scotlands total disgrace the AA grumpy column

Post by **pantoandy** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:14 pm

hello from grumpy towers

not to jump on anyone elses threads or the lockerbie band wagon .

heres the comment posted in the sun newspaper

THE pain of the Lockerbie victims' families can only be imagined.

They have to endure the sickening spectacle of the man convicted of murdering their loved ones greeted as a hero in Libya.

The scenes were disgraceful. But inevitable.

Libya was always going to roll out the red carpet for Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, freed by Scotland so he can die in his own country.

No appeal for restraint by Gordon Brown or an outraged President Obama was going to be listened to by the gloating mobs in Tripoli.

Victims' relatives who have given al-Megrahi the benefit of the doubt over his controversial conviction were just as appalled by the shameful scenes as those convinced of his guilt.

Many families demand to know why compassion has been shown to the man convicted of killing their loved ones while no compassion was shown to those who died.

Scotland's release of al-Megrahi means the truth about Lockerbie may never be known.

The Libyan's decision to abandon his appeal means fresh evidence will never be tested in court.

The secrets of the bombing will die with him.

But for the victims' families, the agony goes on.

AAG

no comment to add just enough said

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:57 am

Many families demand to know why compassion has been shown to the man convicted of killing their loved ones while no compassion was shown to those who died.

If you need to ask why anyone would show mercy you will never be able to understand the explanation. What is ironic is that the ones that are most upset about this are the religious people who you would have thoght would be the ones most likely to approve.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:47 am

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

'T is mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes

The throned monarch better than his crown;

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,

The attribute to awe and majesty,

Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

But mercy is above this sceptred sway,

It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,

It is an attribute to God himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God's,

When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, pantoandy,

Though justice be thy plea, consider this,

That in the course of justice none of us

Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;

And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy.

William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice", Act 4 scene 1 (except I subtituted "pantoandy" instead of "jew")

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:39 am

Quote:

Many families demand to know why compassion has been shown to the man convicted of killing their loved ones while no compassion was shown to those who died.

gmc;1234076 wrote: If you need to ask why anyone would show mercy you will never be able to understand the explanation. What is ironic is that the ones that are most upset about this are the religious people who you would have thoght would be the ones most likely to approve.

You know what gmc....................

You might have a point if it was really about compassion and not oil & trade!!

Or maybe I should just pipe down because as you have said before in this forum, Americans don't understand Uk's politics.

We do understand that many more American lives were lost and it has a LARGER effect on us than you.

I hope ya'll enjoy that bloody oil .

.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:13 am

bts: Many Brits don't understand Anglo-Scottish relations at the moment. The Union is in flux and changing.

Power over a number of issues, including internal legal matters has been devolved to a Scottish Parliament. The current Justice Minister is an Scottish Nationalist. His likely response to interference from Westminster would be to do the exact opposite of what he thought Westminster wanted.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:27 am

BTS;1235589 wrote: Quote:

Many families demand to know why compassion has been shown to the man convicted of killing their loved ones while no compassion was shown to those who died.

You know what gmc....................

You might have a point if it was really about compassion and not oil & trade!!

Or maybe I should just pipe down because as you have said before in this forum, Americans don't understand Uk's politics.

We do understand that many more American lives were lost and it has a LARGER effect on us than you.

I hope ya'll enjoy that bloody oil .

.

Of course oil has never been a factor in US foreign policy ever has it ?

If Scotland is to be criticised for showing compassion to this man, lets also join in the criticism of the compassion shown to Lt William Calley for serving only three years of house arrest for his part in the the My Lai massacre

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:35 am

Snowfire;1235609 wrote: Of course oil has never been a factor in US foreign policy ever has it ?

If Scotland is to be criticised for showing compassion to this man, lets also join in the criticism of the compassion shown to Lt William Calley for serving only three years of house arrest for his part in the the My Lai massacre

So, if it is oil, why all the smoke about compassion?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:49 am

hoppy;1235612 wrote: So, if it is oil, why all the smoke about compassion?

We all know politics stink and foriegn policy stinks the most. What I'm suggesting is the hypocrisy smells as bad as the rest of it

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:01 am

So, if it is oil, why all the smoke about compassion?

1) Because those were the grounds on which he was released and although we are all cynical about politicians there's a good chance in this case that the grounds were real.

2) Compassion is the reason I support the release, and the US reaction has made a Scottish issue a British one.

3) Accusations of acting for oil under a cloak of morality are hard to swallow coming from an American. See Snowfire's response above.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:51 am

Snowfire;1235617 wrote: We all know politics stink and foriegn policy stinks the most. What I'm suggesting is the hypocrisy smells as bad as the rest of it

No, the real smell around here anymore is that it is only hypocrisy if an american bothers to bring out a salient point Britain denies oil link to bomberÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s release - Terrorism- msnbc.com about you folks and your behavior. The fact that a thread that pulls us in for a discussion on the release of a convicted terrorist in your country automatically turns into another yeah but look at what america has done, as your defence.. rank

You are the ones patting yourselves on the back for your COMPASSION in this specific instance. YOU defend that stance in light of evidence to contrary (delivered by a participant in the trade talks in question), without attempting to point out something totally unrelated to this specific instance where you have professed a higher moral ground.

You can't profess a higher moral ground AND excuse your behavior because we heathens over here have done similar.

Make up your minds. It's either wrong or right - :rolleyes:

What's next... do a tally of who has done worse throughout history?

I think the proof will be in your government not seeing any change in trade relations with libya, won't it?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:53 am

Clodhopper;1235628 wrote: ..........

3) Accusations of acting for oil under a cloak of morality are hard to swallow coming from an American. See Snowfire's response above.

I always like the 'you can't dare call me on something you've been guilty of' defense..:yh_rotfl

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:01 am

flopstock;1235638 wrote: No, the real smell around here anymore is that it is only hypocrisy if an american bothers to bring out a salient point Britain denies oil link to bomberÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s release - Terrorism- msnbc.com about you folks and your behavior. The fact that a thread that pulls us in for a discussion on the release of a convicted terrorist in your country automatically turns into another yeah but look at what america has done, as your defence.. rank

You are the ones patting yourselves on the back for your COMPASSION in this specific instance. YOU defend that stance in light of evidence to contrary (delivered by a participant in the trade talks in question), without attempting to point out something totally unrelated to this specific instance where you have professed a higher moral ground.

You can't profess a higher moral ground AND excuse your behavior because we heathens over here have done similar.

Make up your minds. It's either wrong or right - :rolleyes:

What's next... do a tally of who has done worse throughout history?

I think the proof will be in your government not seeing any change in trade relations with libya, won't it?

Floppy, it ALL stinks to me. The whole issue of his release stinks. No arguement there. I'm not excusing the behaviour of the British Government over the release or any implied collusion with the Scottish Parliament or indeed any future trade deals tacked to the back.

I'm not saying any of it's right. I'm saying the hypocracy stinks just as bad

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:27 am

Ok. It was either compassion or oil.

If it was compassion I support the release. If it was oil I couldn't care less either way. Not my country, not my concern. Until the US made it so.

If it was compassion (a legal ground in Scottish and English Law for release) it's none of your concern either. It is a Scottish matter settled by Scots according to Scottish Law.

If it's oil, doesn't it seem a little hypocritical to get so upset about one man who may or may not have killed 270, when the US led (and or conned) invasion of Iraq to secure oil supplies has killed many, mnay times that number?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:56 am

Snowfire;1235609 wrote: Of course oil has never been a factor in US foreign policy ever has it ?

If Scotland is to be criticised for showing compassion to this man, lets also join in the criticism of the compassion shown to Lt William Calley for serving only three years of house arrest for his part in the the My Lai massacre:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Sorry tickled me fancy so much .......had to see it again to see if it was really said:-6:-6

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:58 am

Clodhopper;1235628 wrote: 1) Because those were the grounds on which he was released and although we are all cynical about politicians there's a good chance in this case that the grounds were real.

2) Compassion is the reason I support the release, and the US reaction has made a Scottish issue a British one.

3) Accusations of acting for oil under a cloak of morality are hard to swallow coming from an American. See Snowfire's response above.
So if Iraq was all about oil, where is all the oil we went in there for?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:59 am

flopstock;1235638 wrote: No, the real smell around here anymore is that it is only hypocrisy if an american bothers to bring out a salient point Britain denies oil link to bomberÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s release - Terrorism- msnbc.com about you folks and your behavior. The fact that a thread that pulls us in for a discussion on the release of a convicted terrorist in your country automatically turns into another yeah but look at what america has done, as your defence.. rank

You are the ones patting yourselves on the back for your COMPASSION in this specific instance. YOU defend that stance in light of evidence to contrary (delivered by a participant in the trade talks in question), without attempting to point out something totally unrelated to this specific instance where you have professed a higher moral ground.

You can't profess a higher moral ground AND excuse your behavior because we heathens over here have done similar.

Make up your minds. It's either wrong or right - :rolleyes:

What's next... do a tally of who has done worse throughout history?

I think the proof will be in your government not seeing any change in trade relations with libya, won't it?

I second that emotion:driving:

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:04 am

Snowfire;1235640 wrote: Floppy, it ALL stinks to me. The whole issue of his release stinks. No arguement there. I'm not excusing the behaviour of the British Government over the release or any implied collusion with the Scottish Parliament or indeed any future trade deals tacked to the back.

I'm not saying any of it's right. I'm saying the hypocracy stinks just as bad

So when is enough enough?

How long do we wear this red herring around our neck?

What do you want then? Should we shut up and get out of the way because of past actions?

Like the Great Americn Rodney King once said:

"Can't we all just get along"? MAN

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 am

Clodhopper;1235642 wrote: Ok. It was either compassion or oil.

If it was compassion I support the release. If it was oil I couldn't care less either way. Not my country, not my concern. Until the US made it so.

If it was compassion (a legal ground in Scottish and English Law for release) it's none of your concern either. It is a Scottish matter settled by Scots according to Scottish Law.

If it's oil, doesn't it seem a little hypocritical to get so upset about one man who may or may not have killed 270, when the US led (and or conned) invasion of Iraq to secure oil supplies has killed many, mnay times that number?

Wow great points Claude, Win win for your side and lose lose for anyone that tries to argue their point.

I hope you enjoy that oil with blood all over it....

Again, where is all this oil begotten from Iraq?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:17 am

Wow great points Claude, Win win for your side and lose lose for anyone that tries to argue their point.

Mockery. What people do when they can't argue. Shrug. If you say you don't understand the system and then make absolute judgements based on that lack of understanding, don't be surprised if you're wrong.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:59 am

Clodhopper;1235662 wrote: Wow great points Claude, Win win for your side and lose lose for anyone that tries to argue their point..

Clodhopper;1235662 wrote: Mockery. What people do when they can't argue. Shrug. If you say you don't understand the system and then make absolute judgements based on that lack of understanding, don't be surprised if you're wrong.

Your so astute Claude, yet your point that Iraq was all about oil therefore we are hypocrites is fairly shallow, unless you can show where all this supposed oil revenue is.

That is the only thing I don't understand.

Question:

Where did I say I didn't understand 'the system"?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:26 am

Or maybe I should just pipe down because as you have said before in this forum, Americans don't understand Uk's politics.

Sorry - didn't realise you were being sarcastic.

I don't know where Iraq's oil revenues have gone. Ask Halliburton, or the company that the US soldiers out there say they are dying for. Can't remember the name.

Can the current Iraq government sell oil to anyone the USA doesn't approve of? If the answer to my question is "no", then the answer to tour question is that they don't control the revenue - they no longer need to - they control the oil itself.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:15 am

flopstock;1235638 wrote: No, the real smell around here anymore is that it is only hypocrisy if an american bothers to bring out a salient point Britain denies oil link to bomberÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s release - Terrorism- msnbc.com about you folks and your behavior. The fact that a thread that pulls us in for a discussion on the release of a convicted terrorist in your country automatically turns into another yeah but look at what america has done, as your defence.. rank

You are the ones patting yourselves on the back for your COMPASSION in this specific instance. YOU defend that stance in light of evidence to contrary (delivered by a participant in the trade talks in question), without attempting to point out something totally unrelated to this specific instance where you have professed a higher moral ground.

You can't profess a higher moral ground AND excuse your behavior because we heathens over here have done similar.

Make up your minds. It's either wrong or right - :rolleyes:

What's next... do a tally of who has done worse throughout history?

I think the proof will be in your government not seeing any change in trade relations with libya, won't it?

It will be interesting to see if there is a change in the relationship with Libya. Who knows It might be due to the sheer shock that a prisoner can be released on comapssionate grounds rather than for political gain.

There's two things you are not taking in.

1) if the UK govt had been able to get the cots to release magrahi they would have got then to do it back in 2007. At the time there was a big stooshie because Tony Blair should not have been putting his release on the table. Even before devolution it would not have been something he could not agree to because he had no authority. With a devolved parliament he had even less chnce of getting his way. The UK parliament has no authority in the matter of scots law, english courts are not superior to the Scottish ones, english law lords cannot sit on the court of appeal in scots cases any more than scots ones cabn it in on english cases. English lawyer cannot appear in scots courts. If the release was for oil it would have happened back then. From the letter it also seem clear that the Libyans thought it had been agreed.

2) You will note he was not released in 2007 when the UK govt did make a cynical deal with the Libyan govt. If he were in good health he would not be released even now but sitting in jail in Kilmarnock and his appeal rumbling on. He would not have been released AT ALL were not for the fact he is going to be dead soon.

That is the only FACT that you can say for certain is relevant to the decision. He is going to die.

What's next... do a tally of who has done worse throughout history?

Not much point. You're only beginners at history and rank amateurs at that. We would win hands down. Go in to a british or european bookshop and there are whole sections devoted to british/french/ german/russian etc etc history. The US usually gets a shelf. There isn't a nation on the planet we haven't gone to war with and usually beaten but now we are bankrupt and no longer inclined to fight imperial wars and the notion that my country right or wrong is a good reason to march off to war is not one that anyone falls for any more-not just us either- we know we were nasty shites because we learn about it in school. We also know about the part played by Uk governments in the present mess ion the middle east and don't kid ourselves it's anything to be proud off or pretend it didn't happen-nor do we go away and sulk that no one likes us because someone points it out and any criticism is just anti-British sentiment and not valid for that reason. By all means criticise the British government if you wish-it's not as if you will be telling us something we don't already know and we're not in denial about it.

posted by BTS

Again, where is all this oil begotten from Iraq?

Follow the money. Who benefited from the US, and us, going in to Iraq. Certainly not the soldiers. If you want to get angry about something get angry about that. Why did your soldiers die, what was it for and who benefits? If you really think it was because Saddam was going to attack the US please explain why you believe that. it would have made ore sense to size saudi assets and cut off the flow of money to al queada. Bit off topic though.

If magrehi (how do you spell his name) dies in the next three months will you concede that perhaps compassion WAS the only motive?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:19 am

Oil Led to Libyan's Release, Official Says

Oil, Trade Talks Helped Free Libya Bomber

I'm thinking us Americans may understand your politics a little better then you'd like.:rolleyes:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:33 pm

gmc;1235953 wrote: It will be interesting to see if there is a change in the relationship with Libya. Who knows It might be due to the sheer shock that a prisoner can be released on comapssionate grounds rather than for political gain.

?
Complete bollocks and you know it. With every day that passes, more and more is revealed about Brown and Salmond's dodgy dealing with Lybia.

The original decision to release 'Abdelbaset Al Megrahi' was down to Gordon Brown. He recieved a pledge from Gaddafi that Lybia would offer their services in the war on terror. Also, major companies such as BP were telling GB that Britain would lose big commercial contracts with Libya unless a deal was done over his release.... meaning that thousands of jobs were at risk and if the reduced terror threat was to be belived, the saving of lives.

He could have taken the moral descision to prevent his release pleasing the Americans however, that would have meant risking the loss of British jobs and losing the co-operation of the Libyan Intelligence service in the war on Al-Qaeda.

This was a choice for Brown to put Britains prosperity and national security ahead of moral decency and for that he can only be accussed of being at least patriotic.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:08 pm

Thank you so much for your above posts Floppy and Oscar.....hmmmmmm....very interesting:sneaky::D

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:28 pm

Kathy Ellen;1238397 wrote: Thank you so much for your above posts Floppy and Oscar.....hmmmmmm....very interesting:sneaky::D

;);)

Attached files

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:45 am

oscar;1238306 wrote: Complete bollocks and you know it. With every day that passes, more and more is revealed about Brown and Salmond's dodgy dealing with Lybia.

The original decision to release 'Abdelbaset Al Megrahi' was down to Gordon Brown. He recieved a pledge from Gaddafi that Lybia would offer their services in the war on terror. Also, major companies such as BP were telling GB that Britain would lose big commercial contracts with Libya unless a deal was done over his release.... meaning that thousands of jobs were at risk and if the reduced terror threat was to be belived, the saving of lives.

He could have taken the moral descision to prevent his release pleasing the Americans however, that would have meant risking the loss of British jobs and losing the co-operation of the Libyan Intelligence service in the war on Al-Qaeda.

This was a choice for Brown to put Britains prosperity and national security ahead of moral decency and for that he can only be accussed of being at least patriotic.

There is no doubt gordon brown is a devious lying hypocritical incompetent pillock. But try and get it through your head that scotland has a separate judicial system from the english one. Neither the prime minister or the justice secretary can tell the scottish government or justice minister what to do. They can put pressure on them certainly but when it really comes right down to it they can't tell them what to do. Anyone that believes the SNP will touch the forelock and do what they are told by the likes of gordon brown is an idiot. In 2007 they were unable to release megrahi because the scots turned round and said no-a labour administration might have gone along with it. They released him now on compassionate grounds but it's quite clear from macaskills comments in 2007 and now in 2009 that oil and whatever deals gordon brown may have made were not a factor. You mat not agree with the release but I think you are wrong in assuming it was pressure from the UK government that was behind it. If anu=ythingb the easy way out would have been just to keep him. Interesting the media now talk about a UK govt and a scottish one. If we vote for independence it won't be a united kingdom any more-will it.

So how come you are not up in arms about the release of IRA and UDA terrorists as part of the peace agreement? There is no doubt about their guilt and how do you think their victims feel about seeing them walking on the same streets as they are and where their loved ones were blown to bits?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:11 am

gmc;1238590 wrote: There is no doubt gordon brown is a devious lying hypocritical incompetent pillock. But try and get it through your head that scotland has a separate judicial system from the english one. Neither the prime minister or the justice secretary can tell the scottish government or justice minister what to do. They can put pressure on them certainly but when it really comes right down to it they can't tell them what to do. Anyone that believes the SNP will touch the forelock and do what they are told by the likes of gordon brown is an idiot. In 2007 they were unable to release megrahi because the scots turned round and said no-a labour administration might have gone along with it. They released him now on compassionate grounds but it's quite clear from macaskills comments in 2007 and now in 2009 that oil and whatever deals gordon brown may have made were not a factor. You mat not agree with the release but I think you are wrong in assuming it was pressure from the UK government that was behind it. If anu=ythingb the easy way out would have been just to keep him. Interesting the media now talk about a UK govt and a scottish one. If we vote for independence it won't be a united kingdom any more-will it.

So how come you are not up in arms about the release of IRA and UDA terrorists as part of the peace agreement? There is no doubt about their guilt and how do you think their victims feel about seeing them walking on the same streets as they are and where their loved ones were blown to bits?

Lockerbie bomber row: Alex Salmond under fire over Qatar's role in freeing Al Megrahi

Sep 4 2009 By Magnus Gardham

ALEX SALMOND has been dragged deeper into the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

Salmond's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill considered a plea from Qatar to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi only weeks after the First Minister held talks with the oil-rich Arab state.

And just THREE days before announcing his decision, MacAskill told the Qatar government he had taken their views "into account".

The exact details of the letter - and others sent by the Scottish government - emerged yesterday as Salmond came under fire in parliament for his role in the case.

Salmond also wrote to the Qataris on July 21, telling them MacAskill was dealing the Megrahi's case "expeditiously".

Opposition MSPs insisted the revelations raised fresh suspicions overMacAskill'sdecision to releaseMegrahi.

The Scottish government have been working hard to build links with Qatar for more than a year.

They hope to attract billions of pounds of investment or loans for major projects such as the new Forth bridge.

Qatar's plea was highlighted yesterday by Scots Tory leader Annabel Goldie. She told MSPs: "This doesn't look good."

Labour, meanwhile, called on Salmond to drop plans to visit Qatar later this year, saying the trip was now "inappropriate".

Letters from Salmond and MacAskill to senior figures in the Qa t a r government were published earlier this week.

They show Salmond held trade talks in Scotland on July 11 with Qatari ambassador Khalid Rashid Al-Hamoudi Al-Mansouri and the country's international co-operation minister Khalid bin Mohammed Al-Attiyah.

Megrahi's case was discussed. A few days later, on July 21, Salmond wrote to the ambassador inviting the Qatar government to make formal representations over Megrahi's release toMacAskill .

They made their plea, which was also on behalf of other nations in the Arab League, in two letters, dated July 17 and July 31.

MacAskill replied to them on August 3 and August17.

In the second letter, he wrote: "I noted in my previous letter that I would take into account the points you raised on behalf of the state of Qatar and the Arab League, requesting Mr Al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds."

Just three days later, MacAskill freedMegrahi on those grounds.

In their letters, Salmond and MacAskill are at pains to stress the decision on the Lockerbie bomber. would be taken on legal grounds.

Salmond wrote on July 21: "The decision will be made on judicial grounds alone."

But Goldie asked whether the government had "failed to act in an upfront way" and if they were "involved in dubious deals and nudge and wink diplomacy".

She said during First Minister's Questions: "In all his government's dealing with Arab states seeking money for his Scottish Futures Trust, did the issue of Mr al-Megrahi's release ever come into play or was it raised in anyform?" "I'mafraid there aresuspicions." Last night, the minutes of Salmond's trade talks with the Qataris were published.

They confirmed the Qataris raised Megrahi's case and wanted to find a "solution".

But the notes added: "The First Minister underlined the importance of following the procedures which have been put in place."

Salmond also said he would be "happy to visit" Qatar.

Labour MSP Duncan McNeil said yesterday: "The First Minister should not even be considering visiting Qatar at thistime.

"It would not be well understood or it is not appropriate for the Scottish government to be seeking investment funds from the Middle East at this time for public projects here in Scotland.

"With threats of boycotts, Scotland is already damaged by the handling of the Lockerbie bomber.'s release. This could seriously deteriorate if we send out the wrong message in our dealings with Libya and other Middle East states who lobbied for Mr al-Megrahi's release .

"The Scottish government have to be above suspicion in their handling of the situation."

News of Salmond's growing links with Qatar emerged last year.

Sources confirmed the First Minister planned to visit this year but a spokesman said: "There are no current arrangements to doso."

He added: "Clearly, we wish to pursue trade and investment opportunities on a global basis.

"The issue of Megrahi was on due process and justice grounds alone.That is amplified by the letter the FirstMinister sent on July 21.

"Everyone who made representations on this matter was told the same thing. We took all representations into account but it was decided according to due process."

Meanwhile, Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi is to ask the United Nations to "abolish" Switzerland and share the land among its neighbouring countries.

Relations between Switzerland and Libya crumbled after Gaddafi's son Hannibal, 33, and his wife were arrested in Geneva last year, accused of assaulting a hotel chamber maid.

JULY 11

First Minister Alex Salmond attends trade talks with Qatari officials in Scotland

JULY 17

The Qatar government make their first appeal to their Scots counterparts

JULY 31

The Qatar government make their second appeal to the Scottish government

Gordon Brown handed the whole issue to Salmond because he believed he would get the blame from the Americans and it would blow up in the face of the SNP... which it has.... Nice one Gordon !!!!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:53 am

posted by oscar

Gordon Brown handed the whole issue to Salmond because he believed he would get the blame from the Americans and it would blow up in the face of the SNP... which it has.... Nice one Gordon !!!!

O.K I'll say this slowly so you can try and follow. Gordon Browm is not in a position to tell the SNP government what to do. A labour administration might sook up and do what they are told but if anything the SNP would do the opposite just to annoy westminster. He has kept out of it because he does not want to annoy the scottish voter any more than he has already. Never mind what you might think about he release most scots would be annoyed at a westminster government that cannot appreciate the point we are part of the united kingdom with a separate identity-not a conquered nation to do as it is told. They tried to get his release in 2007, if they could have done they would have done it then. Clearly the SNP victory caught them by surprise.

What is it about the sentence scotland has has a separate judicial system from the english one that you cannot understand. That you want to stand as an MP and you are unfamiliar with your own constitution is depressing but not particularly surprising given your habit of reading the daily mail. Having looked at the VBNP manifesto they don't get it either-they obviously have no intention of trying to get votes in scotland.

Gordon Brown will probably lose his seat at the next election-it can't come soon enough.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:12 am

gmc;1238674 wrote: posted by oscar

O.K I'll say this slowly so you can try and follow. Gordon Browm is not in a position to tell the SNP government what to do. A labour administration might sook up and do what they are told but if anything the SNP would do the opposite just to annoy westminster. He has kept out of it because he does not want to annoy the scottish voter any more than he has already. Never mind what you might think about he release most scots would be annoyed at a westminster government that cannot appreciate the point we are part of the united kingdom with a separate identity-not a conquered nation to do as it is told. They tried to get his release in 2007, if they could have done they would have done it then. Clearly the SNP victory caught them by surprise.

What is it about the sentence scotland has has a separate judicial system from the english one that you cannot understand. That you want to stand as an MP and you are unfamiliar with your own constitution is depressing but not particularly surprising given your habit of reading the daily mail. Having looked at the VBNP manifesto they don't get it either-they obviously have no intention of trying to get votes in scotland.

Gordon Brown will probably lose his seat at the next election-it can't come soon enough.

Excuse me Auld Yin but I have no problem understanding that Scotland has a sperate Judicial system. That is not the point I am making. I am making the point that if you think that the Lockerbie bombers release was not bartered with trade deals by Westminster and The SNP, then you have been in the distillery too long.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:32 pm

oscar;1238676 wrote: Excuse me Auld Yin but I have no problem understanding that Scotland has a sperate Judicial system. That is not the point I am making. I am making the point that if you think that the Lockerbie bombers release was not bartered with trade deals by Westminster and The SNP, then you have been in the distillery too long.

The point you seem unable to grasp is that the scottish government is not disposed to release Mehgrahi at the behest of anyone, oil deals or not. If you think the SNP are going to be a party to such a tghimng you really do not understand British politics. Get used to it-if the snp get their way and scotland becomes independent there will never be a labour government in england again.

Scottish ministers attack No 10 over Lockerbie bomber | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Mr MacAskill said: "It is undermining the fabric of the Scottish judicial system that has been independent long before the Scottish parliament was established.

David Mundell, the Tory MP whose Dumfriesshire constituency covers Lockerbie, said he was "appalled" by Mr Blair's handling of the matter.

"Not only has he ridden roughshod over Scotland's parliament and legal system, but his actions threaten to undermine a legal process which took years to put in place and was agreed with the United Nations and international community," he said.

"Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi must be dealt with in accordance with that due legal process and not as part of any deal."

While slime ball brown might barter to make trade deals it is clear the SNP were not prepared to. You will note who was saying that in 2007, quite clearly left to gordon brown megrahi would have been released to get oil deals with libya. It was also 2007 the SNP won the election-clearly that caught gordon brown and tony blair by surprise as no doubt a supine scottish labour party would have done what tony told them to do. The only thing that has changed is megrahi's state of health. The only one that seems to have acted with any integrity or consistency in this is MacAskill. The daily mail et all seem to have very selective memories about this and manage to forget how big a stooshie it caused at the time. None of the allegations now being made are actually new news. It was hardly a big secret at the time.

If you think Mehgrahi is now being released only because of trade deals with libya you ignore not only the facts but make the assumption that no politician is capable of acting on a sense of right and wrong that isn't governed by what others think. You may disagree with the release but it shows a bloody minded Presbyterian sense of moral integrity to make a decision regardless of the consequences and what others might think is the right one to make.

Mr Al Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.

"But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

I'm not surprised Christians who believe in an eye for an eye don't agree.

how on earth do trade deals with Libya benefit scotland? Now we have americans wanting to boycott Scottish goods as a consequence- the better route for scotland might have been to hang on to him and keep the americans happy. So far as MacAskill is concerned i think the only factor in the release was the state of health of megrahi. I noticed you avoided answering my question about the ira and uda terrorists. Making peace means enemies sit down and talk to each other and letting go of hate.

This is just the tories trying to distract attention from the fact they are completely ineffectual and have done nothing to call new labour to account for the iraq war and what is happening in Afghanistan or the complete and utter balls up Gordon Brown has made of the economy. It's like watching little boys throwing tantrums knowing they are powerless to actually change anything so they latch on to something where they think they might be able to score some points. That's why UKIP and the BNP are beginning to get somewhere, people are fed up and inclined to vote for extremes just to make their displeasure clear and gordon brown is too thick to notice and too arrogant to care. I think tony blair and gordon brown may have destroyed the labour party even more comprehensively that maggie did the tories