| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Reluctant Hero |
Lockerbie Bomber to be releasedAccording to the Beeb, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is set to be released by Kenny MacAskill next week.Should he be released? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8201188.stm |
||||||||
| chicmac |
I would keep him in Greenock Prison.
However I would bring any members of his family who want to, over, and allow them liberal visiting rights until he passes. Plenty empty hooses in Greenock. The Uscum may well try to scupper this e.g. denial of visas etc. But then they would become the bad guys (not that they aren't already  ).
|
||||||||
| Holebender |
That poor man has been a pawn in so many ways for so long. He should be allowed to die in peace and with dignity, but I doubt if he'll even be allowed that small crumb. | ||||||||
| tubalcain |
Keep him where he is.
Three High Court Judges at his original trial found him guilty and five further judges confirmed this at his appeal. He didn't show his victims any compassion |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
And because someone fails to show compassion, does that mean that we shouldn't have any either? It's a nonsense to suggest such a thing, it's born of a quest for revenge, not justice. | ||||||||
| magister ludi |
was the prosecution of this case, or this man, ever about justice? | ||||||||
| mairead |
I think this is a difficult one. Only last week, the British government succeeded in negotiating a woman's return from a life sentence abroad. In the past, there have been other instances where this has happened. if we hope to save some British lives by getting UK citizens transferred home from foreign prisons, we have to be seen to be able to do the same.
I'm glad it's not my decision though, because it's a no win situation. |
||||||||
| The Lithgae Jambo |
...since which time new evidence has been found which casts doubt on the safety of the conviction, including the retraction of the crucial identification of Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper.
Whether he did or didn't is irrelevan; if he is guilty, then we can demonstrate we're far better than him by showing him that compassion for the last fwe weeks of his life. |
||||||||
| tubalcain |
Leave him to rot where he is | ||||||||
| Red Justice |
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should be released from prison in Greenock and be able to return to Libya to spend his final days. al-Megrahi had been actively pursuing appeals and his initial conviction was the result of a witch-hunt, not a trial. Al-Mehradi has been the unfortunate victim of a propaganda war launched against the Libyan nation and should be allowed to die with his family and friends in Libya.
If MacAskill and the SNP led Scottish government do not release him this month I shall never forgive them. An update is on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8204316.stm |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
I'm sure this news will deeply concern them!
It's a fair comment to say though that depending on how well McAskill and co. handle this issue will reflect on the whole government, it has such a high profile both nationally and internationally that any error(s) in judgement will be magnified massively. Given that and given how interested parties seem to be in considering how every decision will reflect in the media and on their party you have to ask whether or not MP's or MSP's should have the authority to make such decisions ... of course, the same arguement could be used either way 
|
||||||||
| urchurdan |
compassion v revenge?My take on this is that the feelings of all of the victims families is paramount, if the majority of them have the forgiveness in their hearts to free him, then that has to be a vital part of the decision making.None of us can begin to imagine how they feel about this, they are victims just as much as their loved ones were. I hope they have been canvassed about this, I do agree however, that the difficult final decision must come from the Politicians - and I too am glad I am not in this no win situation, however, that is the reason we pay them Hollywood wages. |
||||||||
| chicmac |
Re: compassion v revenge?
Interestingly, I believe under Islamic Sharia law as applied in some Arab states, a victim's relatives can ask for the death penalty if the court finds the defendant guilty of murder. The victim's family is also entitled to waive such a right and demand "blood money" in its stead. Don't know if this applies in Libya, but it would be rather ironic if it does because there is no precedent under Scottish Law (or English Law or American Law) for involving relatives in the sentencing procedure and this does seem to be a major factor in this case. From what I can tell from the small subset of Lockerbie victim's relatives appearing on TV, the majority of them are for him serving out his sentence so if Sharia Law applied here that is probably what would happen, But in Scottish Law there is no legal requirement to pay heed to the victim's families' opinions. As I said - ironic. IMV Brown and the rest of anti-Scottish Labour will condemn the SNP decision whether they send him to Libya or keep him in Greenock. Once again the Upress are being predictably delinquent here when clearly they should at least be making an attempt to get a statement from Brown and co as to their personal positions on the issue before the Scottish Government decision. I reiterate that both the wishes of those who want him to serve out his sentence and those who want the state to display compassion can be catered for. His family could easily be brought over here and provided with accommodation and liberal visiting rights until he passes. This should at least allay the concerns of those with genuine compassion who do not want to see the man die alone if not those who would see him released for some political reason or because they believe him innocent and the victim of conspiracy. It should also satisfy those who want him to serve the complete sentence. I am also sure it would be the solution least appealing to Brown and his cohorts. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: compassion v revenge?I would like to see him stay detained. Whether it is in Greenock or back in Libya - if such a thing could possibly be guaranteed - I don't care. However his actions resulted in the murder of hundreds of people, and he has thus far served a fairly insignificant time in prison.
Is there any person or group who are not Scottish nationalists that you believe not to be 'anti-Scottish'? Out of curiosity, do you see the majority of the Scottish population as being 'anti-Scottish'? Or is it just the ones who make a career out of politics? |
||||||||
| chicmac |
Re: compassion v revenge?
Reading comprehension revision for you. I'm not even saying all of Scottish Labour are Anti-Scottish. In fact I know there are a lot of Scottish-first Labour folk out there. |
||||||||
| urchurdan |
I think this argument SHOULD transcend party politics, but I am afaid it won't. It is the job of the Opposition to oppose, that goes without saying - if however, ANY person or Party tries to capitalise on this unfortunate affair that will be very unfortunate.
I have however, enough faith in ALL my fellow Scots to see through the shallowness of such an attempt. If I was pressed to give my personal opinion, I would agree with Chicmac's opinion that his family could be brought here. Anyway round, it is a stinker for any Politician to make. I only hope that Justice can be tempered with compassion, and a way can be found so that all parties concerned are satisfied. I guess I am looking for a Judgement of Solomon - Its a great weight for any Politician to be carrying round with him/her. my sincere good wishes are with them that they get it right. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Re: compassion v revenge?
Ironically, the present situation arose out of an agreement, or "understanding", reached between the UK government and the government of Libya. So it would probably be very difficult for Gordon Brown personally to denounce any decision to transfer Megrahi to Libya. But that won't stop him from giving a nod and a wink to other members of his party to do so. And if the decision should be to keep Megrahi in jail in Scotland, they will denounce that also. |
||||||||
| landg |
given kenny mckaskill's familiarity of the wrong side of prison bars i can see why he would want to release this convicted mass murderer.
i for one will be mortified as a scot if this convicted mass murderer is released.compassion? where was his compassion whe he was blowing up hundreds of people. who else would we like to see released if they are dying? ian huntly? peter sutcliffe? rosie west? |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: compassion v revenge?
Well, it's an interesting point, considering that the SNP front bench have called every non-nationalist party in the Scottish Parliament "anti-Scottish" at some point.
I suspect the UK Government know what they want from this issue and will be pushing for it - and, indeed, will get it. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Re: compassion v revenge?
|
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: compassion v revenge?
I didn't say there was. The 'compassionate release' option which seems to be the favourite at the moment doesn't concern the government's agreements with Libya regarding prisoner transfer though. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
I think the idea that Megrahi alone committed this act is preposterous. Furthermore, I have no confidence that he had any involvement at all.
My view is that the Lockerbie bombing was committed by Iran in retaliation for America shooting the Iranian plane down the year before. IIRC the Americans even blamed the Iranians themselves initially. I think it's an extremely unsafe conviction, with massive political influence and corruption rife throughout. There are far too many allegations of CIA drug running, American agents hastily removing evidence from the fields around Lockerbie, VIPs being removed from the flight, the paying of and/or influencing of the Maltese guy and his 'recollections' and so on. Libya was the bad guy at the time and Megrahi and his co-accused became the scapegoats. Why did the other one not get convicted? It hardly suggests a watertight case. I'm not one for conspirancy theories (almost all are utter bullshit) but I simply do not believe a word of the official line from the American or UK governments over Lockerbie. And the behaviour of both governments in the subsequent 20 years since has done nothing to change this view. If anything, it's made me distrust the official line even more. Megrahi's passing will be convenient for both the UK and American governments, who will be allowed to wrap up this wholly unsatisfactory episode. As for his release, then I think he should be released if he truly is at death's door, regardless of his guilt. As others have pointed out, we in the west are very good at complaining when our nationals get banged up abroad for even the most serious crimes (except when they are being extradited to the US, of course, these days). Refusing the release of a man who will be gone anyway in a matter of weeks or months seems hardly worth losing any 'bargaining power' in the international community over. Much like going into illegal wars, we should be leading by example, not taking a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to international relations. At the very least if he is not to be released, then his family should be allowed over here to be with him. I hope one day the truth about Lockerbie will come out, because I doubt we've heard even the half of it. While not being personally involved, and suffering no loss of friends or family, Lockerbie was still a major event of my teenage years. Living just a couple of minutes further up the flight path from Lockerbie it could so easily have landed in my town, on the night of my grandparents' golden wedding anniversary celebrations. A time before mobile phones, where a night of carefree celebration turned into the most stunningly serious event on our return home with such an incredible contrast from just a short time before that I doubt I'll ever see again. |
||||||||
| urchurdan |
Compassionate SocietyI have no great personal sense of compassion for any murderer, however, I do believe that as a a nation renowned for its legal system - one of the oldest in the world, which both the English and American systems owe so much to, (a fact that the Americans should remember at this time, I am more than perturbed by their 'interference' in this subject, they have gone away beyond advice - and Dave, don't jump down my throat, the present Mrs Urquhart is also an American from Iowa,) should due to its maturity, be still leading the way and demonstrating that very maturity that does indeed allow us to temper Justice with compassion.That said, I do not want him released either, and much prefer the idea that his family be brought here and given open visiting rights. Either that, or he is transferred to a prison in Lybia and a guarantee given that he remains in it till he dies. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Re: Compassionate Society
My two step-daughters are American of course. Although you would never know this from the Scottish accent of the younger one. But both Mrs Urquhart and the other two children from my previous relationship ALSO hold American passports, despite being born and raised in the UK, on account of Mrs Coull's predecessor ALSO being American. |
||||||||
| urchurdan |
magic DaveLoL....Magic Dave, definitley doing their bit for my wee Clan, I was trying to make the point that I have no personal axe to grind against the Americans, apart from the fact that they are making their Justice system look like it is based on vengance rather than Justice tempered with compassion.As I write, I have just learned that the man in question is now on a plane to Lybia. I only hope the right decision was made, it is such an emotive subject. There is no doubt that he was complicit in the terrible event over Lockerbie, and for that, I hope he burns in Hell for ever, he will soon have to answer to whatever god he prays to for that. However, what happens now to his accomplices? Or the fact that the Lybian Government itself will now be free from being found to be complicit in this act of International terrorism? Will the American and the London Governments now be heaving a HUGE sigh of relief - despite their previous posturing? There are so many questions that demand answers, answers that will unfortunately die with this man in Lybia. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I don't think anyone would suggest he did, simply that the others involved haven't been brought to justice.
You're essentially then accusing four Scottish High Court judges - a significant portion of the top echelons of our legal system - of being corrupt, and indeed probably the rest of the College of Justice of turning a blind eye. That's quite an accusation.
The two were brought up for different things: evidence against one does not have bearing on evidence against another. The co-accused was released because the evidence against him wasn't properly corroborated. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
Others haven't been brought to justice because Megrahi has been scapegoated. I don't know if he had any involvement or not, but I suspect he had little to no involvement. And no, I can't prove that.
I think that's a simplistic take on what I've said. I did not say that the judges were corrupt. I think the investigating authorities, right up to the top of government have been corrupt. The UK and US governments with their power games which effectively amount to terrorism, and with their political games in blaming Libya, when the likely candidate was an Iran seeking revenge for the terrorist act (without wanting to sound emotive) of shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner. I have not outright accused the judges of this corruption, however it IS worth pointing out that some of the victims' relatives who attended the trial every day, the most high profile being Dr Swire, have said that the trial was essentially a farce and that they could not believe that the conviction succeeded due to the weakness of the evidence. Indeed there are high profile members of the Scottish legal profession who share this view. I don't know this for myself, of course. If true, then this could be due to corruption, but I think it more likely due to incompetence or perhaps a combination of factors.
Yes, of course. But I remember at the time getting the feeling that it was inconceivable that both could be acquitted due to the massive implications of admitting that the case was either incredibly weak, or the process flawed or somehow screwed up. I know feelings carry little weight in this, but perhaps the case against Megrahi was the stronger of the two, but still not really strong enough to go "beyond reasonable doubt", but the huge pressure resulted in the benefit of the doubt going to the prosecutors. This is not how justice should work, if this is what has happened. I've been thinking in recent days of this whole concept of "beyond reasonable doubt". I note too that a programme was on STV tonight about the Lesley Molseed case. Take the case of Stefan Kiszko who was originally convicted of killing Lesley Molseed, "beyond reasonable doubt". Take the cases of countless other miscarriages of justice. Clearly the facts in many of these cases (not all, because some were only released due to unsafe convictions rather than outright proof of innocence) were that the accused DID NOT do the crimes in question. We have actual proof of innocence in Kiszko's case. Therefore, it follows that there COULDN'T have NOT been reasonable doubt in his case and many others where proof of innocence was later found, yet the convictions still succeeded. Clearly these cases were judged NOT on reasonable doubt but on balance of probabilities. In effect, Stefan Kiszko would have had to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE at the time of the original trial in order to have not been convicted. Indeed, his eventual release was in fact because of this very fact, i.e. he was PROVED innocent. He was not released because there was reasonable doubt in the evidence that convicted him, which there MUST have been even at the start. He was released because of proof of innocence, which I find astounding. It's a subtle point to make, but even if Kiszko's defence had been aware that he was unable to produce sperm/semen AT THE TIME, he should still have been able to be NOT CONVICTED at that time, because he simply did not do it. Logic would mean that because he COULDN'T have done it then the evidence at the time was used either in a balance of probabilites way, which it should not be, or that evidence was incorrectly used in determining guilt, or that some of the evidence was either wrong or fabricated. If evidence was not wrong or fabricated then there MUST HAVE been reasonable doubt even back then. Apologies for the rambling, but I think it's important to make these points. I think that to prove any case BEYOND reasonable doubt is very difficult indeed, and so, in reality, many if not most criminal cases are indeed decided on balance of probability. I think this is very worrying, especially as the burden of proof is actually being pushed more and more on the accused in recent years. There have been so many miscarriages of justice where in the original case it was proved "beyond reasonable doubt". How could it have been when it is later proved, and actually proved, not just beyond doubt, that the person did not do it? I suppose it depends on your definition of "reasonable", but perhaps if we can agree that the definition of "reasonable" is not universal, then it should also follow that it can't be right to take a black and white view when someone is successfully prosecuted about something, i.e. we should always be open to listening to appeals much more readily and accept that there will be convicted people who are telling the truth when they say they are innocent. I therefore think that it's simplistic to take the view that just because someone is convicted then that actually equates to the facts being that the person did it. I think that especially applies in such high profile cases such as Megrahi, where the prosecution can't be 'allowed' to fail. If we accept this level of false convictions in our justice system, then I think we really have to massively improve the appeals process. It can't be right that the likes of Kiszko can rot in a jail for something he didn't and couldn't do, meanwhile he has incredible difficulty in actually getting appeals. And why should he have to prove his innocence in appeals, when the burden should have been the other way round in the first place? Incidentally, Kiszko was convicted by a combination of false testimony (teenage girls falsely claiming he exposed himself to them, which they later admitted they said "for a laugh") and corruption in the police by not making sure he got proper representation before bullying a confession out of an essentially mentally lightweight man. What was said about Kiszko has also been said about Megrahi, i.e. that he showed no remorse for his crimes. Now, clearly we don't know fur sure if Megrahi IS innocent, but if he is, why should he have to admit guilt? In fact, some are even saying that he has essentially admitted guilt by withdrawing his appeal, but clearly he felt that if he didn't withdraw his appeal, then he was unlikely to be released before dying. Kiszko could perhaps have 'ended' his ordeal earlier by confessing, but he didn't do it. I know this is slightly going off topic now, but I think the justice system, in many countries, not just here, is seriously flawed in the protection of innocents, especially the mentally challenged. Miscarriages of justice are not taken seriously enough. Neither is the crime of giving false evidence to incriminate somebody else, nor police corruption. Both should be punished much more severely, but at the moment they are barely even pursued, let alone punished. I don't know if Megrahi is guilty or not, but I think there is obviously enough doubt about this, and for quite some time now too, that there should now be a full enquiry without delay. But I don't hold out much hope for that because it relies on the co-operation of two essentially corrupt governments and many corrupt investigating and prosecuting entities. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
The Americans interference is fake, they are relieved that it is over but have to act 'hard' for their dumb voters.
McAskill did them, the previous Liberal/Labour Executive and the UK a favour be dressing up his speech in christian morals and a notion of a high ground of presbyterian fairness. He wished he could have just said "Look, this guy promises to drop the peeal and save you lot, and the scottish justice system, a great deal of embarrassment" To which Hilary and Obama should have replied "thank Christ (the only christian reference needed) we were shiteing it." |
||||||||
| babykitten |
Totally agree. Will be interesting to see how the whole sorry tale develops. I don't think we've heard the end of it. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Even if listening to his pulpit-bashing oration was rather, shall we say, cringeworthy. |
||||||||
| Cruachan |
"Scotland the Brave" sometimes has an artificial, hollow ring and can be put alongside the tartan and shortbread and tourist attractions, but yesterday was the real thing.
This was true Government (with Kenny MacAskill acting in a quasi-judicial role) based on principles of justice and compassion. It was a real moment of truth for the Scottish Government. I don't pretend to know whether the original conviction of Al Megrahi was the right decision, but a Scottish Court, (sitting on Dutch soil) made a judgement based on the evidence and the law. There continues to be debate about Al-Megrahi's guilt or otherwise and a number of the relatives of the Scottish victims at Lockerbie seem to be convinced that the real plotters and perpetrators of the outrage have never been brought to justice. Many more of the American victims' families are equally convinced of his guilt and remain angry and sometimes vengeful. However, Al Megrahi - a convicted mass murderer - is a dying man. Seen through the eyes of the victims' families, all they ever wanted was to see their own loved ones walking down the stairs of a plane after that fateful journey. I did have mixed feeling watching the perhaps inevitable celebrations at Tripoli Airport and the strange site of St Andrew flags being waved, but it was a good day. Over and above the rights and wrongs of the case itself, what struck me most about yesterday's events was that this was a glimpse at the future. Scotland taking responsibility for its own affairs and the consequences for its actions. Despite heavy pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, in the full glare of the world's media spotlight, Kenny MacAskill made a brave decision yesterday and his clear and dignified statement set out the case convincingly. Scotland standing tall saying this is us, this is what we believe, this is what we stand for. The future is within our grasp |
||||||||
| Rinty |
I think you are naive Cruachan, if you think that this was Scotland standing up and standing alone.
This is all part of the same sequence of events from Gaddaffi paying the compensation to the Libyan oilfields opening up to western firms. Everyone - USA, UK, Scottish Justice System, Scottish Govt, Libya, Megrahi, MacAskill, benefits from this, they jusy have to pretend that their stance is something else as a pill for their voters to swallow. |
||||||||
| Cruachan |
Thanks for the feedback Rinty. I shall defend to the death your right to hold your opinion and my right to disagree! No doubt there are wider issues at play, and all sorts of back-channel discussions, there usually are. I also thought Obama's "criticism" of the Scottish Government was fairly muted. But to deny the point about how this has been handled showing Scotland as a self confident country able and willing to make the "right" decision still stands. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
Having now read the full 82 page (double spacing though, so more like 40 pages) ruling from the original trial, I am even more convinced that Megrahi had nothing to do with this.
There is absolutely no way that the case against Megrahi was proven beyond reasonable doubt. At the very most, the verdict should have been "not proven", but even then I find little justification for that. The judges in their ruling actually go as far as to point out the serious flaws in the evidence, most of which is circumstantial only, yet simply ignore these flaws and come to utterly perverse conclusions that simply cannot be supported by the evidence. Furthermore, conclusions are made where there is actually NO evidence. i.e. there are many places where the conclusion is just supposition of what MIGHT have happened, even going as far as to use words like "might" and "may", yet ultimately come to a conclusion of what DID happen based on that. This is not justice. It is an outright farce. Even if you only read the judges' own ruling (easily available online) then no right-minded person can seriously support the conclusions arrived at. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
It was actually just 3 judges who made the decision. This is substantially less than the 15 that make up a Scottish jury. I'm not sure what the official line was for not having a jury, but I suspect a jury would have rejected both these cases. I would further suggest that the authorities knew this and pushed for not having a jury, resulting in, if not a more easy-to-corrupt proceedings, but certainly a proceedings much more keenly aware of the potential damage to the Scottish justice system of dual acquitals which perhaps a jury would be less concerned with. To acquit both would have made a mockery of the special court in the Netherlands and by extension the whole Scottish legal system not to mention the UK and US authorities investigating and prosecuting these cases. We have to also remember that much of the run up to this trial was before devolution or just at the start of devolution, but certainly at a time when the Scottish legal profession did not, if you like, have the 'protection' of a proper Scottish "Government" like we have today, i.e. a government that would defend the integrity of the Scottish legal system. Scots Law at the time of Lockerbie was essentially unrepresented by a government, as Westminster couldn't really care less what happened to it. Indeed it would gladly have seen the back of it then just as in 1707. It suited London government to have these trials under Scots Law, because any embarrasing failure either then or in the future (e.g. the flaws appearing now) would reflect badly on the Scottish Legal system and help to undermine that particular aspect of the Scottish Nation and society and conveniently also arguments for independence. Having the trial under Scots Law also gave London the opportunity to push UK and US politics and foreign policy towards stitching up Megrahi and Libya in this matter without endangering the integrity of English law or US law, both of which are sacrosanct to the UK and the US respectively. The Scottish legal system did not have the normal state apparatus behind it either at the time of the bombing or indeed even at the time of the trial when the Scottish government was but a mere puppet of Westminster. This meant that it was unable to be resist being bullied or forced into prosecuting a deeply flawed case, knowing that any exposure of this would reflect badly on itself much more than the UK and US governments. In this respect, I would argue that Scots Law and the Scottish legal system was also a scapegoat in this whole sorry affair. |
||||||||
| mac |
Agree with you, BK, the majority of the western world will be stunned by this and the decision may have unfortunate repurcussions for any potential independence, and for a country struggling to stand on its own two feet.
Those in the middle east already think we are a laughing stock. 
|
||||||||
| Luke P |
http://www.forengland.org/talk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=90
Interesting point of view on the matter... |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
No it's not it's the usual frothing at the mouth nonsense that supposed to upset Scottish people ... I'm singularly not bovvered. |
||||||||
| Zed |
If England are not happy with the current settlement within the union, why don't they do something about it ? Seems English nationalists and those campaigning for an English parliament are just happy to sit at their keyboards and snipe at all they percieve is wrong. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Tomorrow's fish wrapper. We'll still sell them tartan. |
||||||||
| Cruachan |
Rinty wrote:
I think you are naive Cruachan, if you think that this was Scotland standing up and standing alone. This is all part of the same sequence of events from Gaddaffi paying the compensation to the Libyan oilfields opening up to western firms. Everyone - USA, UK, Scottish Justice System, Scottish Govt, Libya, Megrahi, MacAskill, benefits from this, they jusy have to pretend that their stance is something else as a pill for their voters to swallow. Setting aside my own "naivety" and your conspiracy theory, just for a minute, if - as you say - everyone benefits, why are you so upset? Do you think this was the right decision by MacAskill?
|
||||||||
| mac |
Well, I was on the fence but this decision has helped make up my mind - we cannot be trusted to run our own affairs.
http://www.boycottscotland.com/ |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
That's why I always phone my neighbour when I have to make a decision 
|
||||||||
| The Lithgae Jambo |
So you're happy for us to be run by a UK Gov which has been complicit in freeing from prison many healthy terrorists for whom guilt was certain and for whom death was not imminent (a policy which, incidentally, was approved of by the US Govt) ? |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Its only fair. I've been boycotting America since Bush came to power 
|
||||||||
| Holebender |
Err... no... you've got it all wrong; he want's us to be run by the US Government. Mind you, being run by the UK government amounts to the same thing in reality; Hillary says jump and Gordon asks how high. Just don't expect me to be paying any of that damned tea tax! |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Also, I ownder if they'll boycott the Declaration of Independence - after all, its based on Scotland's. Lets not forget their navy as well! |
||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Are we supposed to take lessons on the meaning of justice from the country that gave a presidential pardon to Lt. William Calley after the My Lai massacre? People who talk about Al Megrahi not showing any compassion to the victims so he should not get any are startlingly naive, in my opinion. As an intelligence officer of a rogue totalitarian regime he wasn't exactly in a position to say, "Sorry Muammar old bean, but my conscience won't allow me to carry out this particular mission", was he? That doesn't let Al Megrahi off the hook in criminal responsibility terms but the harshest punishments to be dished out in The Hague should have been to the big shot who gave the order to carry out the mission not to the pleb who proceeded to followed those orders probably fearing what would happen to himself and his family if he didn't. When a major oil producer is involved things don't work like that, however. Nowadays, the real culprit gets friendly visits from British prime ministers and Prince Andrew despite Lockerbie and the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
The Scottish justice secretary, acting in accordance with Scottish law and after due consideration and consultation, releases a terminally ill man whose conviction was widely believed to be flawed, and whose appeal against that conviction was widely considered likely to succeed, and who was given the choice between trying to succeed (posthumously) with that appeal, and seeing his family, including his 94 year old mother, before he dies. The USA protests. Yet the USA actively SUPPORTED the release of other convicted terrorists. In fact, the USA put pressure on the British government to release large numbers of terrorists who not only confessed their guilt but took pride in it and who were welcomed back as heroes by their communities, as part of the "Good Friday Agreement". | ||||||||
| voiceofourown |
And what do you think it is that makes us, as a people, unable to run our own affairs? Is it a genetic thing? Is it shared by any other nation do you think? I look forward to your views. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
We cannot be trusted to know why we cannot be trusted to run our own affairs. We're tae dae as we're telt!
Oh... hold on a minute... Mac is posting from Florida and he says "we". Maybe I misunderstood, maybe he meant "we Floridians cannot be trusted to run our own affairs". Who am I to argue with that? I certainly wouldn't want to try to tell the good people of Florida how to conduct themselves, just as I'm sure they would never be so foolish as to try to tell Scotland's inhabitants how to take care of their own business. Would they? |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
On the 3rd of July 1988, Iran Air flight IR655 was over the Straits of Hormuz, in Iranian air space, on the regular scheduled flight to Dubai. The US navy ship Vincennes fired two missiles at this passenger plane, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children. Most of the dead were Iranian, but there were also citizens of the UAE, India, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, and Italy on board the plane. Despite it being established almost immediately that the flight was a civilian flight, the USS Vincennes received a hero's welcome back to the USA at the port of San Diego, and the Captain of that ship, who had given the order to fire the missiles which killed 290 civilians, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour by President Reagan.
I wonder how the relatives of those 290 folk, including the 66 children, felt, on seeing a mass murderer welcomed back as a hero, and being given a medal by his country's Head of State? Revenge is an ugly emotion, but it would not be surprising if some of them would have agreed with the Ayatollah Khomeini that "the skies would rain blood" in revenge. Five months later, the skies rained blood over Lockerbie. |
||||||||
| Red Justice |
I have to applaud the decision taken by Kenny MacAskill to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on Thursday. Some of the relatives of the victims have consistently cast doubt over Mr Megrahi’s conviction. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, recently told BBC radio. “I don’t believe the verdict is right. It would be an abominable cruelty to force this man to die in prison.”
Little is known without an appeal or much needed public inquiry. Perhaps we will never know the truth and if some other country like Iran was involved. However the Scottish government made the correct decision in releasing al-Megrahi and Alex Salmond has rightly defended that decision. The Scottish Justice system allows for compassion and this is only right especially when a prisoner is terminally ill. I however still support George Galloway's call for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. And Scotland has nothing to be ashamed of in releasing al-Megrahi. Shame on UK ministers who have commented in a way that is political point scoring against the Scottish government. |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
and further to that shame on senior uk ministers who have failed to comment at all. |
||||||||
| Nautilus |
So you're suggesting that we all descend to his level and exact maximum revenge, because that is all you are recommending. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
If Kenny MacAskill for one moment operated on the presumption that Megrahi was innocent then he acted improperly.
Now, I've heard plenty of Nats complain when the UK Government disagrees with the SNP. Now it appears anything other than express agreement isn't good enough! |
||||||||
| mal |
If the Jury had existed at this trial it`s an absolute nap that a verdict of "Not Proven" would`ve been the result. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
I think you need new reading glasses. The poster chided ministers for failing to comment not for failing to agree. I think we should all know where the UK's government's most senior figures stand on this affair. |
||||||||
| Jimbo |
Are you advocating that America be re-instated as a British colony? |
||||||||
| Nautilus |
MegrahiAnyone with a mind to criticise Kenny MacAskill’s decision to send the mass killer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to die in his own country should look at the kind of justice meted out to Captain Rogers, the CO of the USS Vincennes who brought down Air Iran flight 655 with the loss of 290 lives in the Persian Gulf.Everyone knows the story of Pan Am flight 103 which fell on Lockerbie, killing 11 residents of that town and 259 passengers. Far fewer know the story of Iran Air flight 655. The aircraft, an Airbus 320, was due to take off on a flight from Bandar Abbas airport in Iran on a short 150 mile flight to Abu Dhabi with a passenger list of business men and their families. The listed departure time was 9.59 am. The date was the 3rd of July 1988. It left 18 minutes late (not unusual) at 10.17 am. Local Time. The flight was only 150 miles and involved a climb to 14,000 ft, a short cruise at that altitude and then a descent into Dhubai airport. . On take-off the on-board the aircraft ‘identification friend or foe’ (IFF) transponder was switched on and responding to the Vincennes radar, identifying the aircraft as civilian. The CO of Vincennes mistakenly identified the aircraft as descending and hostile, whereas, at 7 minutes into its flight when it was hit, it was still climbing. Fearing an imminent attack, Captain Rogers ordered the firing of 2 SM-2 missiles, one or both of which blew the aircraft out of the sky. It crashed in flames into the Persian Gulf with the loss of 290 civilian lives (20 more than Lockerbie). Link: http://press.princeton.edu/books/rochlin/chapter_09.html Captain Rogers was not handed over to the Iranians as a mass murderer and sentenced to 27 years in jail - or even court-martialled for incompetence (By all accounts the panic on board would have done credit to ‘Dad’s Army’). No, he was awarded the ‘Legion of Merit’, America’s second highest accolade and – get this – ‘For meritorious conduct’! Today in the press we have a tirade from the Director of the FBI, criticizing the Scottish Justice System, a system hundreds of years older than America itself. He has accused Kenny MacAskill of 'making a mockery of justice', of 'rewarding terrorists', and of 'making a mockery of the grief of the relatives'. Why should anyone in Scotland listen to this rant coming from a country that actively rewarded mass killing over the Persian Gulf and bangs up prisoners, innocent or guilty for years without trial...without hope in Guantamo? Scotland is an ancient proud country, proud enough to stand up for its ancient democratic principles. The Declaration of Independence was even cribbed from The Declaration of Arbroath. I wish they would abide by its tenets. |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
That wan't the point I was making. Currently we're in a situation where virtually every major political figure with any interest in this has had something to say on the matter and yet the views of the Prime Minister and other senior governmental MP's are unknown. Whether there views are supportive or otherwise is irrelevant, however, we should be given an idea where they stand on the matter. Currently the Labour party can take a duplicitious view, openly opposing the actiontaken in Scotland via their Scottish branch, opposing the action behind the closed doors to the american from Westminster, whilst also supporting the actions behind closed doors to the Libyans. I don't expect Westminster to agree with our government, I just expect them to be honest about it. I've had enough of devious and dishonest politicians making a hash of things. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
I don't think this is the case, but let's assume it is. Why would this be improper? You could argue that if he knew that he was innocent, or knew that the appeal would succeed (having perhaps seen the appeal evidence) and therefore that the initial conviction was wrong, then he has done the right thing by releasing him now, since it's likely he would die before the appeal could conclude. You could also argue that if indeed the appeal was bound to succeed then releasing him now is wrong because it will prevent the appeal being heard and an injustice being corrected. On the face of it, this is a strong argument, however, there's two points here. It appears that compassionate release is NOT dependent on either remorse being shown or that no appeals are underway. Therefore, there was no need for the appeal NOT to be heard for compassionate release to happen. Furthermore, even if he is to die before the appeal is to be concluded, there is still no reason why it can't proceed after his death. The dropping of the appeal is the part of this that bothers me the most. I feel it is obvious that Megrahi has been made to feel (if not outright told) that his compassionate release was dependent on his dropping of the appeal. This is wrong. Releasing him is not, whether he was released on compassionate grounds or on the basis that the appeal would succeed. |
||||||||
| mac |
Scotland needs world support if they want independenceReleasing this convict will not encourage support for Scotland - I think we (meaning "We Scots") may have shot ourselves in the foot on this one...
|
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Because it would not have been his legal place to make such an assessment, he would be second-guessing the judiciary and he lacks the legal power to free someone on any basis other than those provided for by law - suspicion of innocence not being one.
You cannot know what a court will find.
It doesn't bother you that it would be entirely illegal and involve government meddling in judicial matters? |
||||||||
| Fidget |
Why is it wrong? The law says release on compassionate grounds can't be considered while another case for release is being considered. That sounds logical to me. So why is that wrong? If you ask me he's lucky the law doesn't also say that once in progress, an action for release cannot be dropped in favour of raising another that might have more chance of success. |
||||||||
| calum |
Can't believe that some people here are either overlooking facts or failing to raise pertinent questions.
Firstly, - can any reasonable person say that this man IS guilty, given the lack or evidence and recent disclosures regarding the only 'witness' in the case? - was there a jury at the trial? No. - why did internal US memos apparently point the finger at Iran and Syria who shortly after suddenly became allies in the first Iraq war? - IF he is indeed guilty, then surely he was working under orders and with the support of the Libyan state. Why then is it morally superior for London and the US do shake hands with Gadaffi and do oil deals with him? - if 'compassion' should not be shown to murderers, why was Biggs released? Why did the Lib Dems help get a child murderer released? IMO, this will blow over once the press have something else to stir up. It's interesting the London Labour are actually offering MacAskill some measure of support. Wonder why? Most Yanks, even their government don't know the first thing about devolution and Scotland. What with CIA torture being investigated and an annual US murder rate of 16000 or more, i think they have their own house to get in order first. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
The report which lead to the second appeal is apparently some 800 pages with 13 appendices. I would hazard a guess that anyone reading it will come to the conclusion that the original conviction was a farce.
Indeed. Look at the original ruling, which if you read you will find simply doesn't support the conclusions.
That's funny. Like the original government meddling? Does that not bother you? Frankly, such meddling would not bother me, when it is to correct an injustice. I would prefer that there was never such meddling, but I'm hardly about to get concerned where it is to speed up the release of people subject to such an obvious case of injustice. Anyway, that's all theoretical. Out of interest, Aventinian, have you read the original ruling? I'd be interested in your own thoughts having read it. Do you think the original conviction was safe? Even WITHOUT current revelations and material related to the latest appeal, I think that the original conviction on the evidence at the time, was unsafe. Recent information just formalises this. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
Well, it's my understanding that this is not true. I've have read several articles recently that state that compassionate release is NOT dependent on there being no outstanding appeals or other such claims. I don't know this myself though, just going on what I've read. I'd be interested to find out for sure. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Re: Scotland needs world support if they want independence
You consider Scots (uniquely on this planet) incapable of governing themselves so I think your opinion can be safely ignored on all matters. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
Some people have made the point that 3 judges in the initial trial PLUS 5 in the first appeal have confirmed Megrahi's guilt, but as Robert Black QC points out:
Megrahi's first appeal was an appeal against his sentence, and was not an appeal that the conviction was unsafe. Many have criticised his legal team for not making the first appeal on the basis that the judges made conclusions that could not be supported by the evidence, which is a valid grounds for appeal. Robert Black QC explains in the above quote that to say that 8 judges convicted him (the initial 3, with 5 then reaffirming it) is entirely untrue. The judges in the first appeal did not have to consider the quality of the evidence AT ALL. Essentially, the first appeal was as much a farce as the original trial. One last unrelated point. It has been widely reported that Megrahi only served 8 years of his 27 year sentence. Well, in actual fact, his sentence was BACKDATED to the date of his initial extradition, which was in 1999, and not started from his conviction date. He had already spent 2 years in jail awaiting trial, so he has actually served 10 years of his 27 year sentence. Not that this will sway anybody at all, but it's just another example of the poor quality of reporting in this matter. Megrahi has spent 10 years in custody outside his own country, and perhaps longer in Libya beforehand. This is a very long time for somebody who appears to be innocent. People might argue that I'm some sort of apologist for terrorists but let me tell you that the real apologists are those who are interested only in stitching up the defenceless for political conveniences. The families of Pan Am 103 and the memories of those who died would be far better served by getting to the truth of this disgraceful affair once and for all, and put efforts into prosecuting those truly responsible. |
||||||||
| Fidget |
Yet anybody factually innocent would've gone straight to an appeal about their conviction being a miscarriage of justice, not to an appeal against the length of their sentence. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
People do what the law allows and their legal advisors advise. Appealing the sentence may have been the quickest option available. | ||||||||
| Zed |
Nice of Lord Fraser to turn up drunk on Newsnight Scotland to give his views on the matter.... 
|
||||||||
| urchurdan |
Ian HamiltonI am a great admirer of Ian Hamilton QC, he wrote a letter to the editor of the Scottish Banner who was worried about the reaction of her American readers. His eloquence is superb as usual, I take the liberty of copying it here, it is taken from his Internet blog, it mentions something we have all forgotten about - the release of the murdering scum in Ireland by the Uk Government in connivance with American Politicians:-Quote.....American Reaction To Megrahi’s Release I have received a letter from the editor of the Scottish Banner, the paper of the Scottish diaspora. She is in great distress and claims that her readers are now hostile to Scotland. She asks for my view. Here is my reply Dear Val, Here are my views and you may publish them. Kenny MacAskill like everyone else in this country is ruled by Scots law. Over the years we have taken a different view of the value of human life, even that of murderers. Between 1928 and 1946 no one was executed in Scotland. During these years we had the Great Depression and then the War. Scots juries have been very reluctant to convict where they know that the accused will hang. It was in this way that this small country developed the crime of culpable homicide. That is a blameworthy crime which didn’t carry the death penalty. I am not for a moment suggesting that Megrahi’s crime was not blameworthy. It was blameworthy in the extreme. Nevertheless just as we adopted and developed the law of culpable homicide there is another principle which we have adopted and which is ingrained in our law. That is we must have a humanitarian attitude to the punishment of crime. It seems to me that many of your readers would have us adopt the same morality as Megrahi and care nothing for the sanctity of human life. In Scotland we do not let murderers dictate our sense of what is right. From our long history of religious wars has come the doctrine that the supreme duty of a judge is to stand between the accused in the dock and the baying of the mob for revenge. We have to be very careful that our courts are courts of justice and are never the mere instruments of the public lust for revenge.. Such a view of the necessary humanity of the law is also carried over to modify punishment. Where it is known that a prisoner is so ill that he (she) will die in custody it has been our practice to release the prisoner, when appropriate, so that he may die in the comfort of his family. This used to be done under the Royal Prerogative. More recently an Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed unanimously, has enshrined this ancient practice in statute law and imposed the duty of deciding the issue on the Minister for Justice. In the last ten years twenty seven prisoners have been released on compassionate grounds to die at home. This is what happened to Megrahi. Megrahi is a very sick man. It is outrageous that anyone should challenge this. Eminent doctors have examined him and reported on soul and conscience that he is likely to die within three months and that he has stopped responding to treatment. He has applied for compassionate release. It was then the duty of Kenny MacAskill to follow the proper procedure. He had to be sure that the application was genuine. He met with Megrahi and his solicitor. He met with the prison governor who recommended release. He consulted the parole board who likewise recommended release. The Minister was thus faced with the dilemma. Should he act on principle or should he do something to please the United States of America that was contrary to principle? As an old Scots lawyer I am proud that he acted on principle. Are there actually people in the States who think it is wrong to act on principle? If there are then they are hypocrites. Let me remind them that it was an American Senator who greatly helped to solve the continuing spate of murders in Northern Ireland. Far more people were killed by the IRA and the Ulster Loyalists than were killed in the terrible disaster at Lockerbie for which only one man was convicted. These murderers were all, or most of them, in prison. It was part of the Northern Ireland Settlement arranged partly by a US Senator that the murderers from both sides were released from prison. This was done for pragmatic reasons, not as in Megrahi’s case, for reasons of principle. Do your readers think this was wrong? The captains and the kings depart. So do newspaper headlines along with primitive and uncivilised cries for vengeance. Vengeance in civilised countries is left to a higher court than any we have in Scotland. Scotland has set an example for the world to follow. As for the word ‘closure.’ Let the US and the UK get together and hold an enquiry. Megrahi was only one of many and the many are still at large. Yours sincerely, Ian Hamilton |
||||||||
| Corby Boy |
Great post.
When I first heard the news about the release, I thought oh sh*t! What have they done. But on reading more and more about the background to it and the principles enshrined in Scots Law that have been adhered to, I am convinced that this was totally the correct decision. I hope that this practice continues, and show the US and other detractors that Scotland is true to its humanitarian principles and continues to be a beacon of decency in a world that is often proven to be corrupt. |
||||||||
| mac |
Who was it that gave him 3 months to live? His Doctor?http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s...ical-advice--on-Libyan.5587119.jp
|
||||||||
| urchurdan |
Not an exact scienceNo doctor - or set of doctors can give an exact time for when a cancer victim might die - unless of course they euthanise them at a given time.He may well rally for a short time, this is not uncommon among people who are dying, they may hear good news - a loved one coming home from abroad for instance, it gives them a wee boost and they 'hang on' beyond their expected time. Maybe that will happen with al Megrahi, who knows. What is known, is that emminent medical Doctors have given legal deposirtions that their 'opinion' is that he has months rather than years to live. He is a Muslim, he believes in hell, as I have said before, if he is in anyway guilty of the slightest involvement in Lockerbie, then I hope he rots in that hell for ever - if, and I said 'IF' however, history shows he was as he claims an innocent man, then may his God go with him. |
||||||||
| calum |
Check this out. Then send it to as many Yanks as you can find!
http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk/ |
||||||||
| babykitten |
Utter nonsense. The vast majority of people have no idea how the law works, because it is deliberately kept complicated and the preserve of an elite legal profession. You also seem to forget that Megrahi is foreign and therefore had no experience of Scots law beforehand. Megrahi has done what anybody else would have done, which is to trust the expert opinion of his legal team, a team trained in Scots Law, with the full facts and history of case law available to them. It now seems that his first appeal was seriously flawed. Prominent legal voices are criticising his first appeal as much as the original trial. It's also worth remembering that the first appeal did not have the new evidence that is available now. So, even if Megrahi knew his original conviction was a miscarriage of justice (i.e. because he knows he didn't do it) then this does not necessarily mean that an appeal was easy to undertake on that basis, unless the evidence is there. Read my comments earlier about having to prove your innocence. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
Re: Who was it that gave him 3 months to live? His Doctor?
What's embarrassing about it? Doctors have different views? My goodness! It appears to be a myth that the prisoner has to have less than 3 months to live to be eligible for compassionate release, according to articles I've read where the law has been directly quoted. The medical profession concluded that it was a reasonable estimate that Megrahi had around 3 months to live. Nobody can possible predict this to any meaningful level of accuracy. The important fact is that he is terminally ill. |
||||||||
| Stevie |
Has anyone got a fair and reasonable synopsis of the evidence against Magrahi?
Apparently, some believe the Iranians were behind the Lockerbie bombing; is this a possibilit? How much of a poll points hit will the SNP take for Kenny McKaskill's decision? Anybody got any answers? |
||||||||
| Nautilus |
Bravehand asks: 'Some believe the Iranians were behind the Lockerbie bombing; Is this a possibility?
Distinct possibility. Tit for tat. The blowing up of a US passenger jet just 5 months after the shooting down of an Iranian passenger jet over the Persian Gulf. Everyone (290) killed. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
PFLN claimed responsibility, no reason to think that it wasnt them. | ||||||||
| Corby Boy |
On the SNP popularity.
They may well take a dip after this. But Salmond and co. are quite good at playing the long game and in a years time this would be mere memory. A lot will depend on a) they can ride the current sh*t storm, looking good so far and b) What else they do policy wise and continue a programme of good governance. Hopefully, the Brown Gov't will continue its calamitous path in the meantime. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
The Brown government are going to get dragged into this, that's for sure. At least the Salmond government are actually being honest about the whole thing, and are even going to publish documents about it. Can you imagine Whitehall doing the same thing? |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
I thought today's front page story in the Herald on this was quite good ...
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...Now_its_time_to_talk_business.php |
||||||||
| babykitten |
It figures when you think about it. Why would the Scottish Government do Whitehall's bidding when we'd likely see virtually none of the benefits of such deals? The taxation on profits from UK companies involved in such deals would flow straight to Westminster and be wasted on bombing some defenceless country around the world or some such use. It certainly wouldn't translate into some Barnett-calculated gain for Scotland, that's for sure. |
||||||||
| Fidget |
And you can categorically state that because.....?? Oh...because it was an utterance of another scots nat. Must be true then.
|
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||
| Fidget |
and you can categorically state that that means they were being honest because....?
This is a marvel with nats. All and nothing but honesty comes from the lips of fellow nats... and all and nothing but poison from others. Dangerous mindset. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Why then all the rhetoric that most 'right-thinking' people would agree with it, or that this sort of compassion is somehow a Scottish attribute, when it evidently isn't something which most Scottish people share in? |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Red hair is a Scottish attribute which most people in Scotland do not share in. Something does not need to be in the majority to be a national characteristic. | ||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||
| Fidget |
oh, pardon me then. Anybody not stonkingly in favour of an independent scotland is a unionist seemingly. Excuse my confusion. | ||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Fidget suffers from the unfortunate affliction of having a mind which is apt to.......well.......fidget, instead of paying attention.
Does this actually have anything at all to do with anything that anybody here on this forum has said? It would help if you could stop fidgeting long enough to learn how to quote other people. It's not too difficult. Look, I've just quoted you, see? If you could learn how to perform this simple task, then your posts might begin to look like they have got something to do with something that somebody else said, instead of looking like the disjointed mutterings of somebody who is not quite all present and correct. Just for the record, no, I don't regard "anybody not stonkingly in favour of an independent scotland" as a "unionist". Some are, but many aren't. Like I wrote on this forum a couple of days ago
|
||||||||
| Fidget |
Fidget suffers from the unfortunate affliction of having a mind which is apt to being a bit ahead. |
||||||||
| Stevie |
In what way dear Fidget? |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Fidget seems to suffer from a mind which is intractably made up and therefore closed to any reason or argument. | ||||||||
| babykitten |
Firstly, please don't quote me in a way that makes it look like I was responding to somebody else. I wasn't responding to Corby Boy's comments when I made the point you are addressing. Secondly, the SNP government knew that the decision would evoke very strong feelings but nevertheless took the decision. Furthermore they are releasing documentation about it. Your assertion that I think the SNP government are honest because I happen to agree with them is rubbish. Have you ever thought that it might be the other way round, i.e. I support the SNP government because they are fundamentally honest? Note, this is not to say that I support everything that they do or believe that everything they say is the truth. |
||||||||
| babykitten |
And you can categorically state that (even if the accusation is true) this is dangerous because? This is the marvel with Fidget. All and nothing but rubbish comes from the lips of so-called 'nats' and all and nothing but the truth from unionists. |
||||||||