Many of you will have read this article in today's Scotsman from David Maddox. His ability for the over-dramatic knows no bounds.
'The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment.'
I was starting to dig for accurate information when Calum's post arrived in my reader. He has analysed the article piece by piece in a clear and concise manner. Do have a read.
For the sake of balance, today's Herald is suggesting the attempt by the opposition parties to bring down Kenny MacAskill has been kicked into the long grass. Am I the only one becoming irritated by Ian Gray and his constant whining? Labour would benefit from buying a positive attitude from Debenhams or another source, then approaching matters like this without the negativity.
Magnus Linklater's piece in Tuesday's Times was missed in my post yesterday. Sometimes the comments are more enlightening that the journalist's composition.
Posts
28 comments:
Whatever this issue is, it is not about Abdelb Al Meg having terminal cancer and his probability of survival.
The decision to release him is beyond my comprehension. Experience has taught me that this means I am not getting the full salient facts.
In this case, the administration just got this wrong and it is obvious to all but some myopic nationalists.
SR,
Calum's article is extremely revealing as is the bit in today's Times trying to misdirect public opinion by alledging Kenny misled MSPs; when infact it was Annabel Goldie who was deliberately nit picking and misleading Holyrood.
Worth a 2 minute read.
As for WW above,YAWN, play a different record Onionist.
Crazy D
The Executive did Jim's bidding. Probably not directly but the medical evidence is crucial to the legal ruling, so I understand. If Megrahi is still supping honey nectar in six months time, then we shall know!
Why do the MSM not realise that in todays real-time streaming etc., those interested will listen in full to various statements, debates or interviews etc. and have no time for the heavily censored half-truths published to impress readers of a sensitive disposition?
As far as WW above - if you think that you are not in possession of the facts or cannot comprehend those given, why presume that Mr MacAskill must be wrong and not yourself? I was quite prepared to listen to Mr MacAskill's statement with a sceptical mind, after his first nervous presentation a few days before, and to consider his rebuttal to some skillful, incisive probing questions from the 'opposition'. Well, guess what?!
It's not myopia WW - it's 20/20 clear vision, the acuity missing in too many from the MSM and duped public. Have a look at Calum's post suggested by Subrosa - it may improve your field of vision in this specific aspect.
For the record, yawn, I am an SNP supporter. This does not mean they can roll me over and tickle my tummy.
How can I be sure I am right? It is called having an education, having experience and being intelligent.
But that is not the point. It is not about Gordon Brown or cancer or SNP officials.
Convicted mass murderers should lose their freedom until death. What part of the moral maze are you lost in? The same one Gordon Brown is?
WW,
Moral maze? I'm Buddhist so perhaps my take on compassion may be different to yours.
However, due to my line of work I feel I am appraised of certain agreements between the US and UK that you most definately won't be.
I wouldn't trust his conviction as far as I could throw it; but then what a mockery of Scots Law would follow....Camp Zeist - Americans involved in the process, FCO, SS intelligence provided by the USA.
CD
WW
I prefer the Scottish principle of compassion to your interpretation.
I note too that indignant Americans, who take the attitude that the murderer should stay in prison till his last breath, clearly had so much feeling for the nearly 300 innocent victims of the Teheran-Paris flight (including some 60 children) that they awarded a medal to the man who shot it down. Surely he was a mass murderer too. Why is there such a difference in the way he was treated?
"I am in the loop" "I have information that you do not, so I win"
Provide it or stop being so facile.
WW, I read somewhere in the past few days (and can't find it again) that if he'd died here then he would have been a martyr which would have had many repercussions on Scotland.
Mind you I don't suppose that theory had anything to do with the decision.
This post is about labour's behaviour in the matter, not the decision.
Morning CD, sorry I should have mentioned the Times article.
Annabel was really talking nonsense. Perhaps we should remind the tories of Pinochet.
No OR, the Scottish government's Justice Secretary made the decision.
Don't forget Pinochet now OR. :)
Morning Clarinda. The MSM need to earn a crust but as you say, they've forgotten how easily it is for us to verify information these days.
Nope, you aren't the only one Mr Gray irritates.
Ah Dougie thank you, I no longer feel alone. Gets to you though doesn't it, even his tone. I suggest when he got the job he went to the Music and Drama college for some lessons in public speaking, but obviously he doesn't read this blog.
The comment by doctor and MSP David Maddox appears to be bizarre, unprofessional and unethical. Offering an unsolicited medical opinion in public without access to full case notes and medical data. Someone should follow this up.
There may well be plenty to argue about in this decision, but the only possible resolution would surely be an application for judicial review. Is anyone stepping forward to do this? No, it appears not......
I don't have a clue about the legal requirements for an inquiry Jess although MacAskill did say the Scottish government didn't have the powers to instigate one.
I wonder if some other readers would know. Perhaps I'll try Lallands.
SR,
Sorry about the WW thing on your blog, however you understand my position more thna most.
ww,
I'm bound by the official secrets act, but to enlighten you the UK/US have Memorandums of Understanding (Referred to as MOUs) and Technical Agreements (TAs) on several different areas of Government and Defence. Particularly when it comes to operating/working together.
I am not intimating that I know more than you so I win, I just have a very informed and different perspective from you.
So get off your high horse for being educated, experienced - what in? arguing emotively? Intelligent - not by the standard of your blog.
Windy here madame,
Crazy D
SR, the Scottish Government could initiate an inquiry but it would not have the power to compel evidence in all of the areas which an inquiry into Lockerbie should look. The scope of a Scottish Government instituted inquiry would be limited to areas of devolved competence.
It would make far more sense, therefore, for the UK Government to initiate the inquiry because then it could do what it needs to do.
CC
No need to apologise CD.
Thanks for that information Calum. Much appreciated. The MSM haven't addressed the matter of an inquiry at all.
Dear Subrosa
Why do Labour and Iain Gray whine?
Politics! The petty kind; here is a Labour buzzword used by them, “anger”, if you take the time you will see this used from Curran to Brown.
Having failed to take the SNP Government to task because of SNP measures brought forward they are reduced to constant sniping.
They want to paint the SNP as slimy and sleazy as them so voters will think they are as bad as each other.
We see this all the time, SNP wants to reduce class sizes; the Labour Council closes schools.
SNP brings in council tax freeze Labour whines about cuts to services despite the SNP putting in more cash.
SNP scrap NHS car parking charges, Labour whines about PFI parking and brings in a bill to scrap them.
And it just goes on and on.
People know what Labour is and are sick of it.
They criticise MacAskill but then run round doing back door deals with the Libyans.
Labour have destroyed Scotland on many levels, they stuck their placemen into quangos to continually attempt to exercise power.
Scotland is riddled with corruption.
The task of the SNP if independence is viable is to dig these people out and put responsible people in.
The SNP have to end Labour fiefdoms.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Subrosa
Just a thought on an inquiry. Maybe the Scottish Government should hold an inquiry, even under their limited terms of reference.
When there were things they want included they could say, we asked for this evidence or this statement to be part of this inquiry but X refused to release the relevant information.
No prizes for guessing who X might be.
This may be to provocative for the SNP to undertake, maybe Calum could give a view.
That will take a few years George, and then perhaps a few years more.
They all whine don't they? I've yet to listen to a labour MSP sound reasonably cheery.
Come to think about it, they've always been the same. The upbeat SNP government just emphasise the contrast.
Yes that is another way perhaps Dubbie. I'll leave Calum to give his opinion on how viable it would be.
Section 28 of the Inquiries Act 2005 gives you the restriction - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050012_en_2#pb5-l1g27
POwers of the Scottish Parliament / Scottish Ministers are any powers which are not reserved. The list of reservations is given in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980046_en_14#sch5
There have been some alterations to that, but nothing major.
Looking at the Inquiries Act you can see that the Scottish Ministers can't set up an inquiry that's not a "Scottish matter", so they'd be restricted to writing terms of reference which concerned, in the case of Lockerbie, the actions of the Scottish police, Scottish courts, social services, etc. The Scottish Ministers couldn't even hint at asking others any questions. The remit could be left open a bit to allow the inquiry a free hand but that might be overturned by the Scottish Secretary or witnesses could refuse to attend or submit documentary evidence. There are, obviously, party political opportunities and party political risks, but they should form no part of a decision by a Government.
So you're left with a decision about whether to spend a wodge of public money on an inquiry which probably won't uncover any new information, and so won't give any satisfaction to anyone - might actually cause extra grief because hopes were raised.
Better that the Government that can hold a proper inquiry does the decent thing.
Many thanks for providing that detailed information Calum.
subrosa,
I written to my local MSP, David Whitton, and asked him, as Iain Gray seems to have a lot of unanswered questions, to ask Mr Gray to ask the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for a full inquiry into the whole Lockerbie tragedy.
They make much play regarding the feelings of the victims' relatives over this matter so this would be an ideal opportunity to throw some light, one way or the other, on their unanswered questions.
I don't hold out much hope but the answer should be interesting.
Whilst on the subject of Iain Gray, I don't know much about the present Labour MSPs but surely to God they could have picked a leader with more gumption and charisma than Gray. Where's the modern version of Denis Canavan, Robin Cook or John McAllion?
Great blog by Calum Cashley which absolutely demolished the latest Labour hand-out by Maddox.
I hope you receive an answer Brownlie. In my dealings with Westminster in the past year not even emails are answered. In fact one person, who had software which checks when an email was read, noticed it was deleted unread.
That's how interested the Westminster government are in the people.
They've all left the labour party I think Brownlie. How could anyone with any sense join these days. Of course we have the Malcolm Chisholms but they dwell on what labour was and try to ignore what it has become.
Post a Comment