Libyan Health Service - Best In The World

He was wasting away from prostate cancer in a Scottish prison hospital, so the Scottish government, in a shady deal involving the Foreign Office, Lord Mandelson of Sleaze and flatulent nutcase Gadaffi's son, released the only convicted Lockerbie bomber on 'compassionate' grounds. He had an absolute maximum of three months to live, after all, said a couple of hired quacks. The poor man would have become an ex-bomber by the end of October 2009, so we were told (and didn't believe). Sorry to quote myself, but this was me back in November (three months after the Megrahi release):

Al-Megrahi: the convicted Lockerbie bomber might still not be dead as all the Labour stooge doctors and this Labour government ghoulishly promised everyone he would be (he's a full five days overdue now), but he's still about to come back and haunt at least one of them. Yes, you guessed it, the King of Sleaze himself, Lord Mandelson of Tripoli.

Now we learn from a number of sources that six months on, Megrahi is not only still alive and free, but he's actually recovering - and free. Clearly, something is amiss. Instead, however, of branding this whole, stinking affair a web of deceit motivated by a Big Oil deal and reaching right up to the highest levels of the British government, let's just praise the Libyan Health Service. Megrahi's almost miraculous cure in the capable hands of Libyan doctors offers pretty conclusive proof that Libyan health care is comfortably the best in the world.

Toby Young, however, is rightly livid about the whole, grubby, insulting episode, just as everyone else should be. He also argues - and I think this is very important - that Megrahi's conviction was absolutely safe, according to a relative of a victim who understandably took a very close interest in the trial.

Given the fact that Megrahi is a convicted terrorist, and given that thanks to these legendary Libyan healthcare professionals, he's now on the road to recovery, isn't it nearly time for him to be put right back in jail? We could even settle for a Libyan jail.

I suspect that that wasn't part of Mandy's backroom sweetener BP deal, however, so I won't be holding my breath.

Truly sickening.

Megrahi: Still Not Dead - Meanwhile Banks Rejoice

Al-Megrahi: the convicted Lockerbie bomber might still not be dead as all the Labour stooge doctors and this Labour government ghoulishly promised everyone he would be (he's a full five days overdue now), but he's still about to come back and haunt at least one of them. Yes, you guessed it, the King of Sleaze himself, Lord Mandelson of Tripoli.

Incidentally, this partridge shooting party thing of Lord Rothschild that Mandelson attended with, among others, Saif Gaddafi - I can't help but wonder whether there is any connection between this and today's "Supreme" Court ruling enabling banks to continue legally to steal however much they like from customers that their extortionate, punitive charges turned into debt slaves in the first place. After all, at least one of the judges was a Rothschild banker.

The point is that wherever you look there's some sort of Labour shadiness going on - or has been going on- so often with Mandelson right at the very heart of it. Be it Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, the banks, education, health, PFI, Europe - the list is seemingly endless.

If and when we kick these ruinous crooks out, the Tories will have to uncover anything and everything about Labour's record of betrayal and deceit, however damaging it might appear potentially to be to the reputation of the country. Hiding it will only cause the rot to creep ever further. Revealing the truth about these long years of Labour corruption and sleaze is the only way gradually to draw Britain out of shadows into which it has been cast by the worst government it has ever had inflicted upon it.

Synonyms for "Liar"

Thousands of synonyms, euphemisms and collocations are used every day to describe that odd human tendency to tell porkies. This excellent Speccy post opts for that well-varnished old standard, the reflexive verb-phrase applicable to all those who are either confused, are trying to mislead or are forced to change their stories under pressure: "to contradict oneself". The person "contradicting himself" in this case is, surprise surprise, rodental arch Labourist, Jack Straw.

One question that arises from the publication the Lockerbie documents is why Jack Straw suddenly decided against excluding al-Megrahi from the PTA? Straw justified his change of heart on the grounds of "overwhelming national interests", though trade and commercial interests were not a contributing factor in that calculation, a point he reiterated last weekend. But, in an interview with the Telegraph today, Straw contradicts himself:

'"Yes, it (trade deals with Libya) was a very big part of that (including al-Megrahi in the PTA). I'm unapologetic about that. Libya was a rogue state. We wanted to bring it back into the fold and trade is an essential part of it - and subsequently there was the BP deal."'

This revelation lends credence to Saif al-Islam's insistence that Megrahi's release or transfer was always a pre-condition of UK Libyan agreements, and undermines Straw's, David Miliband's, Lord Mandelson's and Gordon Brown's righteous indignation about being accused of 'double dealing'. Once again, there are more questions to answer about this whole case.

If I "contradicted myself" over anything I did professionally, I'd be out of a job (eventually). Then again, I suppose if every politician that lied - or "contradicted themselves" - was fired for it, we'd have no politicians. Now there's a thought...

The point is not to get caught. Brown and his useless ministers (like this Straw man) have been lying and lying and lying since Day 1 of their seizing power in '07 - and they've been getting caught all the time. Why hasn't this government fallen yet? It's a fair question.

I can only conclude that something really is wrong with this country. I wonder what it is.

PS: Any reader out there who hasn't already seen it will want to know that Barking Spider's post on rat Straw's lousy squirming over the terrorist-for-oil scandal is really excellent.

Hatstand Hattersley

As one of those "hysterical" (as Hattersley generously brands detractors who freely voice their opinion about Brown's abject, unprincipled cynicism) commentators who supports David Cameron's call for Brown to come clean over his government's role in the terrorist-for-oil scandal - although, I cheerfully admit, one who is largely ignored - I felt the urge to remark on the blubbering lefty Lord's Times article. Here's a bit of his hilarious outburst, just so you get the gist of the argument, if it can be called that:

I believe that al-Megrahi was released in the interests of compassion rather than because of fear that, were he to die in jail, Libyan oil supplies would be cut off. That view is supported by the more responsible commentators who only set out the conspiracy theories in order to discount them. But, if it was Britain’s economic health that the Prime Minister had in mind, does the leader of the Conservative Party think that Mr Brown’s priorities were wrong? If so, when did Mr Cameron, and the hysterical commentators who parrot his demands, come to the conclusion that political necessity — the demands of diplomacy, security and trade — should not influence government decisions on whether or not to compromise with terrorists?

Have you spotted the flaw of flaws in these - erm - thoughts? Have you noted the dead giveaway, aside from the fact that Hatstand is endorsing the idea that we should abandon all principles whenever we need the oil? Yes, in the absence of any truth from Brown, he's admitted on behalf of that stain on our society, that blot on our political landscape that Hatstand admires so much what sane people suspect: "...if it was Britain's economic health that the [total moron] had in mind...". And? Let's complete the thought for him: "...when he allowed the deal with Libya to go through, regardless of principle and the blow to our relationship with our allies, does the leader of the..." etc. Truly remarkable.

It seems Hatstand, for once in his sorry life, knows something that we, erm, already know: Brown did the deal!

I suppose Hatstand is one of those types whose foot is so firmly stuck in his mouth that you want him to stay far, far away from your side whether he loves you or not. What a clown.

Brown's Britain: "Total Moral Collapse"

So went the damning verdict of an American mother, Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the Lockerbie bombing, on PM earlier this evening. The endless duplicity of Brown and Labour is only matched by their shambolic, shameless intervention in this lowest of low points in the annals of British international relations. And Mrs Cohen precisely expresses why Brown and Labour deserve nothing but contempt for it.

"Total moral collapse" should be the words carved deep into the gravestone of Brown's bankrupt (in every sense of the term) Labour administration and political career. It will take a long, long time for Britain to recover from this latest piece of Labour-inspired, global humiliation.

Brown's defence? Nothing short of insane doublethink. Come out fighting and lie, lie and lie again. No more than one has come to expect from someone who is absolutely hell-bent on doing as much damage to Britain as he possibly can before he's finally kicked-out by what he clearly regards in his nail-chewing, fevered imagination as an ungrateful nation.

Sound implausible? Hardly. It's the only possible conclusion that I can reach after scandals of this magnitude just keep on coming, and performances like Brown's today (and Millipede's this morning, which was just as bad - if not worse).

The only silver lining for me in this whole sordid mess is that Cameron has handled it admirably - so far. At least we know what Tory policy is on releasing convicted terrorists. The same certainly can't be said for the Labour Party, if the opinion of one of their many former Home Secretaries is anything to go by.

Meanwhile, Scottish Labour and British(?) Labour are now officially split over the scandal, after the former teamed-up with the Scottish Conservatives to defeat the hapless, hopeless, ever-so-compassionate SNP over their dimwitted handling of the Megrahi affair (no deals there, of course).

So what is the Labour line on releasing terrorists when the "national interest" (Big Oil) is concerned? More to the point, what is Brown's. We still are all none the wiser.

What an unutterable, sickening, soulless, chaotic catastrophe this Labour government is. As if that needs repeating. And Brown is the worst Prime Minister of all time. Even socialist historians will find it an impossible challenge to prove otherwise, though no-doubt they will try...

Libyagate: As If We Didn't Know...

BP Libya: The motive
SNP collusion: The opportunity
Release of Megrahi - lies: Brown's crime

The British government did decide to release Megrahi to sweeten a BP oil deal, the Sunday Times has revealed. So, they lied - to everyone. And Brown has pulled his usual trick of scuttling off to talk nonsense to our soldiers in Afghanistan when the heat's on at home. Only, it won't fly this time for him because marines are dying this time while he's "in country".

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.

“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].”

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”

Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: “It’s always been about business.”

It's not the "national interest" excuse that jars, or even the deal itself. People might or might not regard these as justifiable (I don't). It's the obvious collusion that's gone on behind the scenes with the Scottish executive to lie about the real reasons for releasing the terrorist in question using the "compassionate grounds" legislation as nothing more than a convenient loophole. It's the constant lying to the British people - even when they know we know that they are lying, but go on doing it anyway. It's the attempt, incompetent as ever, to cover-up their misdeeds in the most brazen manner possible. It's the cynicism, the dishonesty; it's the corruption and, no doubt (because crooks like Mandelson are involved), the sleaze.

Above all, it's the sheer, world class stupidity of this government that people will no longer forgive.

This scandal should bring down this Labour government. It's rotten to its core. It was only a matter of time before it deceived not just the British people, but the world, once too often. That time has come.

If political corruption on this scale can't force the chief perpetrators out, then there is something seriously wrong with Britain. I fear that that could well be the case, so I won't hold be holding my breath.

Perhaps Gordon can explain to the troops while he's out there why he is doing deals with the type of people they are trying so hard (indeed, have been ordered) to defeat. Of course, it'll be too late for about 200 of them, and rising.

He, and all those who support him, sicken me.

Another Fine LibyaGate Blog

Bomber: "Reports of my death..."

This time from some excellent chap named Daniel Korsiki in the Speccy. (Makes a pleasant change from Alex Massie's nonsensical interventions, at least.) If you really can't be shagged to click on the link, I've lifted the entire text - purely for your convenience, you understand - (and certainly not because I'm the internet equivalent of a parasitical growth feeding off the good ideas of others. Some might disagree with that, of course, and that's just peachy. They can bog off, can't they :)

One of the oddest parts of Libyagate is what it says about Gordon Brown’s notions of devolution. The Prime Minister does not want to comment on the affair because, we are told, he sees it as a matter for the Scottish government, not the British government.

So, if the actions of a devolved but subordinate level of government go against the state’s interests, the leaders of that state should stay mum? That's certainly not the view taken by successive US administrations; they have often condemned state-level actions, even when the federal government has been legally powerless to do anything in practice.

The UK has no written constitution as in the US, but a clear constitutional settlement nonetheless. Now I am not a lawyer, but as far as I understand it, the UK Parliament retains sole authority to legislate over so-called reserved matters. This can only be altered by further primary legislation of the UK Parliament. Within the Scotland Act 1998 reservations to all devolved matters are those concerned with the UK as ‘a state’ and include e.g. the Constitution, foreign affairs and defence.

Let's play a little thought experiment. What if a devolved level of government takes an action that is within its legal competence but which leads to war with the state and a third country? Would the state have the right to curtail the otherwise legal actions of the subordinate level of government to defend the whole country's interests and security? Most people would say so.

That was an extreme example, but the point is serious and recognized in international law. Under the so-called laws of state responsibility, a state is responsible for the actions of its officials and organs, even if the organ or official is formally independent. It is even responsible if the organ – in this case a devolved level of government - is acting ultra vires, that is, “beyond the powers” of the state. Indeed, entities not even classified as organs of the state may still be imputable, when they are otherwise empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority, and act in that capacity in a particular instance. So the UK is legally responsible for Scotland’s actions.

In other words, if the power to conduct foreign relations is truly an exclusive competency of the UK government, with no role for the devolved bodies, a logical consequence is that some devolved actions and indeed laws impinging on foreign relations are invalid, even in the absence of already-established UK government policy. Libyagate is not only about Gordon Brown's politically-calculated absence, or Kenny MacAskill’s misguided notions of compassion, but about a constitutional grey area that should be explored further, at the very least by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is responsible for legal matters arising from Scottish devolution.

Interesting. It seems quite conceivable to me that the Scots would want to try to get their own back on, I assume, the "English" for dragging them reluctantly into umpteen wars, including two of the global variety, by doing exactly the same thing.

What is certain, though, is that this moral and political travesty perpetrated by the unhappy, well-connected, corrupt-as-hell, Scottish political sets that are the SNP and the Scottish Labourists, like Brown, is not going to go away any time soon, Brown's attempts at pretending it never happened (and that he had nothing whatsoever to do with it) notwithstanding.

One simple reason why this is true is last night's revelation in the Telegraph about the freed terrorist himself, Megrahi. He's not quite as close to death's door as these idiots had led the world to believe. He was not in need of quite as much compassionate leave from justice as the sanctimonious SNP windbag who did the deal with Labour to let him go would like us all still to think.

[Cancer expert] Dr Richard Simpson said that medical reports show there is “significant doubt” that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will die within the next three months.

The Labour MSP accused Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, of failing to conduct sufficient checks before deciding to release the terminally-ill bomber last week.

This attack was echoed by the Tories, who said that the most recent medical consensus was Megrahi would live eight months, too long to be eligible for compassionate release.

The row broke out as Gordon Brown finally ended his silence on the controversy, but refused to say whether he agreed with Mr MacAskill's decision.

The Prime Minister stressed he had “no role” in the release and he was “angry and repulsed” at the hero's welcome that greeted Megrahi on his return to Libya.

A storm of international condemnation has met Mr MacAskill's ruling last week to release Megrahi, who is suffering from prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.

Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidelines suggest that inmates are only freed if they have less than three months to live.

However, Dr Simpson, who specialised in prostate disease research, said: “It is clear to me from the medical reports and the opinion of the specialists that Megrahi could live for many more months.

”Kenny MacAskill released him apparently on the advice of just one doctor whose status is not clear and who is not named.”

Dr Simpson, a former member of the British Association of Urological Surgeons' prostate cancer working group, said the minister should have sought a second opinion from a specialist in palliative care.

A health assessment compiled by a SPS medical officer for Mr MacAskill, states that last autumn Megrahi was given between 18 months and two years to live.

Who'd have thought it? He's not quite so poorly after all. Aside from the legal implications for the Scottish Injustice Secrectary, the political and moral implications of this man's survival beyond the bizarre three month life expectency limit imposed upon him by a two-faced Scottish system are severe for the pathological liars and cowards involved in this whole, stinking affair, like Brown and, of course, Mr "Higher Power" himself, MacAskill. They are now, for example, in the unenviable position of wishing this man dead - in a hurry. Very compassionate.

The only thing people with any sense are going to conclude from this latest - and worst - outbreak of Brown/Labour dishonesty is that it really is time for change. If nothing else than because we need someone - anyone - to come in and start the long - oh, so long - process of clearing up their incalculably costly, universal mess. As implied elsewhere on this blog, this latest scandal, terrible as it is on its own, has also provided further unequivocal evidence that Brown and anyone who is stupid or corrupt enough still to support him and Labour, have to go. Forever, preferably.

At the very least, perhaps a change of government will make the SNP-led Scottish "Parliament" think twice before declaring war on Pittsburg, or whatever it is they have planned as the next step in what passes for their barking, bankrupt "foreign policy".

"Brown Government Falls!" Oh, how I look forward to typing those words for real. What a great day for Britain that will be.

Brown Is Pathetic...

...according to decent MSM blogger, Nile Gardiner (whom SNP apologist and recent equivocator on terrorists, Alex Massie, surprisingly of the Spectator, refers to as a purveyor of "weapons grade stupidity", no less. Pots and kettles, Massie. Pots and kettles.)

Here's Gardiner's latest offering on this last piece of Brownian cowardice. Personally, I'd say it's a laser-guided smart bomb right down Brown's trousers.

The Prime Minister has finally broken his silence over the shameful return to Libya of the Lockerbie bomber, five days after the event. It is too little too late. Why has it taken Downing Street nearly a week to even express an opinion over the appalling hero’s welcome received by Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi in Tripoli, amid scenes that have sparked outrage and fury in the United States as well as widespread revulsion at home? This is not leadership but moral cowardice on the part of an increasingly spineless PM who is afraid of offending an odious but oil-rich tyrant with a long history of backing terrorism against Britain and America, as well as brutalizing his own people.

Brown declares that he was “angry and repulsed” by the abhorrent display put on by the Libyan regime, but clearly not angry enough to condemn the actual release by Scottish authorities of a convicted terrorist found guilty of murdering 270 people, including 52 Britons. His half-hearted comments reflect the ambivalence of the Labour government over terrorism, exemplified by Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s recent declaration to BBC Radio 4 that terrorism was justified in certain circumstances.

Gordon Brown’s pathetic response will do little to soothe the mounting tension between the United States and Great Britain over the Lockerbie issue, or the heartfelt anger of many of the grieving families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. Brown has placed the appeasement of a dictatorial regime above the concerns of Britain’s closest ally, and continues to undermine the Anglo-American Special Relationship.

It is also highly significant that Brown refused to criticise the actions of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, even though members of his own party have strongly attacked the SNP-led Scottish administration over the issue. The PM’s denials over any British government involvement in MacAskill’s decision carried an air of desperation against a backdrop of mounting evidence of high level contacts between the Labour government and Colonel Gaddafi’s inner circle.

The Prime Minister’s spectacularly unconvincing performance today will only add to the pressure on Brown to come clean over the exact details of his own discussions with Gaddafi, as well as those between Lord Mandelson and Gaddafi’s son Saif. He has done himself no favours at all by refusing to address the three central questions that need to be answered.

Did Gordon Brown and senior British government ministers support the freeing of Megrahi? What pressure was applied by the Labour government to secure Megrahi’s release by Scottish authorities, and was an agreement struck between London and Tripoli that Megrahi should walk free?

The Brown government’s lack of transparency on this issue must be challenged in the coming weeks and months, ideally through an independent inquiry. If left unresolved, the Lockerbie Bomber scandal will undercut transatlantic intelligence and judicial cooperation, and will lead to growing tensions in the Anglo-American alliance, a dangerous course that is distinctly against the British national interest.

When have Brown or Labour ever done anything that was in the British national interest? Never, is the answer. We've had 12 long years of a "government" that put one interest above all others: its own. And we've had a chancellor - now, astonishingly, Prime Minister - for 12 years who put his own interest above everything else in the entire world, including his own party: Brown. Well, not any more Brown-Labour. Not any more.

For this latest and for all your other crimes against the British people (I'll leave it for others to list them - it'd take too long in one blog post), you're on your way out, out, out!

Martin Bright Is Quite Right

At least, he is on the subject of Mandelson's depraved deal with Libya over the Lockerbie terrorist. Yours truly has been watching cricket all day, so came rather late this evening to the blogosphere. Hence the delay in catching sight of Bright's half-decent recent blog for the Speccy.

The Guardian has arranged a group of "leading thinkers" to give their views on the release of Abdelbasset al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds. There is a quite a split in the liberal establishment over this issue.

I find myself completely in agreement with Geoffrey Roberston QC. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be online, which is a real shame. But his first paragraph sums up my feelings exactly:

"It seems to me an utter perversion of the meaning of compassion, both in law and morality, to suggest that an unrepentant, mass murderer of entirely innocent human beings should not be required to end his life in prison."

He also makes an important point about the morally corrupt thinking behind Kenny MacAskill's bizarre decision:

"The decision to release him for what any person of any intelligence at all would forsee as a hero's welcome in Libya was lacking in compassion to every victim of terrorism and makes an absurdity of the principle of punishment as a detterent."

Those who approved this decision should also read the words of Libyan novelist Hisham Matar, the author of In the Country of Men.

"I am imagining my father today. For the past 20 years he has been a political prisoner in Libya. The Libyan government continues to deny his existence. This even though Amnesty International has documented the case. In this time he has not been able to see or communicate with anyone outside the prison. Then I think of him listening to the celebrations of the prison guards at the news of al-Megrahi's rturn. The prisoners might have been given presents to make the occasion. Then I think of al-Megrahi's children welcoming him home."

The Libyan regime funded IRA terrorism, pursued and murdered its dissidents on the streets of European cities and is the only foreign government I know that is responsible for the killing of a British policewoman.

This was a truly dark day for the reputation of this country.

Too right, Bright. And your party was responsible for it, chum. Care to abandon it now? Or do your words amount to no more than a hill of beans (as usual)?

Incidentally, one of the comments in response to Bright's post is worth quoting, too - even though it is rather long:

Congratulations Martin on affirming the view of the progressive Left which tries to uphold a set of universal values , prominent among which is the need to affirm that the deliberate targetting of civilians is a crime under international law wherever it happens.

I am sure that if it had been a planeload of Scots who had been blown up over Lockerbie, Kenny MacAskill would have stuck to his earlier position that whoever had been convicted in a Scottish court must serve out his sentence.
The SNP's mindset and priorities are parochial ones and it would not have risked the wrath of so many bereaved Scots. But the victims were mostly from the US, a country whose institutions and indeed its people are regarded with scorn by pro-SNPers - as any glance at newspaper electronic comment spots will quickly show.
Absent from the Scottish airwaves and from the opinion pages of newsapers like the Scotsman and the Herald are left-wing journalists like yourself Andrew Anthony, Joan Smith and Nick Cohen who try to stem the slide of the political Left towards making common cause with religious obscurantists who, if they prevailed, would wipe out many of the civilizational gains of the last 500 years.

Too many 'small toon kailyard Nats' wre prepared to find excuses for Milosevic in the 1990s and Middle east tyrants today because their defiance of big powers is a reflection of their own struggle against foreign overlords. These Nats overlook any moral dimension and asume that it is the small country resisting American power which invariably has right on its side even if its policies are tyrannicial, genoicdal and deeply misogynist.

The Grande dame of the Scottish chattering classes,Lesley Riddoch who struts her stuff on BBC radio, the scotsman and the Guardian hailed MacAskill for 'placing compassion above vengeance , and independent decision-making above kow-towing to the world's most poweful nation'. (Guardian 21 August)
She even approvingly linked al-Megrahi's release with MacAskill's plans for non-custodial sentences for violent offenders and knife-carriers.

She showed the elitist and essentially non-democratic mindset that prevails among he interst groups that flank the SNP by arguing these policies must be right because of the support of profssionals and a range of quangos involved in criminal policy.

There was no mention of the plight of ordinary Scots many of whom will never get true 'independence' because they live in communities where thugs prevail and the authorities just walk on by.
So it make sense that Alex Salmond, macAskill or their new friend Lesley Riddoch ought to be unconcerned about the new wave of hurt caused to relatives of the 1988 bomb by the feting of al-Megrahi in dictatorial Libya.

When the Scottish parliament meets on Mnday it is likely that the Riddoch view that the Scots have just won gold in the OLympiad for international compassion will prevail.

We can only hope that his episode which fans hostility to the USa for electoral captital and credibility in the metropolitan media will spur Scots who want their country to have a progressive and responsible role in the world (whatever its constitutional status), to become more vocal and organized.

Time for the Scots to take back their country - and from their own "Nationalists", no less, it seems. Scottish people should feel humiliated by the behaviour of their terrible administration and hold them to account. They should also realise that none of this could have happened without the collusion of Jack Straw and Mandelson. There wasn't just a deal made with the Libyans - it was made with the SNP leadership, too. And it stinks.

It really is time for us all to force Mandelson's Labourists out once and for all. If this issue doesn't galvanise people, as this commenter suggests it will, but north and south of the border, then nothing will. It will tell me that Britain is finished as a moral voice in the world and deserves its fate. Thank-you Labour. You did this because you are the people who wouldn't know a principle if it hit you square in the face.

Mandelson Lies Through His Teeth - Again

Mandelson: a compulsive liar, the plaything of plutocrats, an unelected, unofficial Prime Minister...and totally out of control

So, the release of the Libyan terrorist responsible for the Lockerbie bombing wasn't part of an oil and gas trade deal brokered by the evil Lord Mandelson...according to the evil Lord Mandelson (as I've just seen on Sky News)? So Gaddafi's son is a liar, is he? Not bloody likely. Labourist liar-in-chief, Mandelson, is behind this whole, stinking affair. And now he has the barefaced cheek to go on national television and lie to people's faces about it.

Perhaps I was too hard on the Scottish Nationalist idiot who claimed to have released the terrorist, who is (we are led to believe) dying of cancer, on compassionate grounds and then, in the same breath, claimed that the Scottish "government" was forced to take the decision because of pressure from the "UK" government. Perhaps he - sort of - well - wasn't lying. Perhaps his decision to make propaganda capital for his "nationalist" movement out of this sordid affair, and the grave insult dealt particularly to the families of the American victims, were understandable and justifiable, given Mandelson's behaviour. Well, maybe all that's true. Frankly, it's for others to decide - especially the people of Scotland. Given Labour's strong links to that country, I have my suspicions about the level of collusion between them and the nationalists over this deviant policy shift.

As for Mandelson: this twisted individual is not fit for any, let alone high, office. He's as dishonest as he is scheming as he is greedy as he is vain. Twice he has been forced to resign for brazenly lying to the public, over issues that involved some shady deal or other from which he made some kind of personal gain.

Hey, Mandy, third time's not a charm, "mate".

If the Tory party is worth its salt any more, liar and fraud Mandelson will gone again in a matter of weeks. Get on with it.

Update
The report at Sky.com:

Lord Mandelson has dismissed claims that the release of Lockerbie bomber is linked to a trade deal - as the head of the FBI slams the Scottish government.

The claim was made by Seif al Islam, the son of Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, in a television interview filmed as Abdelbaset al Megrahi was flown home.

"In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table," he said.

"All British interests were linked to the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi."

The claim was rejected by the Foreign Office, and was followed by an angry response from the Business Secretary.

"It's not only completely wrong to make such a suggestion it's also quite offensive," Lord Mandelson said.

He said he had met Colonel Gaddafi twice in the past year, and on both occasions he had raised the issue of Megrahi.

"They had the same response from me as they would have had from any other member of the Government. The issue of the prisoner's release was entirely a matter for the Scottish Justice Minister," Lord Mandelson said.

"That is how it was left, that is how it was well understood."

Meanwhile the head of the FBI Robert Mueller, who as a US Justice Department lawyer led the investigation into the 1988 bombing, said the decision to release Megrahi made a "mockery of justice".

The comments are said to have come in a letter Mr Mueller wrote to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, the man who made the decision to the release the bomber.

So that's alright, then, is it? Assumed issue-linking is not agreed issue-linking. Robert Mueller is wrong: it's not merely a mockery of justice, it's a mockery of the British people. We are being dragged into a cess pool by people who care nothing for ethics or morality, justice or liberty, decency or principle - people like Mandelson (and any number of Labourist politicians, like Millipede, for instance).

They've got to go. Urgently. Or this country really is finished. The Americans, for one, will make bloody sure of that. They have long, long memories and they will not forget this betrayal in a hurry. Nor will it have escaped their notice the curious role in all this of Russian oligarchs sympathetic to the Moscow Mussolini, Vlad Putin. Mandelson certainly has some strange bedfellows, they will think. And they will be right to do so. He does...and, by implication therefore, so do we all in Britain. Talk about being shafted.

(PS: Mike Smithson did say something about Mandelson's wriggling earlier today, btw. Worth a quick read.)

Scotland the Depraved

Whoever this Scottish "Justice Minister" might think he is, he has no idea about the concept of justice - or of compassion for that matter. Compassion, for instance, can be a double-edged sword. What might appear compassionate for one man - in this case a dying, convicted mass murderer - will be and is agony for others, in this case the American families of his victims. They have to live with the knowledge that this man will die convicted, but essentially free. So, no compassion there. And no justice, either. By all that is just in this world, in the absence of the death penalty for his heinous crime, the man should have died in a prison in the country of his conviction. There can be no equivocation about that.

Whatever the real reason for this man's release - and, as has been posited around and about, the cold, dark, malicious, amoral presence of Mandelson seems to have been a factor - some deeply disturbing questions have been thrown-up by this latest, appalling Labourist intervention. One of those questions is this: doesn't this mean that Scotland is now de facto independent? At least, that is, when it suits its arrogant nationalist schemers to present it as such. They've used the release of this terrorist as a new propaganda weapon against the "UK government", (as if it is somehow entirely separate from the Scottish administration). In other words, the mellifluous, mindless platitudes of that idiot Scottish "Minister" were also dishonest. Further, Mandelson has used it for some Machiavellian reason known only to himself (and a few Russian billionaires - and Colonel Gaddafi's son, of course), which is simply sickening. And all the while, hopeless foreign secretary Milliband, the terrorist apologist and all round stupid boy, is nowhere to be seen. As for Gordon-cuckoo-Brown...where the hell is he??

As you can see, I'm still trying process exactly what happened today. My guess? I think it will be remembered as the day the Union was finally lost. Thank Labour for that. And well, Scotland, if depraved, lying "nationalists" like Kenny MacAskill are all you have to offer the world, get ready for one tough "independence". Good luck. You're gonna need it.

Mind you, Scotland gave us Brown, too. And a plethora of other, equally useless Labourist politicians who have brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy and will leave the Union on its last legs. I'm beginning to think that was the plan all along. A deep, deeply depraved, Scottish game. Brown's been working for the nationalists all along!

Yes, I know: time for my medication ;)