahi is guilty, an accessory or innocent; whether you think there is hidden agendas or not; whether you think MacAskill presented well or not, you have to agree that he stuck to his guns.
I've watched the announcement again and also clips from the debate. MacAskill was under immense stress, something I and probably others failed to appreciate at the time because of various personal reasons.
I accept that under the circumstances he has done well, which flies in the face of my earlier comments - hands up - but given the pressure he must have been under he has done well.
It was obvious that he was under political pressure not only from his opponents, but also from some in his own party who probably wished to make political statements during the debate.
The political debate will arise again come next week, and while Labour simply has not got a clue at present, Salmond has to keep a lid on some of the more vocal members of his party.
As was mentioned earlier, in future such legal matters should not be left in the hands of a poltician, especially one that has the potential to bring down a government. MacAskill resisted political pressure, others may not be strong enough to do so.
I'm not a legal expert, but could we not have a panel of senior judges who could make such a decision?
Complain about this comment
397. BlooToon
The 11% poll was indeed before the decision by MacAskil
The 23.2% was in August, when the decision had been revealled. They cannot simply be ignored.
If onlineEd wishes to accept he is patently wrong to claim the "firm majority" of Scots are behind MacAskils decision then I shall stop- but he cannot simply make up lies and continue to spread them.
He offers no arguments to support his assertion except to call me offensive names, or otherwise generally abuse me. This shows OnlineEd is a poor light, and my opinion of him has dropped dramatically following this episode.
Complain about this comment
As member of the silent majority let me add my support to Mr MacAskil. On balance the correct decision made for the right reasons. As ever our thoughts are with the families that were affected by the tragedy. The opposition politicians look very poor by trying to score points on such a difficult issue - this was not the time nor the place (we all remember the day in Lockerbie). I suspect all fair minded and reasonable people regardless of nationality accept the decision or at least accept it was Scotland's decision to make. We should now maintain our dignity - do not give into extremism from any quarter and continue to lead by example.
Complain about this comment
#362 Electric Hermit
Your arrogance in thinking you can divine "my sad failure to comprehend the true nature of compassion" is only matched by your patronising lecture on its nature. I might be more willing to accept your lecture if you showed in your postings that you were willing to practise what you preach. But you consistently show an uncivil tongue and a callous use of language when talking of others that are posting here.
As you are well aware Mr MacAskill was compelled by law to consider the application, but not compelled by law to grant it. You say he was compelled by conscience, but earlier say;
#230 “But the reality is that the Justice Secretary was scrupulous in adhering to due process and the procedures stipulated by law, convention and formal agreements between the UK and Libyan governments.”
So which is it? Scrupulous adherence to law and procedure or compelled by conscience?
And yes, in this case the granting of compassion to Mr Megrahi has subtracted from the compassion granted to the families of victims. There were ways to show compassion to both sides, as Mr MacAskill himself admits, but it seems that while Mr MacAskill was able to talk much about the application of compassion, he was not willing to spend any money on it. And I understood that the worth someone placed on their moral values was in proportion to how much they are willing to spend on them.
Complain about this comment
#384 Electric Hermit
"I suspect that, in their arrogance, the US administration simply assumed that they would be able sweep aside "local" legislation and dictate the conduct of al-Megrahi's incarceration to a Scottish government as susceptible to such bullying as its UK counterpart."
Fair point, although arguably the Bliar government was marginally less fawning over Clinton's every bodily function than it was with his successor.
"It would be good to think that, having been disabused of this notion, they might learn a little humility. But they'll have to get someone to look up the term first."
LOL and sad but true.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
# 419 Neil_Small147
"As was mentioned earlier, in future such legal matters should not be left in the hands of a poltician, especially one that has the potential to bring down a government. MacAskill resisted political pressure, others may not be strong enough to do so."
Absolutely right, this is the sort of issue, relevant to the situation, that I would expect to be discussed in a constructive parliament - i hope all parties can relax a little and get to that state soon.
Complain about this comment
401. At 7:23pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"It shows that 11%, and 23.2% subsequently agree with MacAskils decision on Compassionate release."
I really, really hope you get a new poll for Christmas. This one is looking decidedly threadbare.
Complain about this comment
412. At 8:00pm on 25 Aug 2009, Citizen56 wrote:
"Apparantly providing 40+ police officers for around 3 months was something Strathclyde Police were reluctant to do."
Like Annabel Goldie you heartlessly disregard the traumatic impact al-Megrahi's removal to a hospice would have had on the residents and their families. Shame on you!
Complain about this comment
#420 Dean
Seriously! it's not a political point scoring issue, please see through your deluded act of polling every issue. It was an act of due process, according to the laws of Scotland and the wider humanitarian will.
Giving the international nature of this issue, why are you consistently narrowing the remit?.
Complain about this comment
#412 - "Apparantly providing 40+ police officers for around 3 months was something Strathclyde Police were reluctant to do."
Providing the officers wasn't the issue. Having them troopsing around a hospice full of terminally ill patients and subjecting the friends and relatives of these patients to invasive security checks was. Or would you be okay with having to undergo a BCS everytime you wanted to visit your dying mother just because she happened to be in the same hospice as Megrahi?
Complain about this comment
#407 handclapping
"I just say I don't know enough and when I'm told "Well, I didn't know that before."
SNAP! And I'll be doing that for the next 5 weeks!
Complain about this comment
Looking at the few polling results available (and remember these are before any Scottish reaction to what many consider US bullying):
"15% said they wanted him to be released, 31% transferred to Libya and 48% kept in a Scottish gaol."
However, you have to look at it that a minority, although a substantial one, wanted him kept in a Scottish gaol. 46% wanted him out of Scotland in some way and I suspect many of the 31% for moving to Libya would go along with a release even if it wasn't their first choice.
Add in Scottish anger at the absolutely unconscionable comments from the head of the FBI and other American officials and a general feeling of being under attack and I very much expect to see Scots decide if they're going to hang they'll hang together, thank you. Just my opinion.
Complain about this comment
413. At 8:01pm on 25 Aug 2009, northhighlander wrote:
"I am referring to the polls that everyone can read and see for themselves."
What polls. I have seen one cited here. And it was barely relevant far less convincing.
The only thing that seems clear is that the Tory/BLP alliance's propaganda about massive opposition is just plain lies. As others have noted, public opinion appears to be pretty evenly split. But as others have also noted, if there is any trend at all it seems to be towards acceptance that MacAskill acted with all due propriety and integrity.
This is, of course, just an impression from perusal of the media. Thought I'd better add that before the spittle-flecked ones embarked on a frenzy of demands for "proof".
One further thing I would say is that the opinion polls don't really matter. For very good reason this kind of decision is made at several removes from the clamour of the baying mob. And the decision is now made anyway. It cannot be reversed.
Complain about this comment
415. At 8:02pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"Someone like John Bolton doesnt achieve and amass the power and immortality; shall we say..."
Good grief! Now you've elevated the clown to the pantheon of the gods! Can you even remember a time when you had a grip on reality?
Complain about this comment
#385 woodmason
"I have no problem with him returning home as a prisoner, to be close to his family."
Nor would I, but sadly your government did thus preventing MacAskill, as an honourable man, from choosing the "easy way out" the UK government clearly wanted him to follow.
"And why not consider bringing his family to Scotland?"
Because Scottish law - since 1993 and predating the pre-trial agreements by 5 years - says he should be released if within 3 months of death and no threat to the public.
"I do hope God will help my congregation, and I try to preach a message that is positive and upbeat and filled with hope and love."
This message from the Convener of the Church of Scotland might help. Also, RC Archbishop Mario Conti said that: "compassion ... is, after all, one of the principles inscribed on the mace of the Scottish Parliament by which Scotland's Government should operate. The showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness. Indeed in this situation, with the pressures and circumstances of the case, it seemed to me a sign of manifest strength. Despite contrary voices, I believe it is a decision which will be a source of satisfaction for many Scots and one which will be respected in the international community".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Amid all the anti-Scottish clamour, let us not forget that this man would never have been convicted were it not for Scotland's cooperation. We bent over backwards and compromised endlessly to facilitate the hand-over and prosecution in a way that no other nation would. Certainly not the US!
The US insisted that those convicted should serve their sentence in Scotland under the justice system which facilitated their conviction. In doing so they accepted that the incarceration would be governed by the laws of Scotland and the regulations of our prison system.
Compassionate release under licence for the terminally ill was part of that system then as it is now.
Scotland has fulfilled its part of the arrangement. Given the abuse we have enjoyed in return, I would not wish that we do so again. And if a terrorist goes free as a consequence the responsibility will lie with the ingrates who vilify us for doing no more than abide by the laws and legal traditions of our country.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
426. At 9:02pm on 25 Aug 2009, Electric Hermit
Here is a quote from Brian Taylor's article above.
'Opposition leaders thought several issues remained unanswered - not least the examination of alternatives to returning the prisoner to Libya'
MacAskill will no doubt fear further probing on this issue
Complain about this comment
#422 - "And yes, in this case the granting of compassion to Mr Megrahi has subtracted from the compassion granted to the families of victims. "
Are you claiming that letting Megrahi die in jail would have shown more compassion to the families of the victims? Sorry, we don't have the death penalty in this country.
Since people like to use hypotheticals to hit MacAskill with, here's one that's been mentioned before but no-one has dared tackle:
If the Grey man was FM, Megrahi wouldn't have stood a chance of gaining compassionate release. His appeal then, would have proceeded as expected. The issues MacAskill cited against the idea of keeping Megrahi in a Scottish hospice would still exist, so releasing him on bail wouldn't have been reasonable, so he'd be kept in jail during the appeal hearing. Now, Scottish court proceedings, like many around the world, can be glacial in their swiftness. Megrahi dies, in prison and seperated from his family and loved ones, before the appeal court reaches their decision. However, posthumously, with the evidence given another airing, he's found not guilty.
Are you seriously saying you want to live in a Scotland where the best we can say is at that we're just as compassionate as terrorists? Where doing the right thing takes a back seat to considerations about trade and upsetting America? Where, as per the grey man, appealling to the lowest common dominator is the height of political nounse?
Is that the Scotland you want? Coz I don't. I want a Scotland that can stand up and say, no, we'll show more compassion that terrorists; no, we won't cow-tow to pressure from outwith Scotland; no, our politicians won't just back or oppose something just to score political points but because it's right.
Complain about this comment
In reference to my earlier comments abut Bolton- about the need to listen to his contributions my reasoning for saying this about the odious man can be found at: 415.
For the interested- just to highlight I am no neo-con!
Complain about this comment
417. At 8:07pm on 25 Aug 2009, Justconsidering wrote:
"What was less convincing was his response to release to a suitable house within Scotland. It would require 48 police officer to police the house. That would be a small price for maintaining Scotland's reputation."
Like all too many others, including Goldie, you shallow-mindedly look no further than the strategic/economic implications. To his credit, Kenny MacAskill appears to have been far more conderned about the human cost to residents of the hospice to which al-Megrahi would be transferred and their families and the local residents.
Even had a dedicated facility been set up for al-Megrahi this would still have drawn scarce resources from the hospice and so deprived others of care.
Try thinking through the implications of what you suggest. Otherwise, like Goldie, you may be seen as having a totally callous attitude towards those in end-of-life care in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
428. At 9:05pm on 25 Aug 2009, ForteanJo
If this the best you can do.......... well MacAskill really has problems.
Will Salmon continue to defend him or cut him adrift?
Complain about this comment
318. Oldnat
I had thought about opening this posting with something about freedom of speech, but it would appear that that privilege only extends the nationalist sympathisers, so why bother?
Instead, and just to please you, I'll indicate that this will be my last posting on this blog and conclude with a couple of observations. First of all I do not appreciate being told that I am making things up thereby implying that I am a liar, nor that I run away thereby implying that I am a coward. I am neither a liar, nor a coward and will not be so disparaged. Not that it is any of your concern, but I do have businesses to run and this blog was merely a way to while away slack time which has been increasing in frequency of late.
I believe that you are a teacher and from reading most of the posting on this blog, it would seem that most of the posters are quite young and not too au fait with the ways of the world. It is therefore unsurprising that you take an avuncular interest in massaging their enthusiasm, motivation and politicisation and are very concerned about protecting them from sharks like me. Assuming you are successful, some of them may decide to do it for real. At which point they will encounter sharks like me - for real. You will not be there to protect them.
You talk of the house rules. I did not bother reading them, but I can pretty much guess what they say. I would, however, point out that this is a politics blog and politics is a big boys' game played by big boys' rules. If your young charges learn nothing else, they better learn that.
Turning to my persona on the blog, I started as 'magisterial' in an attempt to inject some levity and dry wit into the proceedings. It was a complete waste of time, your young charges did not get it, neither I suspect did you. But, what I did notice was their infantile attempts to put each other down, put politicians down and put countries down in a vain attempt to be clever. I took the view that what they really needed was an object lesson in exactly what they are up against. Suddenly, oldnat is riding to the rescue desperate to protect his young charges from harsh reality.
Finally, and you'll be happy to hear it, there is certain people in this world who don't respond well to threats, I am one of them. If you want to refer me - refer me. Do not wag your finger at me.
Complain about this comment
Re 409 Old nat
This is one area that I find quite objectionable. The SNP are peddling this myth that the law almost compelled Macaskill to release Magrahi. This is not so. the law allowed him a choice. It did not compel him to release Magrahi. Also I understand on 7 previous occasions compassionate release has been refused. Admittedly I don't know on what grounds but neither the reports or the law tied Macaskills hands to the point where is only option was release. He had a choice, his position offers more power and requires more thought than to simply rubber stamp the work of others.
On the day of the announcement he tried to peddle that it was Westminster that tied his hands, the religious reference was particularly inept and cringe worthy. Anything to deflect.
He could have delayed release until Magrahi was only fit to be released to hospital. As the Home Secretary did with Ronnie Biggs. Yes okay show the man compassion, but when he is closer to death and cannot leave hospital. As I understand it he will be unlikely to receive the same medical attention in Libya that he received in Scotland so it possibly would have been more compassionate to leave his release to Libya until death was closer.
Why give him the luxury of time with his family as a free man when he showed none of this compassion to his victims? Also we would have been spared the heroes welcome on the steps of the plane. The images of this man touring around enjoying hero status in Libya is very very wrong.
There were other considerations that would have been a far better compromise. So Kenny could and should have done better no matter how you dress this up.
Unless of course Kenny got confused and thought he was deciding on Magrahis guilt? Many posters on here seem to justify the compassion on the grounds that Magrahi was not guilty anyway. Truth is he is the man convicted in a Scottish court, subsequently confirmed on appeal, of the worst terrorist atrocity this nation has ever seen. He decided to drop his latest appeal, which for me was a telling point. He didn't have to do that and must have been advised as such by his legal team.
So please don't perpetrate the myth that the decision made was the only legally competent one, it clearly was not.
Complain about this comment
Dean
One fact way beyond speculation or debate is that the vast majority of Scots are solidly opposed to the Tories - a situation which, unlike the current topic, is unlikely to 'develop' in the forseeable future.
Despite that, you and your political minority would, and likely will, gleefully have David Cameron imposed upon us as our next Prime Minister - with no democratic mandate.
And you go further, in advising us on what Mr Cameron will and won't tolerate from our own elected government once he takes control.
I believe most Scots are quite prepared to leave the Tories alone to their own machinations - but would never willingly elect them to government.
You could call it 'live and let live'.
Would you or your party be prepared to demonstrate similar tolerance towards the likes of Megrahi?
Complain about this comment
438.
Fair enough, thanks Dean.
Personally I disagree that he is worth listening to other than for sheer entertainment.
Complain about this comment
Intermission
Complain about this comment
derek re #441
Bet you never thought you were one of my "young charges"!
The magisterial one has retired (on his own terms, of course) leaving nothing but a faint whiff of pomposity? on the air?
Complain about this comment
439. Electric Hermit
"Like all too many others, including Goldie, you shallow-mindedly look no further than the strategic/economic implications."
Goldie is attempting to offer a compromise- that would have satisfied both the victims families and the Scottish legal need for justice tempered with compassion.
And MacAskils' responces where too weak to survive deep scrutiny; he will have to up his game against Goldie. She is Scotlands national bird afterall.
Complain about this comment
422. At 8:28pm on 25 Aug 2009, sir_mord wrote:
Ignoring your opening tantrum...
"As you are well aware Mr MacAskill was compelled by law to consider the application, but not compelled by law to grant it. You say he was compelled by conscience, but earlier say;
#230 “But the reality is that the Justice Secretary was scrupulous in adhering to due process and the procedures stipulated by law, convention and formal agreements between the UK and Libyan governments.”
So which is it? Scrupulous adherence to law and procedure or compelled by conscience?"
Are you genuinely too shallow of mind to see that it is both? MacAskill was scrupulous in adhering to due process etc. in dealing with the applications. But, ultimately, the nature of the thing meant that it came down to a matter of the man's conscience. And that conscience self-evidently told him that the compassion due to al-Megrahi under Scottish and common humanity outweighed other considerations - however marginally.
There were probably easier choices that he could have made. But were they choices that he could live with? I get the impression that you are so bound up in your own anger, hatred and lust for vengeance as to be blind to the burden that we, as a society, placed on the Justice Minister.
"And yes, in this case the granting of compassion to Mr Megrahi has subtracted from the compassion granted to the families of victims."
Then the lecture on the nature of compassion was necessary - even if ultimately futile.
Complain about this comment
#447.deanthetory
The grouse season is open.
Complain about this comment
At comment number 17 I wrote:
Public opinion is firmly behind MacAskill on this one and even the compliant Scottish media will at some point have to start reflecting this.
This is perhaps the comment from myself that dean has slightly altered to give the impression I said 'firm majority'.
I can find no comment where I claim a definitive majority in favour of MacAskill's decision - I have though repeatedly stated that circumstantial evidence suggests such a majority or that there appears to be such a majority, but not claimed that it is definite.
However, I concede that "firmly behind" may be read as me suggesting a clear majority in favour of the decision. I would have thought though that my subsequent comments, where I very clearly state that we cannot know for certain which side of the debate carries the support of the majority of the electorate, would have clarified my position.
However, deanthetory himself states:
Seems the majority of Scots are still firmly opposed to MacAskils' decision
..... so there we are.
Complain about this comment
443. Dougie-Dubh
The Scottish COnservatives will not prove stagnant in the next GE. I honeslty believe that we will gain a minimum of 6 Scottish MPs- minimum
Though we shant have a democratic mandate for Scotland, sure.
Complain about this comment
Re 423 & 384 Electic hermit & Browne dove
Gents
Maybe the Americans trusted that they had a common bond with us, trusted that our system shared values with them, trusted that our long standing relationship meant we had a common desire to defend freedom and defeat terrorism. Perhaps they felt that a so many Americans descend from Scots ancestry that they were dealing with people to be trusted to apply the laws of natural justice.
Like many Highlanders I have relatives in the US, Canada and Australia. Descendants of past economic migrants from Scotland, however they remain fiercely Scottish. They despise the way the Saltire was defiled in Libya.
Of course we now know this was another New Labour plot.
The wonders of the internet allow me to maintain contact on a regular basis. The American cousins tell me their social circle in the States view this as making Scotland a much less welcoming place for them. They also feel hurt that the victims and their families received little support or apparent thought throughout the decision making process. They also find it disturbing that so few Scots appear to have confidence in their own legal system. All combined it does not present a positive image.
It is unfortunate that in the year of the homecoming we now appear to sending out conflicting messages. This will undoubtedly do lasting damage. I know this is not a reason for keeping Magrahi in jail, we should have made the decision on the basis of Scots law, but we did have more control over the timing.
Also review the posts over the last week. Some of the posters appear to really believe that a relationship with Libya would be preferable to that with the US. Some extreme opinions have been raised over the last week that will cause many to think.
However I am sure that our new found friend Colonel Gadaffi will order some Libyans to Holiday In Scotland to make up for those who choose not to.
Complain about this comment
#441 - "I started as 'magisterial' in an attempt to inject some levity and dry wit into the proceedings. It was a complete waste of time, your young charges did not get it, neither I suspect did you"
I suspect the problem was that your posts were neither dry or witty. That is your failing, not ours.
Complain about this comment
#446 oldnat
What an odd person! Obviously high on his importance with an ego the size of the USA, SENIOR MANAGMENT INDEED!.
The bigger they come the harder they fall.
Come on back magister! I might just torque your slackness (kid o')
Complain about this comment
#442 northhighlander
30 applications have been made for compassionate release. After examination by due process, the advisers to the Justice Minister advised that the appeal be rejected and the Justice Minister agreed. In 23 cases the advice was that the appeal be granted, and the Justice Minister agreed.
That is the whole point. No Labour, Lib-Dem, or SNP Justice Minister has ever gone against the recommendations presented to him. This level of political interference in judicial process is alien to Scots Law and was written by the Tories in 1993 to bring Scotland into line with the 1991 Justice Act there.
Let me repeat. NO JUSTICE MINISTER IN SCOTLAND HAS EVER INTERFERED, BUT SIMPLY CARRIED OUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES WITHOUT INCLUDING POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
(Sorry for shouting. :-)
Complain about this comment
450. Online_Ed
It wasnt that line I was referring to, it was the one that read:
"public opinion is firmly behind MacAskil...where are the unionists to go!"
But your clarification that you no longe hold to this is taken fully on board. Lets close this chapte now then shall we?
Complain about this comment
Lockerbie: Megrahi may have been the victim of a political fix, but don't expect the CIA to set the record straight
Complain about this comment
I've just posted a comment clarifying my position re: level of support for MacAskill's decision. I have also noted many comment from deanthetory that I believe break the house rules, however I have decided not to refer them.
However this from dean:
He offers no arguments to support his assertion except to call me offensive names, or otherwise generally abuse me. This shows OnlineEd is a poor light, and my opinion of him has dropped dramatically following this episode.
... requires some evidence or at least an explanation.
Complain about this comment
#442 - "Unless of course Kenny got confused and thought he was deciding on Magrahis guilt? "
As others have pointed out, northhighlander, MacAskill clearly thinks Megrahi is guilty. His guilt, or otherwise, again as others have already pointed out, is irrelevant in this decision.
MacAskill clearly believes Megrahi has little time left on this world. As such, under Scots law, he falls into the category to be considered for compassionate release. He's in Libya, can't walk the length of himself without aid, so clearly isn't a risk to the Scottish public. End of story. Compassionate release is appropriate and MacAskill has released him.
Complain about this comment
Dear Brownedov,
Thanks for reasoned and sensible answer. The comments made by church figures have been helpful to me as I sought to wrap my mind around this situation, taking the views of Scotland into account.
Now, on to my next question - and again, this is sincere -
Why ditch Westminster Palace (Union with England) and keep Buckingham Palace (retain the monarchy as SNP proposes) ? I really am trying to wrap my mind around that. And, I like the Monarchy - which honestly, I could accept as a prefectly acceptable answer to my question. Scots like 'em and Balmoral stimulates the local economy.
Complain about this comment
#452 northhighlander
"we did have more control over the timing"
Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean. What control was there?
Complain about this comment
#459 ForteanJo
Or possibly slightly more accurately. Mr Kenneth MacAskill, Justice Secretary, is convinced of Megrahi's guilt.
Quite rightly, we have no idea what Kenny MacAskill thinks.
Complain about this comment
Im a SNP voter and a very open minded one thats voted for all of the major parties over the years.
Im not sure what McAskill was up to here. Was he trying to prove a point to the world? Is Salmond trying to show that Scotland can make big decisions on its own?
Whatever way I look at it I cannot take the result as the correct one. First it should not be left to one politician to make this decision.
Surely common sense suggests that by all means show some compassion - let his family come over etc. BUT he is no matter what we think of his guilt (I dont think he is guilty in all probability) a convicted mass murderer. This makes the decision mind boggling and are arguments for it are exceptionally lame.
Now like many the US has got my back up - they are in no position to say the things they have been but they get brain washed from school until they start watching Fox news so I guess we should expect no less from the most hypocritical country on the planet earth. Why we keep getting into bed with them I have no idea. Freinds yes but at arms length none of this "shoulder to shoulder/special relationship" rubbish.
Anyway whats done is done - Kenny may have had the right motives but this was the wrong way to try and show the world a compassionate Scotland. As for some of the arguments for - like police and hospices - what rubbish is posted. There are massive police resources for large events so looking after him in Scotland was never going to be a problem
Now we will also never find out the truth.......and Alex Salmond has make his first big political mistake - shame its such a whopper.
Atleast Brown and Kerr have looked equally if not more foolish.
Complain about this comment
460. At 10:18pm on 25 Aug 2009, woodmason
"Now, on to my next question - and again, this is sincere -
Why ditch Westminster Palace (Union with England) and keep Buckingham Palace (retain the monarchy as SNP proposes) ?"
Depends on which kind of SNP member you talk to to be fair.
I know many many many SNP friends who are all republicans through and through....but also a couple of modern day Jacobites...
Complain about this comment
436. At 9:21pm on 25 Aug 2009, Citizen56 wrote:
"Here is a quote from Brian Taylor's article above.
'Opposition leaders thought several issues remained unanswered - not least the examination of alternatives to returning the prisoner to Libya'
MacAskill will no doubt fear further probing on this issue"
Why would he? No-one has yet suggested a viable alternative.
Complain about this comment
#442 northhighlander
"It did not compel him to release Magrahi. Also I understand on 7 previous occasions compassionate release has been refused."
According to the Official Report, when asked: "Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether anyone who has met those criteria before has ever been refused compassionate release?"
MacAskill replied: "I can confirm that, leaving aside applications from those who failed to meet the criteria and were taken out at sift, no cabinet secretary has refused any application for compassionate release since 2000."
Not conclusive, of course, but pretty indicative that if the request meets the criteria it's granted. Do ask your MSP to follow it up for you in next week's debate. Presumably all the parties will be getting legal advice on just that issue.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
On the matter of 48 police officers:
MacAskill was correct to reject this option.
Costs aside, for starters, the media circus would be camped outside. Telephoto lenses, ladders, satellite dishes. Politicians turning up for interviews. There is also the potential for crowds protesting outside, and the problem of the idiots such crowds can attract. You don't need to have worked in security operations to understand the issues.
A hospice is a place of peace.
Complain about this comment
#452 - "Maybe the Americans trusted that they had a common bond with us, trusted that our system shared values with them, trusted that our long standing relationship meant we had a common desire to defend freedom and defeat terrorism. Perhaps they felt that a so many Americans descend from Scots ancestry that they were dealing with people to be trusted to apply the laws of natural justice."
The US is a country where its president is quite content to see an extradition treaty perveted to facilitate an aspergers syndrome sufferer taken thousands of miles away from his family and left to rot for the rest of his days in a foreign jail for a crime that amounted to poking about a few secure systems looking for proof of aliens and UFOs. I'm thankful that Scotland doesn't share ideas about the laws of natural justice with it. Any other right thinking country would have paid money to Gary McKinnon for highlighting weaknesses in their systems but, no, not the US whos ideas and "desire to defend freedom and defeat terrorism" means that he'll be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and means he faces up to 60 years in jail. He didn't do any damage, he didn't sell any state secrets, he poked about looking for little green men.
No, northhighlander, the US has a lot of growing up to do before it can claim to hold common ideals and views on natural justice with the rest of the civilised world.
Complain about this comment
438. At 9:27pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"In reference to my earlier comments abut Bolton- about the need to listen to his contributions my reasoning for saying this about the odious man..."
A few posts back he was a god according to you. Now he's "odious". How is anybody supposed to take you seriously?
Complain about this comment
464.
It's a constitutional set up which works pretty well for Canada and Australia. I'm sure they prefer it to the idea of being part of the UK.
Personally, I'd boot the Monarchy at the first opportunity when we achieve Independence.
Dean, I get the feeling you're beginning to prepare for Independence and what a Scottish Conservative party could offer the new Scottish sovereign state.
Complain about this comment
Re 455
You are missing the point, perhaps I need to explain this a little differently.
If the law had been written to reflect the requirement for a judicial process the Justice secretary would not have been involved. A judge would be taking the decision. I would argue this would maybe be better but that is for the future. However Macaskill must apply the law as it stands.
The reason that such decisions are passed to a politician to make is that the law makers recognised the need to reflect public opinion in the decision making process which a judge cannot do. This allows the weighing up of the public interest against the need to show compassion.
None of the previous cases involved someone who had been convicted and had the conviction subsequently upheld on appeal, for the murder of 270 innocent people.
So I will avoid the bad manners displayed above and not shout, but the whole point is that this was a case like none of the previous decisions. So precedent was not really applicable in this case. It appears to me that this case represents precisely the type of situation the lawmakers had in mind when passing the law.
So hiding behind the past is a woeful excuse and you should really try a different tack now. The law did not compel Macaskill to release Magrahi.
There is also no reason to authorise immediate release. I reiterate another view is release him when he requires continuous palliative care.
That would have better balanced public interest and compassion.
Complain about this comment
#463 Trimmtrab
"it should not be left to one politician to make this decision."
Not only are you right, but NO politician should be taking such a decision!
Had the 1993 Act not been passed by the Tories to bring Scots Law into line with the English Act, then the only power that the Justice (or more probably the First) Minister would have had would have been to exercise the royal prerogative of clemency, which was entirely untramelled.
Complain about this comment
369. At 5:48pm on 25 Aug 2009, ForteanJo wrote:
2 - How many wars has America won on its own? Oh, actually I know this one. None
Didn't they win the American Civil War?
Complain about this comment
#460 - "Why ditch Westminster Palace and keep Buckingham Palace"
Well, the 2 aren't linked. It's a bit like asking a vegetarian why give up meat but continue to breath air.
Complain about this comment
#452 northhighlander
"Perhaps they felt that a so many Americans descend from Scots ancestry that they were dealing with people to be trusted to apply the laws of natural justice."
That may well be so of the US relatives but I do not for one minute believe that the US government would have been so naïve. When the joint letters to the UN Secretary General were sent in 1998 and 1999, both the UK and US governments must have had their lawyers go over the details. If they did not, who is to blame for the confusion?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
deanthetory:
Comment 17 is the comment containing the line that you have misquoted. Read the first three lines - it will become apparent.
Complain about this comment
442. At 9:39pm on 25 Aug 2009, northhighlander wrote:
"This is one area that I find quite objectionable. The SNP are peddling this myth that the law almost compelled Macaskill to release Magrahi."
Except that, here in the real world, MacAskill has clearly and explicitly accepted personal responsibility for the decision and stated that he will live with the consequences.
There is absolutely no question that the law, and certain "agreements", constrained the decision-making process. But there is equally no question that the decision was ultimately a matter for his conscience.
Complain about this comment
Re 461 OLDNAT
I mean that we had control over the release date. Kenny could have taken the option that he release Magrahi when he required continuous palliative care.
Similar to the decision taken over Ronnie Biggs.
Balances the needs of the victims and the requirement for compassion a little better.
Re 468 Fotean Jo
The Americans were told that the Scottish system was the Gold Standard of Justice. They might have reasonably expected that we would apply the laws of natural justice as we see them. Which is not to have Magrahi tour about Libya receiving official visitors like some hero. Even Alec Salmond agreed these images were terrible.
So we have failed ourselves to deliver natural justice to a convicted terrorist so lets not lecture anyone else just now.
Complain about this comment
465. At 10:33pm on 25 Aug 2009, Electric Hermit
The opposition politicians realise that MacAskill has not been open with them about what options were available. This is the point Brian Taylor is making in his article above.
The charge of MaxAskill's incompetence can be made when it is clear that he failed to consider other viable options.
His supporters, having no better information than the opposing politicians,are desperately trying to defend him, as they nake up bogus scenarios to cloud the real issues involved. They fear that his incompetence is close to exposure.
Complain about this comment
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, disgraceful!
We should have ignored the law to stay in the USA's good graces!!!!!!!
Unbelievable.
Complain about this comment
#460 woodmason
You're welcome.
On the monarchy, you're asking the wrong person as I am a devout republican, believing it should be abolished forthwith.
I understand the SNP's policy is to retain it on the "if it ain't broke so badly, don't fix it first" principle, but others posting here should be able to provide more detail.
The question of a ceremonial head of state is certainly in less urgent need of fixing than the broken polity of the UK.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#452 northhighlander
"Maybe the Americans trusted that they had a common bond with us, trusted that our system shared values with them, trusted that our long standing relationship meant we had a common desire to defend freedom and defeat terrorism. Perhaps they felt that a so many Americans descend from Scots ancestry that they were dealing with people to be trusted to apply the laws of natural justice."
What's freedom, terrorism and natural justice here? How is "freedom" harmed by a very sick man being released to his family? And what is "natural justice"?
The American system means that one can be sentenced to the death penalty or to 150 years in jail with no hope of parole. In other words, it's tilted towards vengeance, not justice.
"They despise the way the Saltire was defiled in Libya."
How was it "defiled"? The Libyans believe al Megrahi to be innocent. They flew the Saltire to thank Scotland. It wasn't to taunt us or to celebrate the downing of the plane, because they don't think he did it.
"They also feel hurt that the victims and their families received little support or apparent thought throughout the decision making process."
But victims don't make justice. This is not Saudi Arabia.
"They also find it disturbing that so few Scots appear to have confidence in their own legal system."
Um, every justice system known to man has made mistakes. Ask them about the Innocence Project.
Complain about this comment
447. At 9:52pm on 25 Aug 2009, deanthetory wrote:
"Goldie is attempting to offer a compromise- that would have satisfied both the victims families and the Scottish legal need for justice tempered with compassion."
Not sure whether your unthinking devotion to Goldie is admirable or simply pathetic. But it certainly blinds you to reality. she had no interest in offering a compromise. In case you hadn't noticed, al-Megrahi has already been returned to Libya.
She had one purpose only. To try and score political points against MacAskill and the Scottish government. So intent was she on this petty politicking that she hadn't properly thought through her "suggestion". A sign of just how far she has deteriorated since throwing in her lot with Gray, Foulkes and other such denizens of Scotland's political sewers.
MacAskill's response to her crass stupidity appeared to be tinged with genuine anger at her failure to consider the impact of her totally pointless "plan" on the hospice service and those who rely on it. Arguably, anger was not the appropriate response. Disgust and disdain might have been more fitting.
Complain about this comment
#462 oldnat
I'm a hopeless pedant, no doubt. But one of the things which annoyed me about Robert Mueller's letter (and there were many) is that he didn't bother to address Kenny MacAskill correctly. The address is "Dear Cabinet Secretary" if you're not going to use his given name in full.
That might sound utterly daft and I'm more used to using "comrade" ;) but it's very annoying that they wouldn't even show that small amount of respect...
Complain about this comment
#442 northhighlander
Sorry to butt in if this is a private party between yourself and oldnat.
But
This is one area that I find quite objectionable. The SNP are peddling this myth that the law almost compelled Macaskill to release Magrahi. This is not so. the law allowed him a choice.
Complete strawman - the SNP have peddled no such thing (also how does the law almost compel? It does or does not).
Perhaps the most frequent phrase used by MacAskill over the entire affair "My choice, and my choice alone"
It did not compel him to release Magrahi. Also I understand on 7 previous occasions compassionate release has been refused. Admittedly I don't know on what grounds but neither the reports or the law tied Macaskills hands to the point where is only option was release. He had a choice, his position offers more power and requires more thought than to simply rubber stamp the work of others.
So, not knowing anyhting about the reasons for the 7 refusal (from 30ish I believe), we are left with a restatement of your first point - he had a choice. We know, he told us that.
On the day of the announcement he tried to peddle that it was Westminster that tied his hands, the religious reference was particularly inept and cringe worthy. Anything to deflect.
He pointed out that Westmister tied his hands with regard to the prisoner transfer application, not the compassionate release.
You can read it as religious. If you are not religious, substitution of the diety you think he was referring to with the natural processes which are equally unconcerned by the protestations of man renders the same effect. Leaving us with inept and cringeworthy: only if you're bothered by stylistic minutae in the presentation - i'd put it in the eye of the beholder.
He could have delayed release until Magrahi was only fit to be released to hospital. As the Home Secretary did with Ronnie Biggs. Yes okay show the man compassion, but when he is closer to death and cannot leave hospital. As I understand it he will be unlikely to receive the same medical attention in Libya that he received in Scotland so it possibly would have been more compassionate to leave his release to Libya until death was closer.
Just emboldening part of the above section is my first comment - if irony could kill!
For the latter part, it may have been more compassionate to go in favour of better treatment, but it could be equally likely that someone with a terminal illness would forfeit that to be home.
Why give him the luxury of time with his family as a free man when he showed none of this compassion to his victims?
Showing compassion to someone isn't dependant on their past actions, otherwise it isn't compassion - it may be some similar desire to offer some kind of kindness, but it isn't compassion. Compassion isn't some kind of emotional quid pro quo.
Also we would have been spared the heroes welcome on the steps of the plane. The images of this man touring around enjoying hero status in Libya is very very wrong.
I've not seen him touring around yet, and I'm not convinced that it was much of a heroes reception. Nonetheless, it could very easily have been made a completely low-key event by the Libyans, and I've no doubt it caused the families who objected some distress.
There were other considerations that would have been a far better compromise. So Kenny could and should have done better no matter how you dress this up.
Like what?
Unless of course Kenny got confused and thought he was deciding on Magrahis guilt? Many posters on here seem to justify the compassion on the grounds that Magrahi was not guilty anyway.
Cheap shot which misses, and frankly more appropriate as a statement on the position of the objectors, for many of whom his guilt overrides all other considerations (as it should at sentencing time).
Some may justify compassion because they feel he is innocent, but I think that is a matter of compassionate release getting him the right result in their eyes. As i've said already, actual compassion would be felt regardless of his guilt/innocence.
Truth is he is the man convicted in a Scottish court, subsequently confirmed on appeal, of the worst terrorist atrocity this nation has ever seen. He decided to drop his latest appeal, which for me was a telling point. He didn't have to do that and must have been advised as such by his legal team.
Can't disagree with the first part. For the second part, the reasons for him dropping the appeal are entirely unknown and something everyone would like to know about. I would agree it's a very interesting point, but without any detail I can't agree that it is 'telling' of anything.
So please don't perpetrate the myth that the decision made was the only legally competent one, it clearly was not.
And back to the initial point, there is no myth being peddled - McAskill keeps telling us the decision was his choice.
Complain about this comment
#473 - "Didn't they win the American Civil War?"
Didn't they have French help in that one? Or was that just the war of independence?
Complain about this comment
#471 northhighlander
As I said, apologies for the shouting, but I read the whole of the Hansard debates on the 1993 bill (and that is not a pleasant task!)
"The reason that such decisions are passed to a politician to make is that the law makers recognised the need to reflect public opinion in the decision making process which a judge cannot do."
You are absolutely right about this. However, that was a political intention of the Tories. Once an Act is passed it then is subject to interpretation by the courts regardless of the intentions which underlay the Act.
The Act gives discretion to the relevant Minister to interfere on the basis of populist opinion, but he is not mandated to do it. Every Justice Secretary since devolution (I don't know what happened in the 3 years before it) has rejected that concept. That concept of the Tories is inimical to both the principles and traditions of Scots Law, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.
What you are advocating is that the Justice Secretary should have taken his decision because the people (who no doubt still want capital punishment) should decide the fate of another human being.
Complain about this comment
476. onlineEd
"Public opinion is firmly behind MacAskill on this one and even the compliant Scottish media will at some point have to start reflecting this.
Where are the Unionists to go in order to and safely?" post 17.
This is the one your referring to? I may be missing something (and it wouldn be the first time this has ever happened on blether with brian!)
But to me it reads as if your saying that the views of the public are majority behind MacAskil and his decision- which I now understand that you appreciate is untrue. So what am I missing here? Its annyoing me something horrid!
Sincerely
Dean
Complain about this comment
#471 - "The reason that such decisions are passed to a politician to make is that the law makers recognised the need to reflect public opinion in the decision making process which a judge cannot do. "
Note that's public opinion, not northhighlander opinion. In the cold light of day, once passions have died down, you'll probably find that most people will accept that MacAskill's decision was the right one.
Complain about this comment
479 Citizen56
What other options? You still haven't mentioned any.
If you think the opposition is confident that MacAskill has ignored some, then they must know what they are, so why didn't they bring any of these up at any point?
Please tell us.
Complain about this comment
Report in The Herald suggests that the Unionist parties are trying to cobble together something that will allow them to unite in a vote against MacAskill.
A vote on the decision itself will fail due to rebels within Labour and the Lib Dems who support Macaskill's decision.
How unseemly can this become - opposition parties scrabbling around looking for anything that might serve a narrow political purpose. On any issue this looks bad, however on this particular issue it is reprehensible.
The Herald also reports that the details of the prison conversation between Megrahi and Macaskill are to be made public, Shereen Nanjiani will be pleased ........ or will she?
Complain about this comment
I think this is if more interest.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/08/20098182124883946.html
I agree with McAskill's decision.
The video states that the American intelligence had information that put Iran firmly in the frame. These are the questions that need to be asked.
And if you want a fairly balanced view of things then I would recommend Al Jazeera, it's very balanced and non sensational, unlike old Auntie Beeb.
LJ
Complain about this comment
TimmTrab @ #463:
I am surprised that you say you are an SNP supporter with an open mind. You see this description of yourself does not quite chime with your avowed belief (articulated on another thread) that anyone who supports Scottish independence is an 'uber nat' (your words).
Regardless, I see that the chief prosecutor of the original trial, the Tory Law Lord and former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyle, has said that Kenny MacAskill made the right decision for the right reasons (although he was disappointed that Kenny MacAskill did not fly to America to explain the decision).
I am not sure where this leaves all of the other parties. The Law Society, the national Churches of Scotland, a former labour first minister, a former labour cabinet minister, now a senior Tory ex-Lord Advocate have all now said it was the right decision.
The Tory/Labour/LibDem alliance is looking increasingly at odds with the main players in Civic Scotland.
Complain about this comment
re 477 electric hermit
Except that the original announcement clearly tried to spread responsibility for the decision everywhere possible including the ridiculous religious reference which appeared very condescending to Americans.
Re 473 X sticks
maybe we should remember the contribution America made in both World Wars to assisting us in defeating evil. I can't see Colonel Gadaffi, our new friend helping us too much if we are in difficulties again.
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander #478
What would your definition of "continuous palliative care" be?
We have to put some timescale on this and at a life expectancy of three months does not seem excessive to me. I don't think that altering the timing would appease those who believe the decision was wrong.
Complain about this comment
#478 northhighlander
Thanks.
My answer is I don't know (and nor do you, I suspect) whether once the appeal had been granted, there is a duty to release to the designated place immediately.
I do remember that MacAskill was being hounded by the media and the opposition for not making an announcement immediately following that infamous "leak" to the BBC.
I have never understood why people have assumed that the leak was from MacAskill. It would never have done him any good. That is why I suspected that the leak came from Mandelson (following his Corfu meeting with Gadaffi's son)to force this situation of a quick return to Libya, which was clearly advantageous for the trade deals.
While I don't disagree that the release would have been better if it occurred later, it seems possible that the timing was no longer under our control.
Complain about this comment
#410
The only signifant noise from the gallery was when some of them applauded Malcolm Chisholm
Lies, lies and more lies. Just like the opinion polls. I have met only two people who disagree with the decision of McAskill and those who have congratulated the minister to me now runs into hundreds.
If anybody believes the enemies of Scpttish Independence don't fiddle opinion polls they should waken up.That's the least they will do. They are perfectly capable of fiddling the real polls too and I'm sure they haver already done so.
We have just seen a huge plot planned in London and engaged in by US interest to do down the SNP. It has backfired hugely and we are now being involved in idiot arguments about where Megrahi should stay or why did the Minister talk to him. The behaviour in Tripoli is entirely irrelvant to any of the aspects of this debate and is a pretty poor red herring - as Gordon Brown will find out promptly.
Malcolm Chisholm and John Farquar Munro are honest men in two parties who have abandoned all they stood for. As I watched the debate yesterday I grew weary of the usual supspects trying to make crass political capital out of a non political but entirely predictable and unavoidable decision. They were pathetic. What was more interesting were the dogs that didn't bark. There has been a high number of substantial figures in all the unionist parties who have been conspicuous by their absences on this issue. Who will be the first to cross the floor?
Complain about this comment
#419
"I'm not a legal expert, but could we not have a panel of senior judges who could make such a decision?"
It was a panel of senior judges that botched the Cape Zeist trial
Complain about this comment
oldnat
The ComRes poll in the Indy on wieghted 74 has 20:25:11:25 C:L:D:S and a seat result of 3:36:6:13 but no sign of the ICM for the Gruniad yet
Complain about this comment
452. At 10:01pm on 25 Aug 2009, northhighlander wrote:
"Maybe the Americans trusted that they had a common bond with us, trusted that our system shared values with them, trusted that our long standing relationship meant we had a common desire to defend freedom and defeat terrorism."
It was a matter of law. They should have checked.
And your suggestion that the people/government of Scotland are not committed to the defence of freedom and to combating terrorism is beneath contempt.
"Perhaps they felt that a so many Americans descend from Scots ancestry that they were dealing with people to be trusted to apply the laws of natural justice."
What the hell does ethnicity have to do with anything? And who the hell are the perpetrators of unprovoked wars, murder kidnapping, torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial to talk about "natural justice"? The hypocrisy is sickening!
"They despise the way the Saltire was defiled in Libya."
If you believe the spin. And the saltire is a flag. a symbol. No more. Unlike the Yanks we do not imbue such tokens with any mystical significance.
"Of course we now know this was another New Labour plot."
If you believe the gossip.
"The American cousins tell me their social circle in the States view this as making Scotland a much less welcoming place for them."
TFB. Those who continue to visit us will just be doubly welcome.
"They also feel hurt that the victims and their families received little support or apparent thought throughout the decision making process."
If you believe the anti-Scottish government propaganda being pumped out by the Tory/BLP alliance.
Your relatives seem like a gullible lot. Maybe they would like to club together to buy a nice big red iron bridge. I'd be happy to sell it to them.
"They also find it disturbing that so few Scots appear to have confidence in their own legal system."
If they take you as being typical then I've a nice big monument outside Striling that they might also like to purchase.
"It is unfortunate that in the year of the homecoming we now appear to sending out conflicting messages."
"We"? You seem to be doing fine on your own.
"This will undoubtedly do lasting damage."
It might. If you and your kind have your way.
"I know this is not a reason for keeping Magrahi in jail, we should have made the decision on the basis of Scots law..."
"We" did.
"...but we did have more control over the timing."
Only if you have come up with some miraculous way of halting or slowing the progress of an aggressive cancer.
"Also review the posts over the last week. Some of the posters appear to really believe that a relationship with Libya would be preferable to that with the US."
And at least one appears to believe this evident BS.
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if Scotland could have a relationship with Libya and the US and every other nation. But it would have to be a relationship of equals based on mutual respect. Not sure about Libya, but that would appear to leave the US on a shoogly nail.
"Some extreme opinions have been raised over the last week that will cause many to think."
Anything that causes you to think is a good thing. But I know what you mean about "extreme opinions". We even had one buffoon implying that Scotland was not committed to freedom and the fight against terrorism.
"However I am sure that our new found friend Colonel Gadaffi will order some Libyans to Holiday In Scotland to make up for those who choose not to."
I suppose this was meant to be a joke. If so, your comedy career just hit a brick wall.
I have met a few Libyans. Corresponded with several. Even had a very nice Libyan family as neighbours for a year or two. They all seemed decent enough human beings. If they want to visit Scotland, I for one will make them just as welcome as any other guests in my country.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS