[Closed] OMG: Someone has the balls to stick the Vs up at the yanks....

ditch_jockey: +1

Next thing we know they'll be claiming there's clear evidence of WMD round the Holy Loch and assembling a task force from the coalition of the willing.

worryingly, we use a bunkhouse not far from the Holy Loch that has surplus mattresses from the sub base on the bunk beds - I assume that means we're all carrying trace amounts of radioactive material on us, so we'll probably be on the same flight.

Mind you, if they charter it from Ryanair, we'll probably be okay, as it'll just get cancelled.

I would not be prepared to take a lecture on justice from a country that has the death penalty [for minors* and the mentally ill] has held people without trial in Gunatanamo Bay, supported the IRA terrorists and is currently trying to extradite someone with Aspergers for spying.

Face it, all of this precious "how could [i]they[/i] possibly question [i]our [/i]integrity" bleating is barking up the wrong tree. The competition about who's done more wrong in the world between the UK and US is just a comparison of who's blacker, the pot or the kettle. Perhaps if the Brits can get over their spluttering indignation, and the Scots can shake off the woad fumes, they'll be interested in the more important substantive question despite the politicians' reluctance to discuss it: was there a stitch-up over the release?

ditch_jockey - Member

for my part, it's the irritation stemming from the seeming inability on both sides of the Atlantic to be able to differentiate between the Scots and English legal systems, and that any potential deal between BP and Westminster over the prisoner exchange scheme - which the Scottish Parliament rejected - is a completely separate matter from the decision to release Al Megrahi...FFS don't keep trying to conflate our processes with allegations of dirty deals done between Westminster and Libya.

Thats entirely my point, the correct diplomatic brokering before the deal was struck could have prevented the hero's welcome, but the scotish idiot in charge was too blind to see what was inevitably around the corner. And scotland's only defence for this monumental failure seems to be "but we stand up to America".

Again, you completely miss the point. Scots law was applied to al Megrahi the same as applied to many other terminally ill prisoners, not "just because" it would upset a handful of Americans.

Scots legal system is not devolved and can't be revoked.

It's ludicrous to pretend that Scottish political processes are whiter than white and take place in a "completely separate" bubble.

Indeed, which was why I'd never do such a thing. However, suggesting to anyone in Scotland that Alex Salmond did a deal with Blair, Mandelson to facilitate a trade deal between Westminster and Libya may result in you being mistaken for a comedy turn from the Edinburgh Fringe.

On a related note, there's an interesting comment in the New York Times this morning, suggesting that most of the hot air circulating in the US on this is largely posturing, as no one would want the CIA's role in gathering evidence for Al Megrahi's trail put under close scrutiny. If you want to look for a potential dirty deal, you might want to ask why Megrahi dropped his appeal, which many legal observers considered to have considerable merit, when dropping it wasn't a pre-requisite for compassionate release.

**** compassion, let's just send Gorgeous George to sort them out
[img] [/img]

Scots legal system is not devolved and can't be revoked.

suggesting to anyone in Scotland that Alex Salmond did a deal with Blair, Mandelson to facilitate a trade deal between Westminster and Libya may result in you being mistaken for a comedy turn from the Edinburgh Fringe.

worryingly, we use a bunkhouse not far from the Holy Loch that has surplus mattresses from the sub base on the bunk beds - I assume that means we're all carrying trace amounts of radioactive material on us

It's not the radioactive traces I'd be worried about !

you misrepresented me a bit there kona
1.I said the death penalty for minors not charging children per se I am sure you can see the distinction.
2. I said Gunatanomo bay not terrorists per se I am aware of the treatment of alleged terrorists currently and internment but I thought that was UK law in both cases and not Scottish law.
3.I said the IRA but yes the govt here probably colluded /turned a blind eye to their own terrorist "friends".
4. I said applying the death penalty to the mentally ill not imprisoning them. I suspect we both want the Yorkshire Ripper [lets ignore the is he cured debate for this point]locked up dont we?

I never had you down as such a strong supporter of the USA justice system 😉
We may be deciding which is the darker the pot or the kettle but it is not that hard to work out IMHO.

BP's money is no good north of the border?

If you have any evidence of a deal, you're welcome to present it here first. Trying to bolster the fiction by vague slanders on the integrity or otherwise of Scottish politicians isn't going to persuade anyone.

Your introduction of the distinction between the Scottish and English legal systems is actually a canard

You're trying to oversimplify a complex relationship that exists between the devolved Scottish legislature, and the Scots legal system which was, as I understand it, always kept as a separate entity from the time of the Act of Union. I'm afraid someone with a degree in Scots Law would have to explain the subtleties to you, as I'm not that familiar with them.

Either way, my original point still stands, that the Home Secretary has no powers to prevent the release of a prisoner jailed under Scots Law on compassionate grounds, and there is no formal requirement for the Home Secretary to even be consulted prior to the decision being made. Hence the irritation with repeated attempts to manufacture a connection between the prisoner transfer agreement and the compassionate release, despite there being no evidence that such a connection exists.

Cameron falling over himself fawning, bowing and scraping in his haste to rewrite history and kiss America's collective ringpiece. Junior partner indeed.

Fair, but he has barely scratched the surface compared to bLiar and Brown-nose.

Trying to bolster the fiction by vague slanders on the integrity or otherwise of Scottish politicians

You're trying to oversimplify a complex relationship

I suspect we both want the Yorkshire Ripper...locked up dont we?

Not in general population and untreated, as most mentally ill prisoners (which is in fact the majority of prisoners) are, no.

Is this your Miss Jean Brodie impression?

Is this your way of saying [i]"no, I have no evidence for my vague assertion that BP's cash bought Megrahi's release, so I'm resorting to insulting you rather than admit it"[/i]

Your introduction of the separateness of the legal systems is an irrelevant point

If you want to explore conspiracy, you might consider my later point about Megrahi's appeal being dropped, despite it being supported by several high profile legal people, who thought he had a substantive case.

Scotland is not a sovereign state - it is still part of the UK.

It would require an act of parliament (westminster) for a home secretary to make a decision on release of a prisoner from a scottish prison. The home secretary would then be bound by scots law and might well make the same decision as the justice secretary (holyrood).

Konabunny - wrong

....... and can be revoked by a Westminster act,

No it can't - the scotland act which set up the parliament can only be altered by agreement with both parliaments - the westminster parlaiment on its own has no power over devolved matters at all

The scots legal system has always been separate. Pre devolution it would have been the Scottish secretary not the home secretary.

Now the home secretary could have zero imput into a decision as he is not a part of the scottish judiciary

What many of the posters on here (English?) fail to understand is that the United Kingdom consists of separate countries and always has.

Scotland has remained a country with its own legal system throughout - it is not, and never has been a colony to be dictated to.

It's obviously time for complete separation so we can save the South British the embarrassment of not understanding a justice system which includes compassion. 🙂

Nice to see gormless anti-americanism back. Went all quiet after "He Who Will Save The Whole World" got elected but obvously the cheesy left are once again able to wave their little rattles at their favourite hate-object...

What many of the posters on here (English?) fail to understand is that the United Kingdom consists of separate countries and always has.

Well tell your spineless politicians to stand up and start acting appropriately. If there are no issues or conspiracies associated with this then surely its not a problem to be asked questions about them? Surely its better than hiding away?

Nice to see gormless anti-americanism back

Sadly I don't think it ever went away 🙁

mr woppit
surely the cheesey lefts favourite hate object would be griifin , cameron or clegg?

LHS - Member
Well tell your spineless politicians to stand up and start acting appropriately. If there are no issues or conspiracies associated with this then surely its not a problem to be asked questions about them? Surely its better than hiding away?

Spineless politicians??
[img] [/img]

Anyroadup, no one is hiding away. Scottish Ministers have been happy to answer all of the questions posed to them and to release all the documentation they have been allowed to. The only secrets now being kept are the Westminster and Washington documents, which the Scottish Govt has already requested be made public but, for some reason, the UK and US Govts are not allowing.

Spineless yes.

>Well tell your spineless politicians to stand up and start acting appropriately. If there are no issues or conspiracies associated with this then surely its not a problem to be asked questions about them?<

Wearisome this. Have a read at paras 4 and 5 again:

"The First Minister wrote to Senator Kerry on Wednesday providing comprehensive information and assistance, which is the appropriate nature of Scottish Government involvement in the Senate Committee's hearing next week.

"Since the Lockerbie atrocity in 1988, all matters regarding the investigation, prosecution and compassionate release decision have been conducted according to the jurisdiction and laws of Scotland. Clearly, the Senate Committee has responsibility to scrutinise decisions taken within the US system, and Scottish Ministers and public officials are accountable within the Scottish Parliament system. That is the constitutional basis of our democracies.

"The Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee has already undertaken a full inquiry into the decision on compassionate release, and the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee has also examined the issue in terms of the formal inter-governmental relations that exist within the UK. That is right and proper.

"The focus of the Senators' concern has been any role played by BP in decisions on Al-Megrahi, and we have stated categorically to Senator Kerry that there was no contact of any kind between the Scottish Government and BP.

"In addition to the extensive information already provided, we have written to Senator Kerry again today and offered to answer any additional questions in advance of the hearing, and we would also be very happy to answer formally and in writing any more questions that may arise from the hearing itself.

"In that constructive spirit, we have also given the Committee permission to have the First Minister's initial letter to Senator Kerry, containing substantive information, entered into the hearing's record."

"If any matters emerge concerning the Scottish Government from the UK Cabinet Secretary's upcoming trawl of papers, we would also be happy to respond as necessary.

"We reiterate, however, that the only relevant material held by us and not yet published is information provided by or concerning the US and UK administrations - which we would like to publish in the interests of openness and full disclosure."

LHS, spineless would be to come running at the snapped fingers of an American Senator rather than civilly and properly dealing with the questions raised despite a fundamental lack of understanding of the existance of two separate legal systems on the one island. As a Scots lawyer I must say that this is a problem that many of our Southern cousins suffer from also, but that is getting away from the point of the original post.

I am proud to see that the rule of law in this country can embrace compassion and not simply pander to the bloodthirsty mob. The Scottish legal system and Scottish politicians have their faults, too many for my liking, but on this point Kenny Macaskill made the right decision as a matter of law. The fact that al-Megrahi has lived longer than anticipated does not make his decision wrong.

We seem to be going round in circles with this one so in summary.
The Scottish government have acted in good faith, The Americans want ther whipping boys (Macaskill and Fraser). The Scottish government do not want to be part of Americas inquiry/kangaroo court. So the Scottish government have told them to poke it.
Meanwhile Dave is away acting like a gimp (and in case I am accused of being anti Tory (which I am anyway)Thatcher would not have acted like that)

the scotland act which set up the parliament can only be altered by agreement with both parliaments - the westminster parlaiment on its own has no power over devolved matters at all

Pre devolution it would have been the Scottish secretary not the home secretary...Now the home secretary could have zero imput into a decision as he is not a part of the scottish judiciary

None of the Home Secretary, the (old) Scottish Secretary and the (current) Justice Secretary are part of the Scottish [i]judiciary[/i]. Tut, tut, Jeremy - they are all part of the Scottish [i]executive [/i](or as the SNP expensively rebranded it, the Scottish Government [b]Riaghaltas na h-Alba[/b]). This is part of the reason why the discussion of the Scottish legal system is a complete irrelevance - (members of) the Senate is not questioning whether the power to free prisoners on compassionate grounds in the first place should have existed in the first place, it is questioning whether the power was correctly exercised in the case of Ally McGrachy, which is a different matter entirely.

I am aware of the treatment of alleged terrorists currently and internment but I thought that was UK law in both cases and not Scottish law.

Northern Irish law applies in Northern Ireland and while (delegated) Home Rule for NI was suspended, who legislated? Westminster! And who sent MPs to Westminster to prop up the government in the Labour years? Scotland! And who sent red-cheeked proddy troops to Ulster throughout? Scotland! And who paid taxes to support the UK government in NI thoughout? Scotland! You can't devolve all responsibility for all UK actions in NI/North of Ireland to the English!

Who is Mel Gibson?

He's an American who moved to Australia so his brother wouldn't get drafted into the Vietnam War, and later went on to make a number of movies which are militaristic pish (Gallipoli, The Patriot, We Were Soldiers, Braveheart, Air America etc). He also starred in What Women Want and later went on to be investigated for domestic violence.

Well I never, have a degree in media studies.

In fact all of you are awarded Universal Law Degrees as Barrack Room Lawyers (except those of you that are actually qualified)

I just can't get that compassionate about someone who is thought to have murdered a plane load of people.

I just can't get that compassionate about someone who is thought to have murdered a plane load of people.

I just can't get that compassionate about someone who is thought to have murdered a plane load of people.

It is a part of Scots law. Terminally ill prisoners are released. 31 applications in the past decade, and the 24 (including Al) where the medical evidence checked out were all released.

The difference between justice and vengeance is lost on some.
Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all that.

But whether you agree with the release or not doesn't really matter. Plenty of Scots don't.

The point is that we shouldn't be expected to scurry over to the States to explain our actions like naughty schoolboys in front of the headmaster, particularly when there is no evidence that they have done anything wrong (regardless of how upsetting the Americans find it).

Incidentally, how many senior American politicians did we summon for the recent Iraq Inquiry? Surely their evidence would have been very useful?

Do you think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would have come running if we demanded it?

Konabunny - have a read of the scotland act. Its very clear - the provisions of the scotland act that set up the Holyrood parliament cannot be altered without the consent of both parliaments.

the UK parliament has no jurisdiction over devolved matters and cannot take such jurisdiction without the consent of holyrood.
the 1971 piece you post is well out of date

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980046_en_1

enfht - Member

"I applaud you jocks for not folding under yanky pressure but the fact still stands that the "deal" resulting in a hero's welcome to that murdering bastard is highly regrettable and embarrassing for a nation trying to show it can stand on it's own two feet."

Ah yes, opinions presented as facts, good show. Embarassing? Personally I think it's something to be proud of and one of the finest moments of Scottish politics.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.” The point is not that (possible) murderers receive compassion. It is that good people give it.

Konabunny - have a read of the scotland act. Its very clear - the provisions of the scotland act that set up the Holyrood parliament cannot be altered without the consent of both parliaments.

the 1971 piece you post is well out of date

Says who?

Any provision of the Scotland Act that attempted to legislate that would be ultra vires of the Parliament. This has been a principle of constitutional law since Dicey's time at least. The Scotland Act is a simple Westminster act and could be repealed in the same way.

Too drunk and tired to argue it Konabunny. Its tedious reading the act.

the UK parliament gave away a piece of sovereignty - as it has done on may occasions ( maastrivcht treaty, ending of colonial rule etc). It cannot unilaterally reclaim that sovereignty

Holyrood is not subordinate to Westminster as yo seem to think. Holyrood has the power to do things that the UK government is against. The UK government has no right to interfere in devolved matters.

W

Why do we always go through this?
And why is one englishman arguing about scotland with another englishman?

GrahamS - Member
Do you still have that Wallace statue that bears
a uncanny resemblance to Mel Gibson?

The one at the Wallace Monument? Removed in 2008 after being repeatedly vandalised by people of excellent taste.

I know where it is now btw 🙂

the cheesy left are once again able to wave their little rattles at their favourite hate-object...

You can't devolve all responsibility for all UK actions in NI/North of Ireland to the English!

I am aware of the treatment of alleged terrorists currently and internment but I thought that was [b]UK law in both cases and not Scottish law[/b]

[i] If the average jock is too proud/stupid to understand [/i]

I'm an "average jock" (who has generally speaking no time at all for the SNP), however what I do understand is that the Scottish government released a terminally sick man (who may not even have been guilty) on compassionate grounds. I'm very proud to be part of a country that behaved in that way.

yer 'arrogance' an 'ignorance' is well known throughout the world,
Ye kinda liked by the Welsh, Disliked by the Scots, F'ing detested by the Irish, Spat upon by the French!
S'pose above is irrelevant when ye read first sentence.

#
steffybhoy - Member

yer 'arrogance' an 'ignorance' is well known throughout the world,
Ye kinda liked by the Welsh, Disliked by the Scots, F'ing detested by the Irish, Spat upon by the French!
S'pose above is irrelevant when ye read first sentence.
Posted 48 seconds ago # Report-Post

Would somebody be so kind as to translate this?

It appears to be loosely based on the beautiful English language, but as filtered through the tiny fortified wine addled mind of an illegitimate plastic paddy with an exceptionally weak grasp of history.

Would somebody be so kind as to translate this?

It appears to be loosely based on the beautiful English language, but as filtered through the tiny fortified wine addled mind of an illegitimate plastic paddy with an exceptionally weak grasp of history.

The sooner we get independence from England, the better. And I live on the Isle of Wight.

#
StefMcDef - Member

The sooner we get independence from England, the better. And I live on the Isle of Wight.
Posted 6 minutes ago # Report-Post

That's what I love about Scots nationalists. They love Scotland, but choose to live as far away from the place as possible! 😆

[i]I'm an "average jock" (who has generally speaking no time at all for the SNP), however what I do understand is that the Scottish government released a terminally sick man (who may not even have been guilty) on compassionate grounds. I'm very proud to be part of a country that behaved in that way.[/i]

I hear what you say, though for me it depends on the individual involved. If we were talking about a person who repeatedly stated that he was proud of what he'd done, felt no remorse and was glad that so many people had died, then even being terminally ill, releasing him would not be an act of compassion, but a best an act of bureaucracy and at worse an act of stupidity.
Of course in this case we're not talking about such a gentleman, it's fairly probable that he may not be even guilty of the act that he's been imprisoned for, in which case any politically expedient method of releasing him was to be welcomed.

The sooner we get independence from England, the better. And I live on the Isle of Wight.

Jack Straw has also refused to attend. Does that make him an ignorant jock too?

Jack Straw has also refused to attend. Does that make him an ignorant jock too?
He should be so lucky!