Can Brown stay silent?

As a Scottish constituency MP and one of the architects of Scottish devolution as it stands then surely he must have a view on this?

Also as head of the UK government he must make his views clear if only for a foreign policy view. His silence is deafening.

Even if he says that the matter is a matter for the Scottish legal system and the Scottish Justice Minister and he has no further comment then at least we will have something.

Some very interesting stories re trade with Libya and meetings between Lord Mandelson and the Libyans in the press over the weekend. Yet no comment re those either?

Just for once I find my self in agreement with our unelected prime minister.

This is a matter for the people who made the decision - the scottish government.

The only statements which should be made by London - preferably by the foreign secretary - should be statements reminding people of the source of the decision and reinforcing our distance from it.

We need to make sure that any trade boycotts etc are directed at the people responsible.

Underlying the whole issue, it seems to me, is the haphazard naure of devolution in the U.K. In most countries with strongly devloved powers, a constitution would set out clearly (for everyone) where the devolved power ends and national begins. I suspect that were there a 'tidier' federal structure in the U.K., the international nature of this incident would have put respnsibility in the hands of federal, or 'national' Government with all the paraphenalia of Foreign Office, Prime Minister etc. As it is, an International incident is being played out amongst a devolved Execuive and Parliament with no experience, remit or administrative largesse. This is what nationhood actually involves, Mr.Salmon: enjoy.

In trying to read what is behind all this - apart from an oil deal etc - it may be that this "bomber" is really innocent? Somebody knows!

That could be the impetus they needed to free him. Somebody somewhere - possibly in the Scottish parliament - knows more than they are telling us. Aye they do.

Gordon will eventually have to do his usual set piece to camera, giving the impression that he is answering questions from reporters. The same piece of footage will then be used by all media outlets. The piece will be scripted by Mandleson which will seek to put all the blame on the scottish administration and in the fine print will not seek to contradict what the Libyians are saying about a deal having been struck between the two governments for reasons of trade i.e oil. There is just too much evidence for it be be denied. Blair, Brown Mandleson and Mandleson`s rich friends all have their sticky fingers all over this affair and one can only have some sympathy for the scots who had no alternative but to do what they were in effect told to do by No10. However, if Brown continues to blame the scots too much then the worm may turn and some embarassing letter or other written communication maybe leaked. This is probably why Brown is laying low - fearful of what may happen if continues to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of one Kenny McAskill.

It is just as improper for Brown to speak about this as it was proper for Mandelson to meet Gadaffi's son. Both Brown and Mandelson have admitted talking about a possible release. If labour MSPs table a motion of no confidence, labour might get more than it bargains for.

Ouch

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think Gordon Brown is quite rightly staying quiet on this one. If the Westminster government had any hand in the decision, Alex Salmond would be shouting about it and spreading the blame already, but as a victim of his own incompetance and lack of overall authority Salmond is going to have to take this on the chin.

The longer he stays silent the better for labour and the worse for Holyrood.

Just goes to prove how astute Mandy is.....

Double bonus... Lybia oil and gas and Holyrood colapase!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Looks like the Scottish Govt. has finally taken heed and believed the Maltese Govt. on this issue. If the bomb (if it was a bomb and not the underbelly tank) was not loaded in Malta, then Magrahi had nothing to with it, nor Libya for that matter. Remember when America shot down an Iranian jet full of innocent people, and we conveniently forget about it? Remember when America and UK attacked Gaddafi's home in 1985, and tried to kill him and all his family? In 1985, had it not been for Malta to inform Libya that unidentified aircrafts over Malta were on their way to Libya, all Gaddafi's family would be dead. Is that the way we do things? That's the way we did things in them days. There are a lot of questions that the Thatcher and Reagan administrations have to answer to, before we start pointing fingers. Look at the Maltese declarations on the matter, and for once take heed, even though America does not care at what a tiny Island like Malta had/has to say. Extract from the Times of Malta:
-------------------------------------------------------
Malta had 'no connection' with Lockerbie bomb - government
Doubts cast on Al-Megrahi's guilt.

A video grab showing Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi being greeted by Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi yesterday. Photo: AFP.
Malta had "no connection" with the bomb that exploded aboard an aircraft over Lockerbie in 1988, Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg told The Sunday Times yesterday.
"The position of the government has never changed on this matter - Malta was not involved in this incident. The bomb never left from Malta," Dr Borg said in the first government reaction since the controversial release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi.
Mr Al-Megrahi returned to Libya on compassionate grounds - he has terminal prostate cancer - last Thursday after being held in a Scottish prison, where he served eight years of a life sentence for the bombing of a Pan Am jet which killed 270 people.
As he arrived in Tripoli to a hero's welcome, sparking outrage in the US and the UK, Mr Al-Megrahi said he had sufficient evidence that would exonerate him from any involvement in the bombing.
In an interview with The Times of London yesterday, Mr Al-Megrahi said: "They believe I'm guilty, which in reality I'm not... One day the truth won't be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: The truth never dies."
The 57-year-old Libyan dropped his second appeal in what some experts have described as smacking of a political deal.
The connection with Malta and subsequently with Mr Al-Megrahi was made when police recovered from the wreckage items of baby clothing bearing the label 'Yorkie' made by a Maltese company. The clothing, traced to a Sliema shop, was found in the suitcase believed to have been carrying the bomb.
Though the courts decided that the bomb left from Malta, another theory was that it had been placed on board a London-bound plane at Frankfurt airport before reaching the Pam Am jet that was bound for New York. Some still believe Iran, and not Libya, was behind the bombing - in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranair flight by an American missile in the summer of 1988, which killed 290.
But Dr Borg said that the withdrawal by Mr Al-Megrahi of the second appeal before the Scottish courts meant that no new light could now be shed on the incident.
Asked if he believed Mr Al-Megrahi was innocent, the Foreign Minister said: "The Scottish Review Court said there were sufficient grounds which could have led to the reopening of the case. Unfortunately this hasn't happened."
Former Air Malta chairman Albert Mizzi and Wilfred Borg, who was ground operations manager at the airport at the time, yesterday also denied there was any Malta connection.
Mr Mizzi said he never believed the bomb was planted in Malta, adding that he is more inclined to believe that the device was planted in Germany.
So is Mr Al-Megrahi innocent?
"Whether he's innocent or not, I cannot say, but all I can tell you is that we had experts like Edgar Mizzi on the case, and they showed that Malta wasn't involved," Mr Mizzi said.
The former Air Malta chairman also knew Mr Al-Megrahi when he was serving as chief of security for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta.
"He certainly didn't look like the type who would commit such an atrocity, but appearances can be deceiving."
Mr Mizzi maintained that the investigations carried out at the time had dismissed the theory that the bomb was inside unaccompanied luggage which was loaded onto an Air Malta flight. Wilfred Borg, who was Air Malta ground operations manager at the time, said documents for Flight KM180 of December 21, 1988, showed that a total of 39 passengers presented 55 pieces of luggage for check-in.
All 55 pieces of luggage were physically counted and certified as being the only baggage loaded in the holds of the aircraft and no unaccompanied bags were loaded on this flight. The 39 passengers each retrieved their respective luggage at the destination.
Mr Borg, today chief officer of Air Malta's IT Corporate Services, reiterated the airline's contention that the security systems in place at Luqa airport at the time not only met international standards but exceeded those in place at many major airports.
In his autobiography, then Home Affairs Minister Guido de Marco said it seemed highly unrealistic to him at the time that a timing device could have been placed inside unaccompanied baggage that took such a complicated route to get on the plane, since there was so much room for error.
Yet, Prof. de Marco still insisted that a full investigation be carried out by both the Maltese and foreign authorities.
"From my discussions with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd and other officials, no one was putting the blame on Malta. In fact, according to them, neither the airport authorities nor Air Malta were found wanting in their handling of the luggage in question," Prof. de Marco said.
Was there any unaccompanied luggage on Flight KM180?
Wilfred Borg cited four excerpts from the trial court judgment to prove Air Malta's claim that the bomb never left Malta.
• "Evidence showed that there was no passenger on KM180 who had an onward booking from Frankfurt to London or the US and all the passengers on Air Malta retrieved all their checked-in baggage at their destination. The Malta documentation for KM180 does not record that any unaccompanied baggage was carried."
• "If the unaccompanied bag was launched from Luqa, the method by which it was done is not established, and the prosecution accepted it could not point to any specific route by which the primary suitcase could have been loaded."
• "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the prosecution case, and one which has to be considered along with the rest of the circumstantial evidence."
• "The absence of an explanation as to how the suitcase was taken into the system at Luqa is a major difficulty for the prosecution case but after taking full account of that difficulty, we remain of the view that the primary suitcase began its journey at Luqa."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

...and Brown has not yet even congratulated the England team on winning the Ashes

I do not see how brown can remain silent on this. Exactly one month from today the USA is hosting a G20 Conference in Pittsburgh. So unless Brown declines to attend (although the FBI may refuse to let him in), at some point he will have to say something.

The trial may have been held in a special Scottish court in the Hague, but a huge amount of investigative resource fell to the authorities in the US and Europe. To pretend this is wholly a Scottish affair is facile.

#3 so what is the chain of command in this ill thought out devoltion process that is contributing to the broken britian situtation that we have. We have a UK but not.

Another of ZANU-labour ill though out policies and even more poorly implemented projects making the whole UK a joke in the eyes of the world.

Being a Scottish MP, Brown must have some constituents who are against the Lockerbie release so he should be making his views known to the public as it is in the national interest.

Libya and the UK need a strong relationship.

There seems to be an issue about Mandelson doing trade deals.

That's his job - to increase trade for the UK.

Well done Mandelson if he has obtained deals which will provide work for English people who are desperate to get back into a job.

If Mandelson can use this foul up by a seperate government to generate good will in Libya, again well done. Our foreign secretary needs to be working hard to ensure the same foul up does not lose any English jobs due to people in the US falsely associating us with a scottish decision.

I think it would be better for everyone in the country is Gordon stayed silent for the rest of his entire premiership. Even better if he didn't actually do anything either. That way, at least, he can't do any more damage!

As for Al-Megrahi, he should be doing something that nobody does in prison any more these days - serving the full sentence handed to him by the courts. For politicians to interfere in this process at all is utterly abhorent.

He's right to keep quiet until he's obliged has to speak. I wish he'd do that more often, actually.

I was interested to hear Alex Salmond explaining that it's nothing to do with him guv. It didn't seem very very statesman-like.

#3. maxburr

As it is, an International incident is being played out amongst a devolved Execuive and Parliament with no experience, remit or administrative largesse. This is what nationhood actually involves, Mr.Salmon: enjoy.

Does it feel good belittling another country? (By the way, Britain isn't one, it's four.) Doesn't make you any bigger I'm afraid.

Scotland has an 800+ year history of being a nation! Salmond is very aware and has been campaigning for the reinstating of recognised Scottish nation status his entire political career! But juvenile Scots can't do anything for themselves, right?

As you're so confused, let me clarify. Foreign affairs is not a devolved matter. As a non-sovereign nation, Scotland is able to relate internationally, but not officially. Constitutionally, thank the Union, if the US has any questions it wants answered, it is Gordon Brown, as the UK's prime minister, who is in the dock. Yes it's a mess. Would you like the English, as the minority in a a pan-British (refers to the island land mass) voting system, to be in this boat - your bigger neighbour speaks for you? Make sense? Still be proud and happy with that?

Contrast Kenny MacAskill's very contraversial and brave decision making and Salmond's statement, to Brown's inept and embarrassing silence - who needs to give who advice on behaving like a nation.

7. At 10:43am on 24 Aug 2009, CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 wrote:

This troublesome and costly little colony should never have been allowed to make a decision of such magnitude.

Brown will just sitting bewildered in some back room...... Again

I think most of us are a bit bewildered by the way this one's been handled!

Just a couple of points.
I've never heard anyone ever mention the Scottish Government until now.
Why is there not a pack of journalists chasing down UK Government ministers demanding answers - including the BBC.
How have you and others let the PM off the hook so easily on this, The BBCs silence on this is deafening?
Why do I think the boot would be on the other foot if there had been a Conservative Government?

There's more to this than meets the eye, it is your job to find out rather than read prepared statements from No.10 and play dead.

It is now very common for the leadership of this country to go AWOL at critical moments. It is pathetic.

There is no doubt that the SNP allowed themselves to be hung out to dry on this issue which makes me question their competence and the entire rationale for regional assemblies; none of which I like in any way at all. If anything the fault for this lies in the slick politicking of the Blair era in which things could only get better.

Whilst there is no doubt an element of mercy within the Scots judicial system - and long may it be so - this was if anything a foreign policy decision which belongs to Westminster. The SNP government should have made that clear and walked away from making any decision.

The fact that ministers at Westminster have sat sniggering up their sleeves like the bunch of dirty schoolboys that they are, whilst their political allies in Scotland try to make hay on the issue is quite repellant.

If anything we are left with a picture of an SNP government which is totally out of its depth because it is nothing more than a glorified town council anyway. We have a national government that will prostitute the interests of the country so they can get one back on their opponents north of a border which has not existed other than in their imagining for over three hundred years.

In other words what do we expect when we delegate our affairs to the bunch of running dogs and paper tigers that populate the office chairs in our ministries. What on earth do we pay these people for?

This episode apart our economy still lies broken and our army bogged down in a foreign war poorly equipped but manned by wonderful people of immense courage and fortitude. These should be our priorities.

So, a deafening silence from Gordon; is it

a) he considers the issue too unimportant to interrupt his holiday
b) he doesn't understand the impact its having on UK/US relations
c) frankly my dear he doesn't give a damn
d) he can't think of anything to say
e) he has something to hide

hmmm.........wonder which it is?

#4. flamepatricia

apart from an oil deal

What oil deal? American companies are queuing up to get into Libya. The Scottish government is aware...that Scotland has oil! It's Westminster that needs more.

it may be that this "bomber" is really innocent? Somebody knows! That could be the impetus they needed to free him. Somebody somewhere - possibly in the Scottish parliament - knows more than they are telling us. Aye they do.

Who knows what influences there were in the trial, where I believe most of the evidence was US produced, so if it went wrong... But, it's of no consequence whatsoever to the decision MacKaskill had to make. If Megrahi kept with the appeal, he dies in jail in a few months, or even, he dies in Libya in a few months. Appeals take a lot longer!

But, interesting point. America knows the real bomber lives in Washington? Megrahi was handy to convict...

"Can Brown stay silent?"

If anyone can, it is Brown. You can be critical of many things about Our Dear Leader but his ability to go to ground is not one of them.

Poor old Salmond... his one trick pony of blaming the English has gone lame.

I sympathise with the victims of the Locerbie disaster, many of whom seem to believe that the "truth" has never been revealed. If additional evidence exists that would cast more light on the bombing, it sould be revealed. It seems unlikely - almost inconvievable - that Megrahi acted alone.

Brown and Miliband were obviously totally ineffectual in dealing with Libya and requesting a "low profile" welcome for a convicted terrorist.

Brown should declare a public inquiry and make all existing government information available. He and his ministers (poor dears) should stop being "affronted" at the mere suggestion that political expediency would ever get in the way of some legal examination of a complex question.

Remember the SFO being told to back off the investigation into allegedly corrupt dealings between BaE and Saudi Arabia?

This is a domestic decision with international consequences. The decision itself has quite rightly rested with the Scottish government in Holyrood, who have constitutional responsibility for justice matters. In my view, the right decision was made, although the process was mishandled by the SNP and gave some mixed signals that were unnecessary.

However, the implications of the decision run to the international stage, and to responsibilities of the UK government - trade, terrorism, diplomatic relations. These fall beyond any single minister, and so Gordon Brown is accountable for them. Especially so, since the process of negotiation with Libya has been going on at a senior level for many years, beyond the reach of Holyrood.

However, once again Mr Brown is absent when it suits him. He's happy to pipe up with feeble 'down with the kids' tripe about SuBo or a football match. When it comes to genuine accountability for political decisions, he has a long and wretched history of believing that others should cover for him. Yet another reason why he is so temperamentally and personally unsuited to be Prime Minister.

#5 briangare

the scots who had no alternative but to do what they were in effect told to do by No10

You think an SNP administration does what it's told by Westminster! It's a romantic imperialist notion you have there. This decision was MacAskill's - the matter concerned the Scottish legal system and Scottish law. That the UK has to answer for that internationally, I suspect Kenny would rather change!

Scotland acted respectably and diligently, whether you agree with the decision or not. We can actually do things ourselves, and to a traditionally high standard. Anyone would think we have a long history of being a sovereign nation.

#8 notfooledsteve

as a victim of his own incompetance and lack of overall authority Salmond is going to have to take this on the chin.

Take on the chin supporting a decision most decent folk respect and understand, even if they don't agree with, looking as worthy and capable as is expected abroad - have you seen the world media reporting, outside of the British mess-press??!

Salmond's not your enemy - the incompetent, undemocratic Westminster corrupt gang of "billy big baws" is.

#9 wombateye

Double bonus... Lybia oil and gas and Holyrood colapase!

And that makes you feel better because??? Ah, you're a Brit....

#23 stanilic

"If anything we are left with a picture of an SNP government which is totally out of its depth because it is nothing more than a glorified town council anyway."

Hundreds years old legal system, adhered to, is tantamount to some amaturist joke to you? And you're so great because?? What a dose of the Brits.

I must point out to posters here, there isn't a great backlash in Scotland!! On the Radio Scotland phone in one caller complained it was one-sided, due to the lack of callers not supporting Kenny MacAskill! The Media here (British biased) is whipping up this storm, "the US and Britain is outraged", and it seems a lot have fallen for it! Prominent French legal spokesperson declared France would have done the same as Scotland. Amazing, it's a real country...

"Take on the chin supporting a decision most decent folk respect and understand"....

You should chat to the guys across the pond Vere_Scribo...they seem a bit tetchy.

Personally I think he was stitched up good and proper and at least with this decision he can spend his remaining time with his family. Right outcome for the wrong reasons.

Of course had Scotland rejected devolution in 1997 then this would have (in theory) been a decision for Jim Murphy as Scottish Secretary, in reality it would have had to have been made by Brown, and given all the stories about possible trade deals you can imagine how much more intense the political firestorm would now be! As it is, Labour have a convenient bunch of fall guys as with the McKinnon case, "It's not our fault it's the courts guv!!"

Looking at the comments upthread about the impact of devolution, people have to remember that the Scottish Parliament was John Smith's great passion, Blair, as he admitted in a recent interview, didn't like it at all, mainly because the idea of letting the grassroots do it's own thing went against his control freak mentality. Therefore he never thought through the implications of devolution and this was compunded by the fact that Labour arrogantly assumed that it would be the top dog in Scotland forever. As it was, devolution just showed up the sheer uselessness of the Scottish Labour Party, and the voters got fed up and turfed them out in 2007!

As it is I believe that if the UK is to survive then it must be as a genuinely federal state with each nation having full autonomy and with a smaller federal government to handle foreigh affairs, defence and other strategic matters. I would hold a referendum offering each nation the choice of this option, the status quo or independence. We also do need a full written constitution to set out the areas of responsibility and provide a system of checks and balances. The unwritten constitution worked well for decades until Blair came along with his ill thought out reforms and so it must be re-balanced.

This is an issue for Britain, but is delegated to the Scots for convenience. The prisoner release was timed to coincide with PM's holiday, a closed parliament and the silly season lull. If Peter and Gordon (oh, yes, and Milliband) had wanted to say something, or even take control, nobody could have stopped them. Let's face it, earlier this year Gordon Brown even managed to comment on Jade Goody's death. This is a major international incident, and he isn't saying a word.

Laura: I trust you to track him down and get something from him. While you are there, please ask him about the suppressed report on MoD procurement that you mentioned the other day.

Thanks for another good topic.

#34 Freeman

You should chat to the guys across the pond Vere_Scribo...they seem a bit tetchy.

They do. For a supposed religious bunch, some loud talkers are sounding very non religious indeed. But that is a matter for them. To suggest it should influence a legal decision in Scotland is juvenile, at best. Scots law is not based on the fundamental that justice equals retribution to the appeasement of aggrieved relatives. Can you imagine if it was?

Remember, the American views you select are being more widely aired here than there! I'd agree with you if you said the Brits want to stitch Salmond up....but then they're nice chaps, aren't they.

#34 Freeman

PS Megrahi thinks he was stiched up anyway...!

No matter what the outcome, it would have been the wrong one.

Release - well, look at the reaction
Don't release - potential loss of trade with Libya, accusations of following American orders.

Now what needs to happen is a public enquiry into the incident, using all the evidence so that al-Megrahi's guilt can be honestly determined by the public, and any trade deals struck shown openly.

So Mr MacAskill & co did not get a visit from some mysterious guys from an even more myterious government department, perhaps Mr Brown knows more than he's prepared to say, in fear he to get's a similar visit! There's a cracking novel in the making here of the John LeCarre type, heck it'll be global, if a film 3hours + probably!

Why is anyone surprised? McCavity is doing his usual dissapearing act whenever there's bad news, but we know if this news had been well received he would have been all over the media trying to take the credit.

I'm no fan of Gordon Brown, and I note that he is acting true to form in hiding when anything tricky comes along and hoping it will go away.

However, I also think he is right to stay silent on this occasion. The whole point of devolution is that some things are devolved. That makes it none of Gordon's business what happened here. It's a matter for the Scottish government, and for them alone.

As an aside, this episode has seriously diminished the previously high regard in which I held President Obama. It's absolutely none of his business either, and I think it's disgraceful that he presumes to tell the Scots how to run their legal system. Would he think it OK for Scottish politicians to tell him how to run the US legal system? I don't think so!

I'm sorry Laura Kuenssberg but you are clearly out of your depth here, your ignorance of the Scottish judicial and political systems means you can only indulge in hype.

You have no idea of the hatred between the SNP and Scottish Labour. For you see once Kenny MacAskill had rejected the Labour, UK and American politicking over the controversial prisoner release scheme he was then legally bound by the Scottish justice system to follow due process over an appeal on compassionate grounds. He did exactly that.

Finally, this issue reveals that in trying to instruct the world on the meaning of the word "justice" highlights Americans do not understand irony.

#35 JPSLotus79

No, devolution was forced upon that Labour administration by threat of Westminster democracy being exposed as being less democratic "than some African states", and was the point, less democratic than the new ex-Soviet states, whose democracy was being scrutinised on their desire to become UN members.

Scotland-UN demonstrated to the UN committee that Scotland fulfilled the criteria for the right to decide self determination, as laid down in the UN Charter, and also showed that the population desired to be asked. Would that Westminster had denied this - well, they couldn't. (Scotland able to sort things out for itself again.)

Your suggestion of federal UK is interesting, and has been said many times, but consider this. Why bother? We are already in an international organisation which pools some sovereignty - the EU - why dilute it even more? It's a cry for the Brits to hang on to status and power here.

A cooperation between British nations is of course laudable and good international relations sense, considering our non-land locked location on the borders of Europe, but why not as sovereign states? That is the usual model.

In the US, there is equal representation of states in the Senate, and with the exception of Texas, who is big enough to be comparatively unaffected by its gaining independence, the states haven't a history of being sovereign nations.

Oh, and as for all the conspiracy theories about some deal being done to release al-Megrahi in return for access to Libyan oil:

We all know that Mandelson would happily sell his own grandmother (and claim the postage costs on expenses) if he thought it was convenient to do so, and there is no doubt that he is perfectly capable of some devious deals behind the scenes. But the idea that he'd somehow convince the SNP (who, let's remember, are not New Labour's greatest friend) to go along with his conspiracy is about as believable as suggesting that Mother Thereas killed JFK and that Elvis faked the moon landings.

I posted this earler on BT's blog, a work of fiction maybe, but there are also some excellent weblinks on that site, eg Ian Hamilton QC's blog https://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/?p=375


A lot of furore over this case and the decision by Kenny McAskill one which I believe was morally the right one.
The question has to be asked who gains? So how is this for a conspiracy theory?
UK/US and Libya conspire to bring down the Scottish Government
Of the two options on the table UK Govt to make no comment, US strongly oppose any release and especially on the PTA as there is supposedly an agreement in place that Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland and not be allowed to transfer to Libya as a prisoner, the UK’s silence on that issue leaves McAskill with no option but to reject it.
UK tell US that McAskill really has no other option under Scots Law but to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds, as this comes to being the US up the pressure on what is now being known as the SNP decision, Libya are complicit in ensuring a Saltire is featured prominently in the homecoming celebration for Megrahi causing even more national and international outrage. UK and US roundly condemn the action officially but unofficially probably orchestrated it. (Why on earth would Libya fly a saltire when they firmly believe a miscarriage of Justice was done initially by a Scottish court?). UK and Libya can ratify their trade agreements etc being able to point the finger at the Scottish Govt.
US pressure builds, UK Govt bring out their puppets to condemn the decision, get the opposition parties riled up, business leaders to announce major investment losses etc, the spin will spiral out of control fed by the ever willing media, making this a massive political decision and not a strictly legal one.
So high is the anger that the labour opposition in Scotland force a vote of no confidence in the Scottish Govt to force an early Scottish Election which Labour will win as Scotland will be portrayed as a Pariah State, and no doubt there will be a few postal ballot irregularities as per the Glenrothes bye-election just to make sure!
As this will happen before the next UK GE, Labour will be able to ratify the Trident Replacement with the US, and announce several new Nuclear Power Stations to be built with US involvement thus bringing Scotland back in from the International wilderness.
Who gains from this decision? Certainly not the Scottish Government but all other parties are rubbing their greedy grubby hands with glee.

Cynical? I await developments with interest.

24#

I reckon its all 5 of them.

As others have noted, this conforms with the pattern of Brown being invisible whenever anything he finds embarassing is under discussion. he's not nicknamed McCavity without reason...

However, I can't help but agree with freeman at #34 that this was the right decision taken for the wrong reasons.

From what I have read it seems the evidence against Al-Megrahi would not stack up in court in an appeal or re-trial where the defence were given access to all the material; at the very least it doesn't seem to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" test.

#43

"I'm sorry Laura Kuenssberg but you are clearly out of your depth here, your ignorance of the Scottish judicial and political systems means you can only indulge in hype."

That's a bit rude, minuend. All Laura is saying is that you'd expect a prime minister to say something on such an important issue. Perhaps he agrees with Mr MacAskill, or perhaps he disagrees. Is he with Obama and Clinton or not? It would be nice to know.

Laura didn't say he was legally obliged to, or constitutionally entitled to. She just commented that Mr Brown didn't intend to, and that perhaps he would have to have a statement dragged out of him, as usual.

Actually, I think he is right to keep quiet, but not for the reasons I read above. In my view he should keep quiet because he isn't entitled to be Prime Minister.

Everybody knows what the UK government's position is on Megahi's release, because they arranged, as part of their negotiations with Libya, that he would be able serve out his sentence in Libya, or in effect be released.

The agreement between Libya and the UK was effectively a peace treaty, and it is perfectly normal for such a treaty to involve repatriation of prisoners. The quid pro quo included Libya'a abandonment of its nuclear weapons programme, compensation for Lockerbie victims' relatives and trade agreements. There was no serious challenge to this obviously sensible agreement, except on technical grounds by the Scottish government, who thought that it should have been consulted before the transfer of a prisoner convicted under Scottish law was agreed.

The sudden concern expressed by some UK parties about MacAskill's decision is obviously a cynical attempt to exploit US anger to obtain political advantage over the SNP. This might well backfire, because many voters in Scotland, and elsewhere in the UK, would like to see UK foreign policy being less subservient to US influence.

Contrast the compassion status for Ronnie Biggs and Mr El-Megrahi

One is on a Death Bed and the other strolls down the plane steps

Are the 2 ideas of compassion that different too.

Was Jack Straw meaning mean and vengful with Ronnie Biggs

For No 10 to justify its silence by saying this is exclusively a matter for the so-called Scottish Government is disingenuous. That this was a matter pertaining to the Scottish legal system, which has always been different, ignores the point that this decision was bound to have major ramifications for the whole country's relationship with its most important ally. foreign relations and affairs are not devolved to Scotland. Consequently, the Foreign Office had an interest. This is what happens when local authorities start to meddle in things other than road-sweeping, emptying bins and cleaning up after dogs.

#44 Vere, I would also go further and transfer many powers down from Westminster, Holyroyd, Stormont and Cardiff Bay to local government and cut the numbers of the alphabet soup of politicians, MP's, MSP's etc. I believe strongly that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level by people who are directly accountable to the communities that they serve. That's why I dislike the EU as it is a remote and unaccountable organization, I'm all for international co-operation but I believe that there's no need for the mammoth Brussels bureaucracy with all it's attendent costs, similarly the size of the public sector in Britain is too excessive with thousands of people employed simply to fill up the little empires of middle managers, I work in the public sector and I see this everyday.

Sorry to be pedantic but California was briefly an independent republic in the 1840's!

PM Brown has again backed himself into a corner. He can't now comment as it has been too long and everyone would be saying that a statement had to be, as usual, dragged out of him.
If he does say something, then (Not so) Smart Alec will immediately create a row with Westminster, in order to stir up Nationalist sentiment in Scotland. Something along the lines of "how dare dare Brown interfere with devolved matters".
I get the feeling for all the bluster, both the UK and US governments are quite happy with the outcome given the back door deals done for oil and gas with a reasonably stable non-mid east country. (Remember, the US coverage of this story is not front page news in America)
We all remember how Republican and Loyalist terrorists were freed as part of the peace process in Northern Ireland for the sake of progress. Uncomfortable decisions like this may have been the price for Libya to give up its chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

Message 32 Vere-scribo

`What a dose of the Brits'

Of course you have to sneer as you have nothing else to bring to the argument.

Your obvious sense of inferiority plays well beside the political incompetence of the SNP. You can't even beat Gordon Brown; so what hope do you have?

"38. At 12:29pm on 24 Aug 2009, vere_scribo wrote:
#34 Freeman

PS Megrahi thinks he was stiched up anyway...!"

And he is not the only one. Do a bit of digging. Consider all the options and ask yourself if you believe it was a fair cop guv.


As for #37 "To suggest it should influence a legal decision in Scotland is juvenile, at best".

I never said it should. I merely point out that your assertion that most people are saluting the glorious decision making of the Almighty Salmond and his Glorious SNP may not be entirely correct. ^^

#51. Also Biggs may have not been an angel, but he never killed anyone. Had he not escaped from jail and served his time, he would have probably been released in the 1970's and would now about about to die in relative obscurity.

In contrast Megrahi was convicted of the calculated murder of 270 innocent people, people may dispute the evidence but apparently The Times today states that 45 of his 48 grounds for appeal had already been dismissed and the Scottish Crown Office were contesting the remaining three suggesting that they were of the opinion that they could refute Megrahi's arguments. I suspect that some people would never be convinced of Megrahi's guilt, had he sang like a canary and pleaded guilty it would be dismissed as a set up and had it been an Iranian or Syrian intelligence agent who had been convicted, these same people would have been shouting "IT WAS THE LIBYANS!!" I can understand the reasoning why he should be released on compassionate grounds but it is still a bitter pill to swallow and if a relative of mine had died at Lockerbie I would have wanted him left to rot.

The whole tragedy of Lockerbie is going to be another honeypot for conspiracy theorists like the Kennedy Assasination and Roswell. Clearly the people who formulated the plan will never be brought to justice and that is something that the relatives of the victims will have to live with.

Gordon Brown has again missed opportunities to lead, clarify and "add value".

Instead he has implicity supported the dishonest world of backroom deals and hypocrisy.

A little honesty is all that is required. Is that too much to expect?

There are essentially three separate arguments going on in the public domain atm:

1) Is he actually guilty?

Given that the release was compassionate - it doesn't really matter if Megrahi did it or not, regardless of the murky nature of the case and trial.


2) Is it ever right to be compassionate to a terrorist?

This is essentially a discussion about moral goods, and is very fuzzy in nature, which is naturally why it has been focussed upon by the media and US detractors. There is no right / wrong answer here.


3) Was the decision made for ulterior reasons - i.e. an oil deal?

This is the only interesting point to be made - if his release was a conditional part of an oil deal, this is indeed news - however we do not know if this is the case or not. Further it is too easy to make links where there are likely none.


Ultimately the US has behaved disgracefully over this affair - the decision was and is Scotlands, correct or not.

Further – stating that this will boost terrorism is very bizarre given that the most damaging terrorists tend to kill themselves as part of the deal.

There are too many mixed messages in the media for anything good to come of intervention from Brown, or anyone else in Government for that matter. Oppositions, however, can have a field day.

#57 so whom was playing polictics then Straw or MacAskill.

To return to Laura's thread.

From an electoral stance, for those outwith Scotland, the only relevant factor in this will be their perception of the UK Government's response. What happened in Scotland they may have views on - just as they would have views on a high profile case anywhere else in the world.

For those in Scotland the UK Government's silence, involvement etc will resonate along with their response to MacAskill's decision.

It would be an error to imagine that responses in Scotland will be the same as in England. Already the Herald has come out strongly in support of the compassionate release, and the limited vox pops have not shown much virulent opposition to it.

Presumably, in both countries we will get some polling reasonably soon, and will get some idea of things seem to real voters as opposed to the rantings on the blogosphere.

'Jack McConnell says that the SNP "do not speak for Scotland".'

Jack McConnell is correct; the SNP do not speak for Scotland. It is the Scottish government (devolved matters) and the UK government (everything else) which speaks for Scotland. The release of Megrahi is not a devolved matter but does fall under the jurisdiction of Scottish law which is linked to the Scottish Parliament (post devolution. Prior to that it was under the oversight of the UK government). However, foreign affairs is not a devolved matter and, therefore, falls under the auspices of the UK government. So, because the USA has objected to the release of Megrahi it is up to the UK government to answer to the USA and not the Scottish government.

Can Brown stay silent? Nope!

Have you ever seen a silent politician maintaining correctness, in the face of a huge mess?

Neither have I.

I find it interesting, to note, that this blog has not said a word on Mandy's dealings with Libya, so far. Considering that his previous form is so well known, I suppose that the rest of the country should find it 'quite offensive', to be fed the line, that the so-called Leopard has changed it's spots. Poor old Al-Megrahi, having to go back home. Surely, government could've pronounced that the NHS is better than the Libyan alternative?

Dr Harold Shipman 218. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi 270. No politician would have ever dared even breath that Mr Shipman should ever be released (if he hadn't topped himself) any more than Ian Brady or Myra Hindley. It's fair enough to many people that life shouldn't always mean life but call me old fashioned here but I do think 270 lives should mean life. But somehow Britain's greatest murderer of all time gets to just walk away? Why? If there is doubt over his conviction this will only cloud the issue and leave the many unanswered questions even opaquer. And even if he didn't actually buy the equipment there's no question that he was very high up in the Lybian secret service and knew of the plot so he isn't innocent. There is no doubt this will be turned into a PR coup by Colonel Gadaffi - a very ruthless man who's just bright enough to know on which side his bread is buttered. This is one of the worst judicial / policy gaffes of all time. I dont think it will actually be good for Libya either. There's always a bit of a grey area in measuring between political expediency / the greater good and justice for terrorists but I really think that in this case there is no greater social or political objective and the crime was so vile there is no excuse for letting him out. This isn't a man who killed someone in a fit of passion or a bungled robbery this is a man who was part of a regime that set out to calously murder 270 people in cold blood for their own repugnant political ends. And no one's really stupid enough to believe that no pressure or influence would have been exerted from Whitehall on Holyrood

I'm surprised at the reaction from the US! As a country which happily sponsored IRA terrorism over here for years they are remarkably sensitive about this issue.

Al-Megrahi will be dead soon, so I'm not sure what difference this ultimately makes to anything. Let the idiots in Libya celebrate, let the US say what they like... until they apologise for their own atrocities, it is pointless listening to their whinging.

This is not aimed at all Americans, naturally. Some of them are lovely.

Brown is doing the right thing by refusing to comment on a decision he had no authority to influence. The decision was taken in accordance with the law. It was taken from a judicial perspective unlike the decision to release all terrorists involved in "The Troubles", who between them murdered far more people and caused much more harm to their communities, which was made up as we went along.

No way can Brown hide himself away from this. We have all seen the letter he sent to Ghadaffi so he is already involved.

Sitting on the fence when he was fully aware of the outcome of the decision to send the Libyan back home is not an option.

Alex Salmons has always been a shrewd politician so I cannot see him allowing the Scottish Parliament to be the scapegoat for what appears to be a huge diplomatic cock up between the UK and US governments.

Oil seems to distort the minds of some politicians and this is just another mess on top of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Libya can always turn to the Chinese. Everyone else seems to.

There is clearly more to this whole episode than we are ever likely to know, wasn't that ever the case in government machinations? I am sure that Gordon Brown (and his odious henchman Mandelson) have sticky fingers all over this in the background, but it is expedient for them to simply point their fingers north and say "ask them to explain it all, it is a devolved matter", and likewise, it is not likely that the SNP administration in Edinburgh will admit to any Westminster involvement if there was any because that would diminish their appearance as a sovereign government in waiting. I doubt we will ever know the full story.

The biggest regret I have is that we will never now have the opportunity to hear the evidence which was to be presented at the appeal because it has been dropped, apparently to facilitate the release on compassionate grounds. I have a sneaking suspicion that was even more of a motive for shadowy government manoeuvring than any trade deals. The lid has been firmly put back onto that particular can of worms.

I have to say that the reaction in America is more than just a tad hypocritical. In the 1980's the USA refused to return convicted Irish terrorist murderers who had escaped from prison in the UK and illegally entered the US. That hardly puts them in a position to stake out any sort of claim to the moral high ground on serving full sentences now.

Looks and sounds like a constitutional dog's breakfast to me. Who's idea was it to break up the Union anyway? And what good is it doing us now - economically and/or politically?

No politician is coming out of this affair smelling of roses.
- The SNP tried to display their "independence" by releasing this bloke and chose perhaps the worst possible issue to demonstrate their machismo. It's interesting that this morning more and more SNP politicians are making reference to his possible "innocence" as background to the release - in other words, moving the goalposts big time.
- Labour nationally has a lousy record when it comes to being soft on terror (e.g no Abu Hamza extradition) so for them to come across now all aggrieved would be a nonsense. And the public will take a lot of convincing that some shabby business deal wasn't behind all this.
- Hillary Clinton has a cheek accusing anyone of being soft on terror after the way she cavorted around the White House with Gerry Adams not so long ago.
All these shenanigans seem more like banal photo opportunities and pathetic ego trips for weak, puerile politicians than any concern about the Lockerbie murder victims. Caledonian Comment

There is a whole lot less to this than meets the eye.

Megrahi's lawyers applied for transfer to Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement (as negotiated by Tony Blair), and also for compassionate release under the 1993 Act which enables this. They were not asked to make these applications by the Scottish Government, who were nevertheless obliged to deal with them.

MacAskill, in his statement last week, refused the former application for reasons he clearly stated, and granted the latter, following the rules which have applied to all previous applications (23 prisoners were released on these grounds before Megrahi.)

All the rest is spin.

There is no doubt that the US government are happy to take advantage of the situation to develop trade with Libya (a trade delegation led by John McCain was actually in Libya at the time of the announcement.) It seems fairly likely that the public bluster of US politicians and officials is simply a show addressed at a domestic political audience.

It is arguable that at least some in the US, UK and Scottish justice and intelligence worlds are glad that Megrahi's appeal was dropped, for fear that some other stuff might come out regarding his guilt or innocence. But since Megrahi has only weeks to live, I think that is of debatable importance.

The Labour party in London obviously wanted Megrahi transferred to Libya as they were the ones who negotated the transfer agreement. Brown and Mandelson have had several 'coincidental' meetings with Gaddafi, his son and other henchmen in recent weeks. So they must be happy for Megrahi to be released, and even happier that they weren't responsible for it. (It's a theme for the UK Labour government, isn't it?)

Possibly the saddest looking bunch of spinners are the Labour party in Scotland. Despite the prisoner transfer agreement signed by their then party leader Blair, and the recent meetings with the Gaddafis by Brown and Mandelson, Iain Gray claimed hilariously that if he had been First Minister, he would not have released Megrahi (this is of course technically correct, but only by accident....however, Gray is supposed to know how the governance of Scotland is carried out). We are also supposed to believe that Gray, a former campaign director of Oxfam, is actually a 'let-em-die-in-jail' redneck. Labour have taken this line not because it is right, but because they hate the SNP viscerally and so reflexively oppose them on every issue. (They did the same with alcohol regulation, before more recently starting to come round to common sense on that .) Labour in Scotland's mortal weakness is that they oppose the SNP first, and think about everything else second.

As noted in a post above, we await some genuine opinion polling with interest, but my betting is that the majority of people in Scotland think that freeing prisoners who are dying of cancer and have only weeks to live is a reasonable policy. Funnily enough, since this law was introduced by the Conservative government in 1993 (oh yes it was), and the guidance referred to by MacAskill for applying the rules was introduced by the first Lib-Lab Holyrood administration, you might actually think there was a fair degree of political consensus for it in Scotland. But poor Iain Gray just sees Salmond and his eyes mist over red....

I thought the real prime minister had already spoken on the matter - Mandelson

61. At 1:47pm on 24 Aug 2009, oldnat wrote:
"From an electoral stance, for those outwith Scotland, the only relevant factor in this will be their perception of the UK Government's response....
For those in Scotland the UK Government's silence, involvement etc will resonate along with their response to MacAskill's decision..."
-----------------------

Sounds rather like wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Happy enough to be 'devolved' and make the decisions. But when the flack starts coming in about a fouled up decision you want to pass it off on the London government.

Surprise, surprise.

I hope my government has only one message on this issue: the scots made the decison, ask them to defend it, nothing to do with us.

From the Vincennes shooting down the Iranian airliner, through the idiots in Congress giving them a medal, to the murderous Iranian decision to take revenge "like for like", through the decision to put Iran in "the too difficult box" and pin it all on Lybia, etc etc, Kenny MacAskill's decision, taken on grounds of compassion for a dying man, seems to be the only commendable action in the whole sorry tale. What can Brown really add to it?

Post 63 re Mandy & Gaddafi's son. I raised it in post 1.

It is mentioned in both the Mail on Sunday and News of The World yesterday.

https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-1208599/STEPHEN-GLOVER-If-Britain-flouted-justice-decency-feather-nest-squalid-deal-Gaddafi-scandal-know-bounds.html

flamepatricia @ 4... I agree with you. There were questions being raised about the evidence on which the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was found guilty, just before the decision to release him was made. He is a man who has always maintained his innocence. The only other route was to have had a retrial and re-examined the evidence. If he were innocent, he would probably have been dead by the time a verdict was reached. He is guilty because he was pronounced guilty at his trial, but there is still a possibility we are considering the fate of an innocent man here. If he had died in prison an innocent man it would have been wrong. Ten years in prison for an innocent man is a travesty of justice. Is releasing a dying man, even a guilty one, back to his country and his family so wrong? Is it not better for the UK and the US to keep on good terms with Libya, than, as we seem to be doing at the moment, creating further problems for ourselves? There may be Libyans who know one way or the other if he is guilty or innocent.

I'll start by pointing out that my knowledge of scottish devolution is based largely on wikipedia's entry on the west lothian question, but it seems to me that something is amiss here.

The scottish government was set up by the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved (rather than transferred) power over certain matters to Edinburgh. It did not confer any sovereign status to the Scottish parliament. Alex Salmond and co therefore do not hold any power outright, but instead are charged with making decisions in westminster's stead.

Legally uninforcable procedural devices aside, there was surely nothing to stop the UK Home secretary overruling this decision on that basis. If that proved unpalatable, it could easily be argued that the early release of a convicted terrorist should rightly fall under the National Security brief or even Foreign Affairs given the nature of the offence, which are reserved for Westminster, rather than Justice and policing, which is not.

The SNP have been set up by the Labour Party, who hope to gain politically in Scotland from all of this. In the next general election Labour faced losing many of its seats to the SNP so it is in their interests entirely to let the SNP take all the flak.

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of Kenny MacAskill’s decision, the SNP have been politically naive in not anticipating Gadaffi's response. However the cynical manipulation of this decision by Mandelson and Brown is far worse, they have got rid of an embarrassing problem and are hiding behind constitutional issues to avoid getting further embroiled.

This is almost certainly the result they would have wanted and Brown’s continued silence will not protect him.

If we hadn’t had devolution, or if Labour was still in charge at Holyrood it would be all too easy to believe that there had been some dirty work at the crossroads- though it would have been pretty transparent what had been afoot when the big oil or gas deal was signed. No doubt in that event it would also have been a “purely judicial” decision but as long as politicians rather than judges are taking those decisions then one is entitled to believe that political considerations are not going to be ignored in the process.

As is it, it’s hardly a secret that the Holyrood and Westminster administrations are hardly bosom buddies. Indeed my assumption when the possibility of al-Megrahi’s release was first mooted was that the Scottish Government’s political instincts were that any resulting fuss would primarily involve negative noises from “Number 10 Sources” which could then be spun into a patriotic cause for a domestic audience; any American angle would be a minor added bonus in getting Holyrood the golden opinions of the reflexively anti-American elements of the chattering classes but wasn’t a big deal either way. Indeed if Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson had been actively encouraging release as part of some murky commercial deal I have little doubt that al-Megrahi would be in his cell as I write and Kenny MacKaskell would be milking the implied insult to the integrity of the Scottish legal system for all it was worth. I can’t help thinking that someone somewhere has badly misread the situation but I’m not sure who.

A couple of other points. The reaction of several people I know who were genuinely undecided on the issue ( in principle favourable to release on compassionate grounds but uncomfortable about letting a convicted mass murderer out of prison) turned sharply negative after the scenes from Tripoli, which could all too easily be interpreted as “we committed murder and got away with it because the West is soft and weak”. The kind of quasi-racist views posted by some participants on other threads here to the effect that the Arab/Muslim world views compassion as weakness began to look horribly persuasive. And, for a man who at times last week seemed to be preaching a sermon rather than making a statement, Kenny MacKaskill is now in the unpleasant position of having to hope fervently that al-Megrahi dies in short order. If he’s still alive when we get into the election run up next year things could get very messy indeed.

We know from Brown's 'support' for Blair that he is a coward when it comes to putting himself on the line, so congratulations to Kenny MacAskill for having the courage to ignore the American pressure. We also know from the past that America is more interested in revenge than justice, witnessed by their attempts to medicate mentally ill people, who have been condemned to death, back to temporary normallity just so as to execute them.

There is and was sufficient doubt in the case of Megrahi, as noted by Nelson Mandela and some of the Lockerbie families, to allow him a re-trial and give the families justice by finding the true perpetrators of the bombing. The only problem is that because of his illness, Megrahi would probably be dead before any re-trial took place.

Israel slaughtered nearly 1500 men women and children recently in Gaza and caused over 10 billion dollars in damage and is still killing and imprisoning Palestinians, where is the outrage from America about this? their cant and hypocrisy stink.

'Scotland' has shown the lead and probably engendered more good will in the Arab world than anything president Obama has done or said since he came into office.

Brown needs to wake up to the fact that he is the leader of UK and not just England, divolving power to regional assemblies is not the same as abrigating responsibility for decisions that effect the whole of the UK.

#52 woodfordhalse

Your comments are first shockingly ignorant.

this decision was bound to have major ramifications for the whole country's relationship with its most important ally

It's simple maths - Britain is FOUR countries, not one. That, as such a constructed state, Britain votes through Westminster as if it is one country, is where all the problems lie. Where a nation for 800+ years has no sovereign international say.

" This is what happens when local authorities start to meddle in things other than road-sweeping, emptying bins and cleaning up after dogs. "

Yet you liken my country, and my sons', to being no better than a dog Brit (rhyming slang) clearer.
Pigs would make more intelligent comments...

Just listened to the scottish justice secretary's statement.

"The decisions were mine and mine alone"

No mention of 'Mandelson did a deal on trade'

No mention of 'Gordon Brown made me do it'

No mention of 'we did it to stop his appeal'
(He was allowed to continue his appeal even after death, let alone release)

"The decisions were mine and mine alone"

So why should Gordon Brown now be expected to justify those decisions?

mince @ 71

yes, that's the post that floats my bell - spot on, I would have thought - thank you

This only goes to show what a total unmitigated disaster this one-sided, half-baked 'devolution' has been. In terms of population, Scotland is tiny compared to England, yet they can apparently make decisions that adversely affect the whole Union. Not even the Prime Minister can intervene (or did he?)

Furthermore, all the problems raised at the offset still persist, with England having no say in Scottish affairs, but Scotland effectively (ineffectively?) running England - not least through Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling.

Isn't it extraordinary that Brown as a Scottish MP, representing Scottish constituents, feels unable to intervene in Scottish affairs, yet is quite happy to rule England?

It's high time, one way or another, that the Scottish half-in, half-out devolution experiment is brought to an end. Either Scotland should leave Union entirely, or return to being a full member of the Union with one government in Westminster.

#53 JPSLotus79

Fair points, esp. re California! :-)

For the sake of a views swap, agreed the EU needs reform, and I can see a Scot, or a few, in positions on the right committees at the right time, helping influence and shape it. Historically we are reformists.

At the moment too many Scots are misguided in seeking Westminster as the place to be careerwise (snouts in troughs). When that draw evaporates, as it will with independence, I see Scots migrating out, as we always have done, to the EU, and the EU benefitting greatly from this pragmatic input. My guess at predicting history!

#53 JPSLotus79

PS - Pedantic Championships?
"1840's" does not have an apostrophe; there is no possession to denote... :-)

#55 stanilic

It's called a sense of humour (plays better than denial!).
Investigate.

#56 Freeman

"And he is not the only one. Do a bit of digging. Consider all the options and ask yourself if you believe it was a fair cop guv."

You're right, that's exactly what I (or anyone) would need to do to decide if it was. All's I can say there would appear to be significant doubt. (We'll see what comes out - there's usually a documentary sooner or later?? ;-)


"As for #37...I never said it should."

OK :-)

"I merely point out that your assertion that most people are saluting the glorious decision making of the Almighty Salmond and his Glorious SNP may not be entirely correct."

I never asserted quite that, only that there is no backlash as painted by the Brit media, except that OF the British media! So most people are not decrying the "Almighty Salmond" etc. The opposition Brit-favouring politicians are... Opinion is divided, as it would likely be in any country taking on this issue - so no news really. :-)

#59 Dayvine


Is it ever right to be compassionate to a terrorist?

...There is no right / wrong answer here.


I agree we can all have our opinion on this. But hundreds of years of Scottish legal tradition says that there is :-)

“77. At 3:07pm on 24 Aug 2009, mawhis wrote:

The scottish government was set up by the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved (rather than transferred) power over certain matters to Edinburgh. It did not confer any sovereign status to the Scottish parliament.”

I think this is one of the most interesting points made on here – and really underlines most of the so called ‘politicking’ going on:

Salmond and the SNP have been making a very large show of their election (which was a very finely balanced affair to begin with) to the Scottish Parliament/Assembly.

They talk about things in terms of the world stage, but actually take very little account of their stances – Europe is a good example of this – as they sit behind the real legal status of Holyrood when dealing with people on a diplomatic basis. Now the UK is letting them reap what they have sown.

No governing party would have done any different.

I actually don't disagree with their decision, but they deserve the backlash from fluffing it diplomatically. Hubris all the way.

There is more condemnation from our politicians for Mackaskill than there is for the puppet master who pulled Megrahi's strings, who must have ordered and financed the bombing. Col. Ghadaffi is the gentleman who should have been in the dock, not his pet dog. However our honourable government is too busy sucking up to him in the hope they can get oil and gas supplies to ever condemn him, in fact dining with his son and kissing cheeks seems to be the order of the day.As far as Brown making a statement criticising Mackaskill goes, this would hardly fit the " son of the manse " image.

#69 moraymint

Looks and sounds like a constitutional dog's breakfast to me. Who's idea was it to break up the Union anyway? And what good is it doing us now - economically and/or politically?

Well, depends who's "us". The Brits suffer - they lose face, power and influence, and a lot of expenses! Agreed it's a dog's breakfast.

The English gain - their national identity (consumed by "British" to the brink of irrelevance),and if they play their cards right i.e. pressurise for a reformed written constitution which recognises, like the vast majority of democracies, save New Zealand and a couple others*, sovereignty of the people, not parliament and the politicians, can gain democracy as opposed to the sham democracy (two parties each take turns, on a third of the vote, to hold a majority!) they are hemmed in by now.

Scotland gains - its sovereignty, the ability to act on the world staqe, as it's just shown it can, once more.

All the nations, in accordance with the UN Charter, though must decide.

The problem is that the cobbled together Westminster pretending-to-be-one-country-when-it-is-four lop sided non democracy keeps no one happy, save those in power - the love-myself-too much, billy big baws, power at the expense of others, Brits.

*New Zealand demonstrated ably this week the absolute power of the parliamentary democracy that it has, when after a referendum opposing recent banning smacking legislation, the parliament ignored the result, stating it would not repeal the new law. It was within its rights, the people aren't sovereign, as with Westminster, but unlike in Scotland.

During the Glenrothes by election Gordon Brown didn't mind breaking with the supposed convention that Prime Minister's don't campaign in by-elections.

.. during which Brown was happy to point out that the SNP were making the "wrong decisions" for Scotland.

Brown is a coward and has been caught with his fingers in a Libyan till. This is all about a government sponsored trade deal.

13. At 10:57am on 24 Aug 2009, hipstermrwilson wrote:
...and Brown has not yet even congratulated the England team on winning the Ashes

===

Great to see that Brown didn't give his backing to the cricket team, thereby freeing them from his curse of Jonah, thus actually allowing them to win. No doubt though, the northern British PM will be trying to bask in their reflected glory now.

On topic;

"Gordon Brown will make a fleeting appearance in London this week - will he insist on holding his tongue? Or will this be another episode where days of prime ministerial silence ends in an answer having to be dragged out of Mr Brown to try to close down a row?"

Yes!

#73 jon112uk

Sounds rather like wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Happy enough to be 'devolved' and make the decisions. But when the flack starts coming in about a fouled up decision you want to pass it off on the London government.

Surprise, surprise.

A rather basic misunderstanding of the situation (are you from the redneck-lands of America?) I noticed the bitter tinge.

There was no foul up. Opinion in Scotland is divided, as it would be in any society or land asked to this ponder. The press here, not abroad, are making a big song and dance, to get at the SNP, and you are dancing - sad.

The release is covered by Scottish Law = MacAskill has to decide (like Straw and Howard before - they weren't assumed as complete incompetents, no more than usual...as they weren't from a devolved parliament? But a Scot...see the media reports - double standards, hypocrisy).

Foreign affairs is not devolved - Scotland has no international sovereignty. So, like it or not (and we don't like it), Westminster speaks for us on international matters.

That the matter of Megrahi's release fell under Scottish law and was also of international significance, highlights the foolishness of the current set up (which you defend by blaming the Scots instead), not the foolishness of Scottish politicians or their support. In fact we'd change it, not hide behind it!

#20 vere_scribo

"But juvenile Scots can't do anything for themselves, right?"

Name one good thing the Scots did before the Act of Union (precipitated by the Darien project and requiring the English to bail out Scotland) and after devolution (Scottish Parliament building - ditto English bailout, release convicted terrorist).

In between these events, we not only had the Scottish Enlightenment but also all the benefits of the British Empire (which the Scots were verty quick to exploit).

Hi Laura

My understanding is that Gordon Brown is the following. A member of parliament representing a Scottish constituency. A minister in a government which legislated for Scottish devolution. The current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

So he should be speaking surely on something where it would be hard for him not be more involved.... If he was lacking time he could have refrained from rushing to congratulate the English (and Welsh) cricket team.

#77 mawhis

"there was surely nothing to stop the UK Home secretary overruling this decision"

Do you think if that ever happened, that would hinder or escalate Scots' opinion towards independence?

MacAskill put up a solid performance against what at times was niaive questioning from some members of the Scottish parliament.

It was obvious from some of his answers that there is much more information to come out if certain papers can be released but this needs the consent of other parties and governments.

As long as Brown tries to remain silent on this matter it will look even more as if his involvement in the Libyan affair could come back and bite him. Perhaps he should resign before it does.