What the PM did and did not say

Er... Is Gordon Brown being economical with the truth?

Oh! What a surprise?

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

"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"

Instinct. Fast Tony's instinct was "Smile and smarm". The Golem's instinct is dive under the nearest rock and hope Mandelsnake makes it all go away.

Brown is a master at saying nothing or keeping his head down while the flak is flying. Despite being practically Blairs second in command for all these years he was extremely quiet on the Iraq war and any other event that looked politically 'sticky'.
When he does finally pipe up it is because events have either forced him to, or he has had time to formulate weasel words that mean nothing but are smoke and mirrors. I don't think I have ever heard him say a direct yes or no to a question, ever.
I think his political coffin will have more nails than wood by the time the electorate get the chance to bury him for good.

Nothing Brown say's is the truth, election NOW!!

Yet again our un-elected PM shows he is unsuited for his role. He's misjudged the Americans and the electorate.
But it's OK, because it was all about the "war against terror".

Gordon Brown - you can't have it both ways: Either say that it was in the interests of this country to release the bomber (and have done with it) or say that you feel it was, in hindsight, a mistake. By this half-in, half-out, "nothing to do with me, what could I do Gov?", you're making your whole administration a laughing-stock.
The French wouldn't act like this. They are usually single-minded and unapologetic and they get respect for that - even from those who think they're wrong.

Are we expected to believe the reason Megrahi (or McGravie as PM Brown called him) was not at the Libyan 40th celebrations was because of Brown and not the fact the man is in a hospital? This man does take us for fools indeed.
This delay in giving his opinion on the man's release is needless. When Tony Blair was releasing IRA/Loyalist terrorists from prison for the sake of progress and peace, at least he had the decency to tell us so. We might not have liked it but at least he was upfront about it. The same would have applied here had PM Brown the gumption and leadership to say it.
TOO
MUCH
SPIN.

He didn't say it before because he's only just thought of it. Another back-track from the back-track master. He is an inept laughing stock and so are we for not more vehemently demanding an election.

Getting rid of Gordon Brown & new Labour is of the utmost significance to the well being of the United Kingdom.

Good old Brown "He claimed credit for the fact that the Lockerbie bomber was not visible in Tripoli last night."

Yet Megrahi did appear appear in an official video shown during the celibrations.....

So yet another Brown claim not backed by facts!

Are both of Mr Alex Salmond and Mr K. MacAskill now going to resign?

There come's a point... when ... well, you know what I mean...

Labour is guilty of both hypocrisy and of not telling the truth. Hypocrisy because the party in Scotland has been opposing the release for pure political advantage when the national Govt has supported it. And still they refuse to reveal the truth about how and why the release came about.

I happen to support the decision to release him. But I wish the lies would stop.

Nick, you need to follow the money. Journos should ask British Govt to publish correspondence and minutes of meeting in desert when original PTA agreement was done. Find out what what made Jack Straw change his mind on excluding Megrahi from the PTA - what was said, and what was agreed. Brown is hoping it stops at communications with Scottish Govt, but what happened before then is important.

I am not quite sure where people are getting this idea that Labour and the SNP could never do a deal on anything. They are politicians who would sell their own mothers to Libya if they thought the return was good enough. The only question should be around what the return could be.

"This was not, he stressed, a matter of oil but was because of the value of Libya turning her back on terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons. This is the realpolitik argument I talked about in my earlier post."
==================

Nothing to with Libya seeing George Bush's war on terror -invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein - and thinking "Gosh we're likely to be next !"

Gordon Brown and Colonel Kadaffi have a lot in common, both are unelected leaders and their own self interests and survival are their only objectives.



"There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"

Because he is incapable of doing anything in a simple and straightforward manner, and his every decision and action is cloaked in deceit.

"It remains the case that Britain said something to the Libyans that they were not prepared to say to their own electorate."

Thats not new for us as they do that on many issues - there are the real causes of the Iraq War, the regulatory failures over the financial crash and so on.

Who are we, citizens in a democracy, to interfere with the sofa politics and the fiefdom of the Labour Party?

I forgot to ask when is Mr Gordon Brown going to resign? I must admit I've missed his superb gurning?

I wonder what would happen if the Scots Nationalist win independence for Scotland from the UK and assuming Gurning Gordon would still be in power - How much of the army, navy and air force equipment would Brown simply give away to Scotland as including a couple of trident submarines - or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?

"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"

he was trying to work out what lie he could get away with.

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

"Why on earth didn't he say any of this before?" Exactly. But that's not the Macavity Brown style and it does again question his leadership or rather lack of it.

The Times today thundered: all roads lead back to Brown. It now boils down to a question of trust and for government that's like the kiss of death.

Are we now really expected to believe a "double dealing" prime minister and wretched government which has wriggled over Lockerbie at every twist and turn?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/can-brown-survive-lockerbie-storm.html

#18 sportingpunter

"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"

he was trying to work out what lie he could get away with.

---------------------

Nail on head!

Any news on how the shipment of Scottish flags found their way to Libya too, whilst we're at it?

8 months to go...

Normally what Brown thinks makes us laugh - but on this t is important as it impacts the UK's relations with other countries (e.g. with Libya and their Oil and with the US and our relationship with them).

The fact that it has now emerged that he expressed an opinion to Libya that conflicted with the US is something he did yet seems to want to deny or just pretend did not happen. The difficulty is that he is the representative of the UK and as such represents us. He is our representative and is accountable to us (the UK electorate) and we have a right to know what opinions he has been expressing on our behalf to other countries.

He (Brown) is our representative and accountable to us (the UK people) and it is time he was reminded of this. He is not a dictator though he seems to be acting like one. There are no "National Security" issues to keep what he has been saying on our behalf secret (the normal excuse this government uses).

He needs to stop offering inadequate partial information trying to get away with telling us what he has been saying on our behalf. If he cannot be straight with those he represents then he is no more than a dictator and in a democracy should go immediately.

If UK Labour did not want Megrahi to die in prison, and since Scottish Labour are taking the SNP Government to task for ensuring that UK Labour's wishes were fulfilled, is it not reasonable to assume that since there is clearly a gulf between the Scottish and UK Labour parties, that the best interests of all would be served by creating an independent Scottish Nation..........oh, and how, therefore, do Scottish Labour propose that the wishes of their UK counterparts could have been fullfilled in this instance. If it is clearly the case that they disagree with the procedure followed by MacAskill rather than the decision, then they need to censure MacAskill (and risk an early election) or publicly disagree with the decision and with UK Labour - talk about sitting on the fence playing politics....

Several questions remain unanswered.

1. Why did the USS Vincennes mistake the Airbus A300B2, Iran Air Flight 655, for a F14 Tomcat fighter?

2. Who funded, planned and carried out the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie?

3. Why did the American authorities switch their focus on the Lockerbie investigation from Iran/Syria to Libya?

4. Why did the US government not criticise Tony Blair's visit to Libya in 2004?

5. What was the personal message sent by Gordon Brown to Gadhafi over the release of Megrahi?

6. Why are the UK media hopeless at posing such questions above?

There's the SNP government fighting back with nothing more than the truth and thier wits today - meanwhile Brown and his camp are only answering questions once they are cornered by the media.

Can anyone say for certain which brand of politics they prefer?

The SNP made an unpopular decison - for what now seems to be the right reasons. They are facing the music and have been open and honest about it.

The Labour party have decieved the nation and continue to deny that they have done anything wrong. Wasn't there a proverb about an innocent man having nothing to fear from the truth?

Oh I remember now - it was nu-labs justification for rolling out ID cards and Lojacking anyone and everyone.

Truly pathetic

Och - Brown is nothing more than a coward

I think Mr Megrahi should have died in prison or released as a result of the (abandoned) appeal. But like it or not, the man has gone back to Libya to die. The political posturing is nauseous! There are more important matters that the Press and MP's should be concerned with!

I think we are now so accustomed to Brown's appalling leadership and judgement on most things, and the ineptness of his whole cabinet in dealing with anything in a fair and sensible way, nothing really registers from him or them any more on the 'emotion meter'. Other than cynicism. Has there ever been such a poor era of UK leadership? I think back to Heath and Blair as the most over rated leaders but this fellow Brown doesn't even get over-rated.

nautinier wrote :-
or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?

I think you will find that we have most of them up here already !!

At least he was eventually forced out into the open. Good job done by the media.

What he eventually said from a pre-prepared statement was neither here nor there and was totally to be expected.

Diplomatic response he thinks others think him cowardly.

The longer he remains the more despicable he and his cohorts appear and the more damaging they become to the country as a whole.

When someone has such a flaw in their character that they are unable to admit to making mistakes and carry on making them it is usually up to others to find a way of getting rid of them. Where are they?

Why is the BBC pursuing this ridiculous vendetta, or giving credence to what the Americans have to say about it? Thanks to America's own vendetta with Libya, the victims' families didn't get justice. Nobody believes Megrahi had anything to do with PanAm 103. His release from jail was part of due process in the penal system. We release prisoners on compassionate grounds every day, and the Scots were ABSOLUTELY RIGHT not to change the process to suit the Americans. Listen to Dr Jim Swire, not the FBI

If I say, as a moderately random example, that I don't want Peter Andre's severed head to be mounted on a spike on top of the BT Tower, I don't mean that I am -against- Peter Andre's head being mounted on the BT Tower or would exert myself to prevent it whether he deserves it or not (and I don't think he does), I mean something more like that I myself am not determined to have Peter Andre's head cut off and put up there. Maybe that isn't the best example, but I hope it expresses the distinction.

Generally a law or decree that names someone in particular is a bad and unjust law. If the prisoner exchange treaty with Libya had said, "We are, however, determined that the Lockerbie guy shall stay in prison until he is dead", that would be a bad provision. Such a matter should be put in the hands of an appropriate authority, and it nearly was. Unfortunately decisions like this still get to be made by politicans.

On the other hand, if our so-called leaders did exchange the liberty of an enemy for greatly profitable access for British businesses to the resources and markets of Libya, shouldn't we be saying Well Done, and can you see what will they give us in return for Peaches Geldof?

Nick (or anybody on this board),
I have to admit I'm not totally clued up on the rules of the devolved Scottish government, but am I correct in thinking that the UK's PM would have the power to overrule a decision made by the Scottish government if it was in the national interests of the UK as a whole?

If that is the case then a number of questions spring to mind:
1) If the PM had nothing to do with this decision then surely there he has virtually no power over Scotland at all because this clearly is a decision that affects our national interests - not least our relationship with our closest and most powerful ally.
2) Is ours therefore, a government of England alone - do the devolved Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies have the same rights?
3) Can we get 3/4 of Brown's salary back do you think?

Finally, a legal question. Could the Megrahi case have set a legal precedent? For example, if Peter Sutcliffe was severely ill could his legal team move for release on the same grounds?

"There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"

Blair was a barrister. I wouldn't have wanted him to represent me, as he seemed to operate more on how to deliver a performance than bothering about factual detail. He floated like a butterfly (who's a pretty boy?) and stung like a bee (shame it was tax-payers he stung!)...

Brown just can't perform. He trundles. He needs a workforce with lorries full of "facts" he can churn through his mill, until he makes up his mind about anything. Once his mind is made up, it must be the "right thing" to do. Then he delivers a "spun" version, sometimes concealing significant points that emerge from the background deep-background later.

(Hence his difficulty in realising that cancelling the 10p tax band was a disastrous decision that has still NOT been resolved.)

I'm still waiting for disclosure of exactly what "commitments" were made to the US government about anyone convicted of the Lockerbie disaster being held for a full term in a UK jail. (Surely the papers from Blair's reign can't all be under lock and key?)

And why those "commitments" are no longer binding...

Any news on that, Nick?

(BTW. I'm totally unconvinced that Megrahi was a sole perpetrator of a crime. Not even sure he was a central figure. I have personal reason to mistrust security people associated with Libyan Arab Airlines. But the guy was convicted by a Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands. The prosecution case was fairly flakey and certainly more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
The Americans wanted to try him. It was a US "asset" and mostly US citizens involved. He'd have been really stitched up there!
I wonder how Brown and Straw would have handled the problem if the aircraft had come down to earth 15 minutes earlier? On English soil...)

Nick,

1. The Scottish Executive asked the UK government if there was any legal obstacle to releasing Megrahi: e.g. no binding agreement with the US. The UK government confirmed there was no obstacle.
2. Kenny MacAskill then followed Scottish law and released Megrahi.
3. The UK government said the release was a decision for the Scots alone.

#1 and #3 cannot both be true. Since #1 seems to be a fact, then #3 is false. Gordon Brown & co. have now said that Megrahi's release was in the UK's overwhelming interests: i.e. keeping Libya on-side in the war on terror. This reasoning is at least comprehensible as realpolitik, even if it is morally flawed.

What we have learned (again) about Gordon Brown and his ministers is:
a. Their first instinct is to put up a smokescreen, not to tell us the truth.
b. They are very poor at diplomacy. How could they not realise how upset the Americans would be? Why did they not at least make the realpolitik argument in private to the US?

Nick
Please congratulate Evan Davies on his magnificent interview this morning with one of the Milibands. He was so patient, listening to the interviewee ignoring his question and instead answering two or three that he hadn't asked. Then he asked it again, and again,...

Wonderful.

And I must congratulate you on your jorunalism and productivity. The holiday has done you a lot of good.

Yet again he's just shown that he can't take any kind of responsibility or have a say in anything untill someone has him against the wall, and then he just kinda ums an ahs his way around it.
Disgrace to the name of prime minister and to the country.

@33
It wouldnt surprise me if in the future some murderers team did try and push for that. Sincerly doubt that they'd be released, you just know that there'd be a little loophole somewhere about why he didn't quite qualify for release.

Gordon Brown has his place in history all right.

Gordon Brown will be remembered for his ten year tenure at the chancellor of the exchequer where he repeatedly raised taxes; wasted money; showered interest groups with cash; ruined the pension system; spoiled the NHS rotten without reform; bullied his neighbour at number ten; sold all our gold at the bottom; ruined the financial services industry with a fatally creaky regulatory framework; ignored the pleas of the former governor of the Bank of England with disasterous consequences; showered his talentless friends with peerages and promotions and finally scrambled his way into number ten with one of the most public acts of bullying in history.

His tenure in number ten will be widely reprted as the most disasterous in the past three hundred years; perpetuating a culture of innuendo and smear; rising to new heights of hubris; clutching desperately at his soundbite dividing lines; launching inumerable dog whistle initiatives; grabbing the headlines from Jade Goody to Susan Boyle but disappearing the moment any issue if substance hit his in-box.

Yet Nick has the temerity to begin an article with this headline about what Gordon Brown did or did not say - the public have grown weary of everything he does or doesn't have an opinion on and are just desperate to be rid of this self serving, self righteous, posturing buffoon of a man.

Call an election.

The BBC has made much of the so called admission, but I still think it is fair to point out that having no interest in seeing him die in jail and not wanting him to die in jail are too different things.

The second implies that the UK government actively sought to release him for whatever reasons, the first simply states that if due process is followed they will not seek to keep him in prison for ideological reasons.

It is pretty poor for the media to specifically ignore this distinction between the two positions.

I think the shot, before he spoke, of Gordon sitting down, with his head obscured by the podium about sums it all up. Headless chicken comes to mind. Chop off a chicken`s head and they will flap about all over the place before they finally expire. Gordon to a tee. Can`t wait to see the cartoons in tomorrows newspapers. Hardly went unnoticed.

When this irrelevant furore of who said what to whom is over, are we going to be any closer to finding out who actually blew up the aeroplane?

Megrahi says he didn’t do it. Many others and I believe him.

Our media and politicians are failing us in not perusing this important issue.

If the real perpetrators are not caught and brought to justice, who is to say they won’t carry out another atrocity?

"There are, no doubt, plenty of questions that will emerge from what he said but there is one many of his own colleagues will ask - why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"

Simple, he wanted his cake and eat it. He never expected any of the media furore to be directed at him but solely at the SNP his erstwhile opponents.

#11 nautonier
"Are both of Mr Alex Salmond and Mr K. MacAskill now going to resign?

There come's a point... when ... well, you know what I mean..."

For what exactly?

#14 Freeman

"I am not quite sure where people are getting this idea that Labour and the SNP could never do a deal on anything. They are politicians who would sell their own mothers to Libya if they thought the return was good enough. The only question should be a
round what the return could be."

A view expressed by a small confused group on previous threads. 'The only question should be around what the return could be.', that is precisely why there is no credence to this theory at all.

Please enlighten me, what could Westminster offer the SNP and the SNP trust them to deliver in order to risk all in a lose lose situation such as this? That's right, absolutely nothing.

#17 nautonier

"How much of the army, navy and air force equipment would Brown simply give away to Scotland as including a couple of trident submarines - or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?"

Scotland doesn't want anything to do with nuclear, power stations or weapons. In fact we're trying to get you to take back the nuclear subs Westminster 're-deployed', more like relocated to be decommissioned in Scotland.

@38
Imagine putting that on your C.V. while appyling for a new job. May Brown roll into the gutter as soon as possible.

This whole UK/devolved administrations business does get quite intriguing.

Suppose that some ethic group in Scotland bought anti-aircraft missiles from a sympathetic supplier. (Cold still happen.) Suppose they shot down a Russian aircraft over Scotland (or continguous waters).

Since the crime was organised and executed from within the Scottish judicial territory, could Russia declare war just on Scotland?

It seems the UK government can't interfere with a Scottish judicial process, so it would appear odd if any UK defence were mounted.

I somehow think that the USA has a rather better arrangement. I'm sure that Texas would not be able to authorise something against the nation's interests, even though each state in the US has a set of laws that can differ significantly. (That's why so many law cases are heard in Philidelphia...)

What the Lockerbie nonsense illustrates is the lack of intellectual rigour applied to devolution.

After all, the UK government is still responsible for border controls. If they had wanted to, they could have blocked the movement of a person considered as (at least convicted as) a mass-murderer.

How much more of this Brown nonsense do we have to put up with? I am suprised he even released a statement. Bet his aides had to force him to do that too. I see that Mandy is in hiding. Wonder why?

Think we all know.

"why on earth didn't he say any of this before?"

Because he's a useless clod?

Because he hoped it would go away?

Because he was trying to work out what lies he could get away with?

Trying to fathom the thinking of our glorious leader is not something mortal man can achieve.

Nick

This story has legs and will ramble on. Now Jacqui Smith questions the release of the Libyan. In 3 weeks time Brown (if invited and if brave enough) will attend the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh.

What is he going to say to Obama and the other world leaders? It might be a good idea if he started practicing now, don't you think?

#33 gogoginger

To answer your questions:

1)There are devolved (Holyrood) and reserved powers (Westminster). Foreign office matters are a reserved matter at Westminster, Scots law is a devolved matter and therefore Holyrood has control. As this was a legal decision Holyrood alone could make the decision, Westminster could only advise if they so wished but could not alter the decision. The foreign office could only deal with the ramifications of such a legal decision. Welcome to the murky world of UK constitutional bodies, a pigs breakfast at the moment which satisifies no-one.

2) Unfortunately England is the only nation within the UK not to have it's own legislature, so no, Westminster is the UK legislature and not solely Englands (hence the West Lothian questions. Again, pigs breakfast, the solution, independence for both countries or a federalised UK.

3) You could try but I doubt it :-)

Finally the case would not affect English law precedents (separate system and always has been, no such thing as UK law), in the case of Peter Sutcliffe.

The concepts of individual accountability for criminal acts and laws above politics have been presented as no long relevent in the world today. Everything can be rationalized and any act of national self-interest (business interest) trumps acts of murder or state-sponsored terrorism. Business and markets like cheap oil.......those people on the plane would have died eventually, anyway.....it's a crime to miss out on cheaper oil. Terrorism seems to be good for business and as we all know, anything that is good for business, even if it causes a world financial crisis, is OK with the governments. With such impeccable character and track record for wisdom of decisions, why would there be concern?

Just looked and listened to GB's statement. A classic total 'nothing to do with me' comment. It almost says 'not interested' either. I want him to be interested. I want him to care. I want him to say what he thinks. I want him to speak without notes. I want him to tell us how it is. I just know he is not telling the full truth.

Not that he has any respect from the UK population, but by this type of weak gesture politicking destroys any future hope for him and his party. Election now please.

Finally, a legal question. Could the Megrahi case have set a legal precedent? For example, if Peter Sutcliffe was severely ill could his legal team move for release on the

No. According to the Scottish Minister for Compassion this only applies to a minimum of 250 innocent lives taken!
By the way did any of the actors involved in this play realise that our hero was being released days before the big Lybian celebrations or was it just a coincidence? Has anybody told Gordon that although Megrahi couldn't be present at the celebrations a video was shown?
Has Gordon heard that after all this farce to bring Lybia in the civilised world his Lybian counterpart (meaning unelected PM :-))only a couple of days ago called for Israel to be wiped out of Africa.
Poor Mandy must be working overtime trying to mend Gordon's mistakes.

Gordon Brown is finished.

This episode will become a metaphor for his towering incompetence and hubris.

Look at the transcript of the video and watch Yvette Cooper to his left. Eben she is frozen still at the man's incompetence when she has historically played the role of nodding dog next to him.

No British prime minister can survive having to stand up and interupt a conference about jobs and issue a speech littered with half truths about a terrorist issue that has sinlge handedly destroyed his relationship with the president of the United States.

This is a disgraceful period in British history characterised by shameless buck passing and double dealing.

Only a man without a shred of integrity and with a towering arrogance could deliver suich a speech and hope to get away with it.

This is Gordon Brown's final hour whether he leaves now or later.

Call an election

This is the man who can tell us everything: Mark Allen, the MI6 counter-terrorism chief at the centre of the secret talks between Libya and Britain, who now works for BP.

BP is not the first company to employ agents involved in a case. Bristol-Myers Squibb did it when they recruited Louis J Freeh and Thomas J Pickard, director and deputy director of the FBI.

Mr Robinson,

Last night (1st September) on the 10 o'clock news you said that neither government in London or Edinburgh had ever said 'no' to the question of al Megrahi's release.

This is not true: the SNP Government is on record as being unwaveringly opposed to prisoner transfer, despite the UK Government being in favour of it - as revealed by Jack Straw's letter.

This is, unfortunately, yet another case of a journalist in London assuming they have got all the Scottish facts (and opinions) on an issue from a cursory glance.

Jacqui Smith is the PERFECT person to know right from wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#48 ScotInNotts
Thanks very much for explaining! Your clear and concise answers have helped me understand the issues - have you thought about going into politics?!?!

For those south of the border.

Scotland has always had a

1. Independent legal system.

2. Independent health system.

3. Independent education system.

4. Independent church.

The above pre-date the Union of the Crowns, the Union of the parliaments and Devolution and are guarranteed under the constitution.

As a result no UK government, no English justice minister, nor English court, can undermine, interfere, over-rule the Scottish judicial process.

#38 RobinJD:

"Gordon Brown has his place in history all right.

Gordon Brown will be remembered for his ten year tenure at the chancellor of the exchequer where he repeatedly raised taxes; wasted money; showered interest groups with cash; ruined the pension system; spoiled the NHS rotten without reform; bullied his neighbour at number ten; sold all our gold at the bottom; ruined the financial services industry with a fatally creaky regulatory framework; ignored the pleas of the former governor of the Bank of England with disasterous consequences; showered his talentless friends with peerages and promotions and finally scrambled his way into number ten with one of the most public acts of bullying in history.

His tenure in number ten will be widely reprted as the most disasterous in the past three hundred years; perpetuating a culture of innuendo and smear; rising to new heights of hubris; clutching desperately at his soundbite dividing lines; launching inumerable dog whistle initiatives; grabbing the headlines from Jade Goody to Susan Boyle but disappearing the moment any issue if substance hit his in-box.

Yet Nick has the temerity to begin an article with this headline about what Gordon Brown did or did not say - the public have grown weary of everything he does or doesn't have an opinion on and are just desperate to be rid of this self serving, self righteous, posturing buffoon of a man.

Call an election."

--------------------------------

So good I thought this ought to be posted twice!

If nothing else though, I suppose this latest fiasco has taken the spotlight off whatever might have happened between Mandleson and Gadaffi-Jnr in Corfu.

Plus, it seems, seven years is about the norm for murder in this day and age...

Perhaps with Scotland being involved perhaps there was no one in Downing Street could advise him what to say... seriously, he gives the impression his left foot doesn't know what his right foot is doing he plainly isn't a leader, a ruler maybe but not a leader!

The poor guy might have claimed he was an iron fist Chancellor, one thing for sure he is entirely the opposite as a Prime Minister, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was set in stone by Blair.

There has been too many Libyan meetings for my liking, and there is only one common denominator... and thats oil, they have and we don't.

If these lot told me it's raining I'd look outside for myself

So to summarise:

1. The BBC leap to Gordon's defence with slight criticism 'Why didn't he just say that before' to try to draw a line under this whole thing.

2. Alex Salmond looks really foolish on Sky News et al but you will not focus properly on the fact that the Scottish Executive, whilst now devolved to a degree from Westminister would not have done anything of this kind truly autonomously and has been set up. This is perfect for Neu Arbeit as the SNP has fragile control and Scotland has been a loathsome (or West Loathsome) thorn in the side of Labour.

Admiral Brown lifts the telescope and peers at the TV, I see no Megrahis he triumphantly proclaims...

Well done PM, can you turn your amazing problem solving talents to the ecomony, hospitals, crime and schools if you've the time.

Personally I'd rather be watching something a little more in the light entertainment department but another man's choice of evening veiwing is nothing to do with me.

Nick Robinson:

I am glad, with the partial truth that the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has remarked; but, as always, there is more to the story; But, I am not making any accusations against anyone...

=Dennis Junior=

#56 gogoginger

Your welcome. What minuend has also stated in #57 is quite correct, such institutions were enshrined pre and post union of the crowns.

I'm interested in politics but I don't know if I'd like it to be my career, and if I did it'd be at Holyrood and not Westminster. However I think I'll stick with the direction I'm headed for the moment.

"The prime minister implied that his public reticence had been diplomatic. He was, he said, privately seeking to persuade the Libyans not to turn last night's Independence Day party into a celebration of Megrahi's return. He claimed credit for the fact that the Lockerbie bomber was not visible in Tripoli last night"

Was that the same Megrahi I saw on the television this morning bedridden and with an Oxygen mask on? And Brown takes credit for this.

"[Gordon Brown] claimed credit for the fact that the Lockerbie bomber was not visible in Tripoli last night"

He would, wouldn't he.

If something happens and he feels it's good, he claims credit, if bad he denies responsibility. Booming economy, all down to him ,realisation that booming economy was mirage, nothing to do with him.

It's pathetic really.

Nick suggests that many of his (Browns) own colleagues will ask on earth he did not say any of this before.

I would suggest his reticence could be because Brown needed to clear it with Prime Minister Mandelson first.

Brown does not display much, if any, of the sure-footedness that a true leader must have.

After all the huffing and puffing about Magrahi's release it seems to come down to only one thing.

As far as the Libyans were concerned all deals would be off if Magrahi died in prison in Scotland.

A hot potato indeed for Brown & Co and even more for the Scottish Government if they were to insist on keeping him there.

So a way had to be found that seemed acceptable to all.

It has backfired but that's what happens when you think you can deal with someone like Ghadaffi. Are we really so desperate?

Yet again it's clear that Brown has misled us, saying (or not saying) one thing in private and another in public.
Why can't he be honest for once in his life rather than treat us like fools? Everyone knows trade and economic interests were behind the scheming of his government and the 'advice' that would have gone to Edinburgh. And now he tries to hide behind Alex & Co.....
Brown is a dreadful Prime Minister and isn't even a good politician. I don't see how anyone can trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

#48 "a pigs breakfast at the moment which satisifies no-one"

Don't you mean a Dog's Breakfast?

Personally I have pig FOR breakfast at every opportunity and find bacon very satisfying :-)

With so much money at stake in Libya, understand that the US Gov knew all along that the man would be released and approved in private, and then looked peeved in public. Do not beleive that the SNP would have acted without approval from Westminster on this issue. The truth here is that all these politicians are lieing.
Does this matter, no because we must have the gas and oil, and not lose out to China and Russia. Unfortunate but so true.

Robert Carnegie has a point, which either deliberately or through obtuseness you are ignoring, Nick. 'We do not want to see him die in prison' can mean two things: 'We want him not to die in prison', or 'We have no particular wish to see him die in prison'. You are assuming that Rammell meant the first of these, when it seems to me pretty obvious that he meant the second - because the issue was whether or not the UK government would stand in the way of his release. If he meant the first meaning, he would surely have addressed his remarks to the Scots, as they, not the Libyans, were in a position to release the prisoner. Both Rammell and Miliband explained this pretty clearly on Today this morning, despite Evan Davis's shameful attempts to stop Miliband from answering his question and thereby, as they say, shooting his fox. Jim Naughtie clearly did understand the point, because he put this to Cameron later on, but, shamefully again, when Cameron wittered on instead of addressing the point Naughtie failed to interrupt him. Perhaps when you're looking for protection from the Murdochs, you avoid interrupting PMs-in-waiting, but I've just listened to it again, and there's really no excuse for Naughties's feebleness.

A very carefully crafted speech that was read...

On our part there was no conspiracy, no cover up.... no private assurances by me to Colonel Gadaffi...

Why was there a change of emphasis during that list of what had not apparently happened, from the wider and more collective "our part", to the very narrow "no private assurances from me to Colonel Gadaffi".

Does this not leave open the prospect that others gave private assurances to Gadaffi, either prior to Browns Prime Ministership (we know the documents relating to Blairs discussions are not to be revealed), or by other members of Browns government?

It would appear that UK media are now turning on themselves.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/02/megrahi-conspiracy-scottish-jurisdiction

Is it not the case that Scotland does not have a Foreign Minister because it does not need one? And the reason for this is that the Government of the United Kingdom (currently under the alleged leadership of the almost invisible Gordon Brown)is responsible for foreign affairs.

Is this not just another illustration of Gordon Brown's complete abdication of leadership on any issue which might be vaguely contentious? Surely we should be able to expect more than this.

The conclusion I draw is that he has clearly been out of his depth for a considerable time.

ScotInNotts

Not sure if devolution is quite so cut and dried as you think. Although in this case the British parliament couldn't intervene it is quite clear from the Scotland Act 1998 that they Westminster has the last world.
To quote the Scotland Act. Section 35:
"35 Power to intervene in certain cases

(1) If a Bill contains provisions—
(a) which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
(b) which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent."

There is clearly only one government in the UK and it isn't at Holyrood.

It is reassuring to read from the Scots who post that your government is independently corrupt and not dependent of the larger political corruption. New adverts for tourist should read: Scotland, the land of compassion. Should play well in the Arab world.

#24 1. Why did the USS Vincennes mistake the Airbus A300B2, Iran Air Flight 655, for a F14 Tomcat fighter?

Not sure that the Irainian Air force had any F14 tomcats, maybe Russian Migs etc.

I understand that the reason was partly to do with the way that the "Command system" on the USS Vincennes reported information to the controllers. They would not been able to make a design that would have avoided shoting it down. There was no indication that it was a civil aircraft present to them.

Although given that Fast Jets and Civil Aircraft had different handling qualities for turning speed etc. They might have been able hold of any action but that might have put the USS Vincennes in danger if it was found out to be "hostile" and too late to tack avoidance actions.

I have found the news media like poison pen letter writers over this Lockabie bomber it is done the Scots have held their hands up and Brown stays in place. Calling the head of State a mad dog after we took up with Bush and Cheney is a the pot calling the kettle moment of course they made deals like that man being in prison did he really do it? How? There was no screams or reporting about what the Israelis are doing to this day in Gaza from the BBC or Brown or Miliban or Peter Mandleson Lord of Spin nothing yet this man was with Nathan Rothschild on holiday doing deeds and you can better they are up to no good.

When we have an open enquiry about what really happened and how involved was this man then we have nothing to say he will be dead soon and will have to meet those he killed if he killed them. But money and greed = POWER and that is what it is about and yes Governments will sell its people for this.

How do you know when Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson are lying.....just watch their mouths, they'll be moving. Does anybody believe them anymore? If not why are they still here?

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

42. At 3:00pm on 02 Sep 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:

#11 nautonier
"Are both of Mr Alex Salmond and Mr K. MacAskill now going to resign?

There come's a point... when ... well, you know what I mean..."

For what exactly?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1. Being influenced by a New Labour stitch up with a non-independent legal decision
2) Inappropriate statement about an undeclared higher authority?
3) Bringing Scottish and UK legal systems into disrepute?
4) Likely effect on early release decisions for other prisoners/terrorsist now that the precedent is set?
5) Poor process - e.g. single medical opinion?
6) Sheer naivety of thinking he would not be paraded as a national hero upon his return?
7) Pandering to dictatorships in e.g. Libya - it's no use preaching compassion and human rights and then being intimidated by a country like Libya which has no such scruples or values?
8) Compassion for the victims and their families?
9) Come and bomb us message to any/all terrorists?


#17 nautonier

"How much of the army, navy and air force equipment would Brown simply give away to Scotland as including a couple of trident submarines - or would Gordon Brown just give Scotland all of the UK's nuclear weapons?"

Scotland doesn't want anything to do with nuclear, power stations or weapons. In fact we're trying to get you to take back the nuclear subs Westminster 're-deployed', more like relocated to be decommissioned in Scotland.

>>>>>>>>>

Despite the declared animosity between SNP and New Labour, I think there is growing alarm particularly south of the border as to how damaging Scottish Independence could be to 'Britain' with Gordon Brown/ New Labour in control in terms of e.g. re-organisation of national defence.

Although, I must admit that when the Scottish coastal waters are full of foreign fishing and other vessels after 'independence day' it will be interesting to see what if anything the Scottish government would do about that?

You may think that you speak for Scotland but I'm not so sure especially if the political landscape changes through Independence?

Perhaps the real motive for Independence is to maintain the English subsidy for Scotland via the EU, as a newly formed bankrupt/indebted state?

#75 skynine

Well given those provisions of the Scotland act which of those do you think applies in this case? 1b clearly doesn't apply, and if you think 1a applies, then they would have a hell of a job proving such grounds existed, something even in the documentation released they were unable to show.

How do you think it would play if Westminster meddled in any Scottish judicial preceding? Again, your disdain for Holyrood shines through. I'm afraid that whilst those provisions are in the Scotland act can you imagine the furore if they were ever enforced without reasonable cause? There are two powers in Scotland, only one of which is Westminster, that's a fact whether you like it or not.

Supporting comment number 41 - yesterday I watched (on Sky News) a fascinating interview with Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the plane crash. He supports the release and believes that there is significant doubt about the original conviction and that we still are far from having the facts. The media seems to be almost entirely ignoring this aspect, which in my mind is far more important than the current overblown controversy about who said what to whom.

Suprise suprise Gordon Clown and the Liebour Party at it again

We are told that our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, confirmed that the government [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]did not want to see Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi die in a Scottish prison.

So let's get this straight... the ONLY interpretation of this breathtaking comment is that the government wanted al-Megrahi to go back to Libya. This was the official will of the Her Majesty's Government - not some petty official, or an out-of depth local politician.

Why the government was so keen to avoid al-Magrahi dying in prison is unknown. But there are a number of pressing questions:

Why was the Labour Government so keen to get rid of this prisoner?

Did our Scottish-dominated Labour government want to use this opportunity to 'persuade' al-Megrahi to drop his appeal? Were they afraid that his conviction would be declared unsafe, thereby showing the Scottish judiciary in a poor light?

Why was Brown so keen to suggest it was up to Scottish 'Justice' Secretary Kenny MacAskill to decide when the British Government clearly wanted to get rid of al-Magrahi - and had specifically made this clear to Gaddafi?

What role did Mandelson play in all this when he had his "fleeting conversation about the prisoner" with Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi whilst on holiday?

Why would Gaddafi's son say the deal was linked to trade if it were not true? As reported by the BBC, he told Libya TV that "In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table

Why is it claimed that "the issue had been raised repeatedly by Britain's former prime minister Tony Blair"?

Why would Colonel Gaddafi say (as reported) the UK prime minister had "encouraged" the Scottish Government to take what he called a "courageous" decision, if that were not the case.

Why did this spineless and incompetent government not make the prisoner return contingent on the extradition of the person who murdered WPC Yvonne Fletcher?

Is this the end of the road for the discredited SNP and the failed devolution experiment?

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

#80, sagamix wrote:

"rjd @ 38/52

good to see you still rockin' Robin - and I do like "self serving, self righteous, posturing buffoon of a man" - yes, like that a lot - you're rather like an old fashioned Head of House, aren't you? - spare the rod, spoil the child, right? - Harsh but Fair - and I think you're one of many whose hatred/contempt for Brown (with which I empathise, btw) gets in the way of rational analysis of Labour's record over the piece - "

Saga,

I realise that was a private comment to rjd. But it's so tempting...

A "rational analysis" of Labour's record over the piece proves that we are effectively bankrupt.
(OK. We pretend that quantative easing doesn't really mean "making up money"... All it means is that we are printing our children's money today and hope like heck that enough of them live long enough to create enough to cover the gap.)

Over the piece, I've forgotten just how many conflicts "we" signed up to. While trying to reduce the cost of defence. And assuming that 10 or 12 billion would be better spent on ID cards (which were justified in so many ways that they just can't make sense) than on providing a truly professional army with the best kit available.

We have children with great exam results, but rather doubtful depths of learning or understanding.
(And proposals that a hair dressing and beauty diploma should equate to 3 A levels... So children who'll probably think that "hair follicle" was named after a German inventor - Herr Follickle.)

Also children who rank really high on the list of drunkeness and teenage pregancy, but don't feature too highly elsewhere.

We have a QANGO responsible for spending "Our" money on buildings for tertiary education, but couldn't work out that what they promised as cash was rather higher than the "real" money available.

Meanwhile, PFI (meaning private investment) deals to build hospitals were so badly contracted that NHS Trusts are told to reduce real health-care spending to meet the costs of new buildings.

And a mass of "indirect taxes" that actually impact far worse on the poorest paid / lowest income groups than on the richer segments of society.

And a new 10p tax-band (good!) then withdrawal (bad!!!) with no proper corrective action.

And promises to create several hundred thousand apprenticeships over the years. (My estimate is that we are already 100,000 places BEHIND the promises, forgetting any upcoming promises of a job/training/whatever for the under 24s.)

The REAL topic is the Libyan stuff. (Please note MODS!)

It smells. I'd still like to know exactly what commitment was given to the USA when al-Megrahi was brought to trial. The Americans obviously believed that this guy (if convicted) would remain in a Scottish jail.

For the trial (during which the prosecution made a fairly limited case) to take place, a part of the Netherlands had to be declared "Scottish", so that the Scottish judiciary could be deemed to be valid.

I don't really care if Magrahi was released on compassionate grounds. I have no illusion that he was an independent agent who blew up an airplane.

I'd rather have liked the killer of WPC Fletcher to be handed over in exchange but that's long gone...

Saga, I'd rather like to know exactly which piece of "the piece" concerning future energy supply you think New Labour has addressed. Even the recent documents admit that electricity supply could require rationing within 8 years.

Remind me. Just how many new generating stations have been built in the last decade? (Don't talk about windmills. We subsidise them to be built and subsidise the output. And just how many UK companies has Brown invested in to deliver a highly variable energy supply anyway???)

#81 nautonier

"1. Being influenced by a New Labour stitch up with a non-independent legal decision
2) Inappropriate statement about an undeclared higher authority?
3) Bringing Scottish and UK legal systems into disrepute?
4) Likely effect on early release decisions for other prisoners/terrorsist now that the precedent is set?
5) Poor process - e.g. single medical opinion?
6) Sheer naivety of thinking he would not be paraded as a national hero upon his return?
7) Pandering to dictatorships in e.g. Libya - it's no use preaching compassion and human rights and then being intimidated by a country like Libya which has no such scruples or values?
8) Compassion for the victims and their families?
9) Come and bomb us message to any/all terrorists?"

In response to you list of points:

1) Nonesense, there was no influence on the SNP from NuLab, and if there had been the SNP would have screamed from the rafters about it.
2) Is that your only bone of contention regarding the statement and decision?
3) The Scottish legal system has been upheld in the face of international scrutiny, there's no such thing as a UK legal system.
4) The principles are already enshrined within Scots law, it sets no precedent for any other legal system
5) Due process was observed, and if recent reports from Lybia are accurate then they were also correct.
6) A request was made to the Lybian government regarding their conduct on his return, what other control would you like to have seen exercised? Could Westminster have ensured something other happened? Doubt it,
7) Intimidated by Lybia? The decision was made on the basis of Scots law, why is this difficult to grasp
8) Their views were taken into account within the bounds of the legal process
9) What part exactly sent that message? A ridiculous notion.

In response to your second tirade:

"Despite the declared animosity between SNP and New Labour, I think there is growing alarm particularly south of the border as to how damaging Scottish Independence could be to 'Britain' with Gordon Brown/ New Labour in control in terms of e.g. re-organisation of national defence.

Although, I must admit that when the Scottish coastal waters are full of foreign fishing and other vessels after 'independence day' it will be interesting to see what if anything the Scottish government would do about that?

You may think that you speak for Scotland but I'm not so sure especially if the political landscape changes through Independence?

Perhaps the real motive for Independence is to maintain the English subsidy for Scotland via the EU, as a newly formed bankrupt/indebted state?"

I'm not entirely sure what point your trying to make.

Defence is an old issue with regards to independence. Rest assured Scotland would have it's own military forces, and enough fisheries patrol vessels to see off encroaching fishing vessels. Clearly Scotland would not require or be able to sustain as large a force as the UK currently has, however do you think it would be good policy for an independent Scotland and England not to co-operate in defence of the same Island land mass if the need arose?

I wondered when we would get to your real bone of contention which is the funding of Scotland, which I won't get into here in any detail. Suffice to say your comment regarding Scotlands's motive for independence and EU membership is fanciful.

# 85 me

Not sure why a link (above) was unsuitable or broken - possibly I made a typo. It was intended to link to a BBC report about Miliband confirming "that government did not want to see Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi die in a Scottish prison"

The correct link is
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8233009.stm

#85 DistanTraveller

"Is this the end of the road for the discredited SNP and the failed devolution experiment?"

Surely you understand the political realities in Scotland better than that. Firstly, the SNP are far from discredited on this single issue. Secondly, devolution was never an experiment and is not seen as a failure in Scotland, rather as a stepping stone to furhter autonomy in it's affairs.

The only way devolution ceases to be is when independence or a federalised UK takes its place, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle on this one.

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

I suppose that one of the gruesome fascinations for professional journalists reporting politics is 'where will be story lead us?' ala Watergate as an ultimate sort of example.

Todays Times leader states that politicians must have skills ranging from intellectual rigour right through to rat-like cunning.

So, in some sense, we the people, as passive bystanders, watch the game being played out between the two camps, politicians slipping and sliding their way through their business whilst some members of the fourth estate sniff around for a possible kill.

You might think that this particular story could result in a few politicians heads rolling but I very much doubt it because 'they' have realised that they can brass it out now in just about any set of circumstances, provided the story does not run for more than a couple of weeks.

I think that nobody has resigned as a point of honour since Carrington around the time of the Falklands War and I do not expect to see any other politician doing that in this country during the rest of my lifetime.

Nautonier, your "facts" are skewed and your opinions are mis-informed.

MacAskill acted on advice that included several medical opinions.
He followed Scottish law in releasing him, he is the justice minister, did you expect him to ignore the laws he presides over?

Scotland is rich in renewables and doesn't need, require or desire nuclear power or weapons.

You convienently ignore the billions of pounds of oil revenue that flow into the U.K. coffers and eclipse the "subsidy" from your "generous" country.
Recent figures project a minimum of 30 yrs of full oil production before our existing, exploited fields run dry. We have vast unexploited oil reserves. That should stop us knocking on your door with our begging bowls.

If you feel you have to comment on this tawdry affair, at least try and read up on the facts from an unbiased point of view before you post.

Your sort of bigotry and Daily Mailish hysteria is exactly the reason so many Scots are tired of this unholy alliance.

ScotInNotts,

If you are going to criticize me at least don't put words into my mouth, I wrote:

"Although in this case the British parliament couldn't intervene it is quite clear from the Scotland Act 1998 that they Westminster has the last world."

You replied:

"Well given those provisions of the Scotland act which of those do you think applies in this case?"

Westminster doesn't interfere in Scottish judicial proceeding the same as it doesn't do the same in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I'm not anti Scottish, I am however against the lop sided devolution that allows the Scots to interfere in English matters all the time while maintaining their "independence".

fairly @ 87

but on the other hand one can point (inter alia) to ...

- calm (and reasonably sensible) handling of this latest Libya "crisis"
- statutory minimum wage
- liberal immigration policy
- raft of forward thinking equal opportunities and diversity legislation
- major investment in public services
- prudent refusal to cut the overall tax burden
- widespread acceptance of decent "PC" values
- devolved control of monetary policy
- radical constitutional reform
- expansion of the tertiary education sector

(starter for ten)

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

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

ScotsInNotts @ 90

The current UK political system has become wildly dysfunctional, inadvertently exacerbated by the devolutionary process.

All sorts of anomalies are being revealed and it is unfortunate that most English people are so disinterested in politics that they generally fail to see it.

So due to our political apathy, we English end up relying on the Scots to the right thing in November 2010 and force politics on this island to be recast into a less contradictory, more equitable system.

"...the value of Libya turning her back on terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons..."

This statement from yourself which as you rightly say is the 'realpolitik' of this issue and not BP/oil etc etc and all the other conspiracy nonsense - can you explain to me why the BBC for instance never once presented these issues for consideration at any time in any debate or reporting but simply ground the oil conspiracy in to the dust? people can rightly question the handling of this by the PM but your own words beg questions of the competence in reporting by media such as the BBC itself.

In Scotland this entire episode has become a debate over ministerial competence and decision making (even though Magrahi is clearly edging closer and closer to death by the day - BBC Scotland news reckoned he would be dead before all the British in-fighting is over) with not a word of oil conspiracies whilst over the border the conspiracy freaks make hay.

#97 oldbaldy

Clearly you haven't been reading Brian Taylors blogs.