How disappointed I was this morning to read the dead tree press reports on yesterday's Ministerial Statement. I'm convinced few journalists watched the whole broadcast or have been following the Magrahi issue carefully.
The Guardian reports Mr MacAskill was 'discomforted' by Ian Gray's 'attacks'. Mr MacAskill didn't look uncomfortable to me, just irritated by the quality of Mr Gray's questions. The labour leader's constant call for the Scottish government to publish everything could well backfire on him because, much as the present government is doing its best to be transparent, some documents and details must be kept confidential for all our sakes. The Scotsman concentrated on Mr Gray's demand - no surprise there then. The Herald's account was unbiased and of the Scottish newspapers, the most accurate.
One of our dearly beloved unionist journalists, Angus Macleod, reports in The Times 'It is the first time that Scotland's Nationalist administration has joined the condemnation of the triumphal scene'. Where has Mr Macleod been all weekend? Alex Salmond was like the proverbial bad penny both on Saturday and Sunday when he continually decried the behaviour of Gadaffi and the stage-managed welcome Megrahi had on his return to Libya.
Ian MacWhirter gave a more balanced summary and opinion, while Alan Cochrane's medication must be taking effect as his account is distinctly more or less rant free.
Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting hopes yesterday's Statement, questions and answers will bring the matter to a close. I disagree. We cannot have the last public perception of this affair being the image of Megrahi arriving in Tripoli to a rent-a-mob waving possibly homemade saltires and if only for that reason the issue needs to be further investigated. Kenny MacAskill insists the Scottish government does not have the powers to do this but surely unionist MSPs could motivate their London bosses into calling for an inquiry. I certainly think there may be some political mileage for the tories and libdems if they can uncover some of the backroom deals made in recent years by the labour government.
By all accounts the opposition parties have retracted their enthusiasm for a vote of no confidence in Kenny MacAskill and therefore next Wednesday's debate may be mundane, although Christine Grahame is reported to have something of interest to say. Maybe even Jack McConnell, who was exceptionally vocal on Sunday about the decision 'damaging Scotland', may grace the Parliament with his presence. Perhaps his absence yesterday was due to his barber's appointment taking longer than expected.
Today I found the above photograph of the Scottish Parliament and rather pleasing to the eye it is too. Wardog thinks the Parliament is truly remarkable and I'm doing my very best to see his point of view.
Posts
20 comments:
Hoy - Subrosa - GV's posted a vid - and you're the star!!!
I managed to watch G Brown's press call with the Israeli PM.
He was asked (Brown) about how he felt a propos the release of ABDB Al Megrahi and the scenes when he left the plane at Tripoli.
I am almost sure that he said something during his answer to the effect that "despite" the decision of the Scottish Parliament the UK Parliament is united in its opposition to terrorism etc etc .
I obviously have paraphrased what G Broon said but, as I live outside the UK, I cannot re-listen to his words to confirm my perception that he threw a dirty smear at the SNP by way of this.
I stand ready to be corrected and wish that someone could transcribe what he actually said.
Thanks
I stand corrected having heard the appropriate soundbite on the news again.
He said that the decision taken by MacAskill on compassionate grounds does not mean, effectively that the Uk government is still against terrorism etc
Change, Not Proven
One other thought,did not Maggie release Pinochet on compassionate grounds?
Double standards does not come near to describe the response of the Unionist parties.
Well scunnert, not quite the type of star I'd like :)
For other readers, GV is at:
http://callingengland.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-for-road.html?
Billy I can't download video from the BBC, Sky or Channel 4 because they don't permit Mac downloads. :(
I missed that today, hopefully it will be repeated on Channel 4 news.
I think she did Billy but I'm sure others will correct us if we're wrong.
How long did he live for? Quite some time didn't he and once he left UK he was out of his wheelchair like a flash.
Subrosa
I believe that Pinochet lived for six years after his compassionate release. He was well enough to inspect a guard of honor when he arrived home.
Re the reporting yesterday. All these reporters were there or watched on TV. What they are reporting is their wishful thinking not the facts.
I though that none of the main opposition parties came out of this with any credit.
I leave you with a passing thought. As bad as it would be to have Gray as First Minister, just imagine the boy Baker or Rumbles as Justice Secretary. Scary eh.
Thanks for that information Dubbie. I wasn't around at the time although I suppose I did read it in the international press. I vaguely remember a TV shot of him getting out of a wheelchair.
Just imagine indeed! When I saw the 3 stooges lined up in the lobby parliament the thought did cross my mind. :)
Oh I've just heard on Newround that Kenny MacAskill proposes to publish all communications once he has authority to do so from the providers.
It seems he previously asked the UK government if he could publish their communications with regard to the PTA and it was refused.
He's trying again.
Wonder why they refused it???
Now I'm as Scottish as the next bloke - but what I don't get is the notion that it's sonehow "Unionist" to disagree with releasing a convicted murderer while it's somehow "patriotic" to let him go.
And the increasing trend amongst certain politicians to suggest Megrahi was "innocent anyway" is NOT a satisfactory argument to explain away MacAskill's decision. If it was felt he was innocent, what was to stop the Scottish government setting up an enquiry of its own under Scots Law ?
I've noticed that Jim and I don't think the decision should have anything to do with the unionist/independence issue.
Jim I can only accept Kenny MacAskill's word that the Scottish government don't have the powers to set up an enquiry. Have looked in the past few days for an explanation of that but haven't found any.
I didn't like the way some of the media interviewees were going last week, particularly Christine Grahame. Yes there may be further evidence which has come to light but why were lawyers dragging their heels? The taxpayers paid for Megrahi's legal team so was it in their interests to delay proceedings? I don't suggest that was so, but surely the wheels of law can turn faster when time is short.
Caledonian Jim,
I wonder how much of the outrage expressed by unionist politicians was generated by political expediency. I wonder if MacAskill had ruled that he had to stay in prison would every single one of them have applauded his decision. Somehow I do not think they would.
John Brownlie
I think that you have hit the nail on the head.
An opposition filled with second rate "politicians" who have never done anything of note, would have criticized MacAskill no matter what he had decided.
At present after all the sound and fury since Thursday, the only thing that they are trying to push is, MacAskill should not have visited him in prison, and he did not place him in a Scottish hospice. Hardly the vote of confidence material they thought they had. Plus everyone know they would not have had the balls to bring a VoC.
What I want to know is, has Iain Gray got mumps?
Every time I see him now his cheeks and lower face seems more puffed up than before. Perhaps he has some hormone imbalance.
However if he has mumps, it will explain why when ever he speaks in Holyrood he sounds as if he is in excruciating pain. Mumps in the older man also cause pain and swelling of the testicles.
His opportunism on this affair is quite odious. He kept silent before the decision, despite the LBC broadcasting hourly a week before the event that Magari was to be returned. And only when there was no doubt did he make his famous, "if I were first minister," gaff. So he would be acting against the deal made by New Labour with Gadafi. The thought of him as first minister of Scotland gives me the dry boak.
The one question that needs answered is where was the LBC being briefed from, to be able to pre empt the decision?
Bang on John but none has the cojones to admit it.
Sorry Dubbie, I just reiterated your point to John.
KbW it does, doesn't it. At first it was just one side. Maybe his quietness is because of this problem, who knows.
I would like a question to that too KbW. It didn't seem like an SNP leak to me but then I'm not often right!
John,
If MacAskill had refused the release it would have wrong-footed the Unionists. Many Labour MSP's would probably privately agree with the release. What the SNP government should have done is put the issue to the whole Scottish parliament, suggesting a free vote. That would have been a much more subtle way of doing things and would have stopped blame being apportioned.
That would have been a solution to the present fracas Jim but I don't know if it would have been legal.
Post a Comment