The Hypocritical Senators

The old adage ' never let party donations stand in the way of destroying an oil company' seems to run true in the US. (All right, it's not an old adage, but it should be.)

Campbell Gunn, the political editor of the Sunday Post, has come up trumps today. He's reporting both the US President and US Secretary of State have both accepted large donations from a BP employees committee. It gets even better - three out of the four senators who are upset because Kenny MacAskill refuses to attend their interrogation, have also accepted donations from a BP staff organisation.

The donations don't come from the company itself but from their Political Action Committee - a group of individuals within BP who wish to donate to a particular politician or party. There are a number of oil companies who have drilling interests in Libya and some of these have also made contributions to politicians or the Democrats.

In the donation period ending in 2008, Obama took $71,051 and Clinton $6,700 from BP staff in donations. Senator Menendez, who is chairing this week's senate investigation, received $2,000 out of the pot with Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer receiving $750 and $250 respectively.

The senators have been accused of hypocrisy. I think that's being kind to them.

Meanwhile, Alex Salmond gave a dignified interview to Adam Bolton on Sky News this morning. He spelt out the complete situation of the Scottish government (once again) and if people refuse to understand it's their problem. While I may not agree with Kenny MacAskill's decision, I'm completely convinced that he undertook the decision while adhering firmly to Scots law.

Kenny MacAskill has received a series of threats from the US over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. His personal security has been increased along with further security at his Edinburgh constituency office.

Since I wrote this I notice Tris has also posted on the subject of the 'blood money'. You can read his version here.

Tweet

More About BP

BP has confirmed it will begin drilling off the Libyan coast in the next few weeks. This follows a deal signed in 2007 with Libyan oil and gas development.

As the US has a very large stakeholding (oh how I hate that word) in BP, why haven't these 4 very vocal senators been on American television decrying this project.

Today Scotland has seen William Hague enter into the fray about the release of al-Megrahi. "It was wrong and misguided".

All I want to add is that the Westminster government should not involve themselves with our laws. That's a step or two too far. Of course, the new coalition government's aim is to bring the last labour government into disrepute regarding the al-Megrahi release and while they're at it bring the SNP government down.

At times like this I think the 'list' system of election in the Scottish Parliament is wrong. Each of our MSPs should be elected by the people regardless of the outcome.

The Scottish government's handling of this affair has shown me how my country's independent government would behave. Our government, with our own legal system if little else, has shown the world dignity and assertiveness in the face of four US senators who are seeking approval from their own fading electorate.

William Hague has joined his boss Dave to denounce the Scottish government's decision. He would be better occupied learning Scottish law rather than jumping on the bandwagon to appease US politicians. Shame on him too.

Tweet

US Gives Go-Head to BP Takeover

A few weeks ago, when the US President was attempting to act tough with BP, one of my regular readers asked the question 'What's Obama up to?' The MSM, on both sides of the Atlantic, were profuse with their commentaries, many of which desperately tried to convey President Obama as a caring individual even though he had ignored the spill for some considerable time, yet there were a few who were cynical.

We're all aware American companies were involved in the drilling process for the project but not much was said about them and their shares held their value, whilst BP's dropped like a stone; partly because of the President's vitriol aimed at BP senior management. The protests from the UK regarding the fact that nearly half of BP's shareholders are American appeared to fall on deaf ears and the US President continued to emphasise the British association with BP - until the Prime Minister decided to take some action and telephone President Obama. Since then there has been relatively little spin from the White House.

'What's Obama up to' is answered today in the Sun. The paper alleges the US oil company Exxon has been given White House approval to make a £100 billion bid for BP. Sources said Exxon was told President Obama's administration would not stand in the way of any deal. According to the article BP has been trying to persuade investors across the Middle East to buy share to stop a takeover from a rival such as Exxon.

So becoming personal about the bosses of a multinational company may well pay off for the US President. There's no doubt many in Britain will be keeping a close eye on the situation.

Tweet

Ever Regretted A Slogan?

click to enlarge

On a serious note the American blogger Barking Moonbat has a rant about the handling of the oil spill by the US President. Worth a read.

Tweet