ScotBlog Award for Go Lassie Go!

Total Politics Award for Go Lassie Go!

TypePad Profile

Get updates on my activity. Follow me on my Profile.
Share |
Mobilise this Blog
Blog powered by Typepad

« Silent as the stones: What Michael Moore MP (didn't) have to say on Scottish jobs, fuel costs and future | Main | Questions for Scottish Labour hypocrites over Megrahi »

February 07, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"When the matter came to the then Prime Minister in August 2009, he did not seek to exercise any influence on the First Minister or the Scottish Government."

I must admit that part makes me laugh. Like GB HAD influence on the First Minister or the Scottish Government considering the despicable way he behaved towards them.

What a can of worms!

According to the report, it was a bad thing, but no-one did anything wrong. Although the UK government wanted Megrahi returned to Libya, because of pressure from BP and (I reckon) BAE Systems plus the money-grabbing former PM Blair, this doesn't matter because it was the Scottish government's decision and it was compassionate release not prisoner transfer anyway. How disingenuous.

It's clear that Salmond and McAskill resisted PTA. The compassionate release issue is another one entirely. My guess is that the Scottish government was delighted to see the back of Megrahi because it forestalled the other can of worms that would have opened if his appeal had gone ahead...the Scots Law kangaroo court held in the Netherlands.

Megrahi's conviction is unsafe (most commentators finger Iran, following the earlier USS Vincennes shoot-down in the Gulf). He was either released through expediency or through a genuine belief in the prognosis of his illness. The latter is hard to believe, but - if he is as innocent as many believe - a miracle recovery is perhaps not unreasonable!

I find it repulsive the way the media are trying to tarnish the SNP's reputation by insinuating that there is something in these documents that suggests the SNP may not have acted with honourable intentions after all, despite there being absolutely nothing in the documents to give any credence to these insinuations. You can really tell that there is an election coming up, and it seems that after the surprise of 2007, the media will do anything to make sure the result is not left to chance.

Journalists supposedly embark upon a career in journalism in order to expose lies and corruption, thus allowing people to read the truth. At what point does a Scottish journalist decide that helping the Labour party is more important than bringing out the truth, as well as the integrity of their profession and themselves?

The SNP have no case to answer. Whether or not people agree with their actual decision, they cannot deny that they made it with the best of intentions. The only dishonesty is from Labour and the media. Disgusting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo