Lockerbie smokescreens

 

It would seem these days that more indignation and opprobrium is being heaped on criticism of Lockerbie’s town centre rather than the travesty of justice surrounding the appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi.  We reproduce below the statement from the United Nations Observer at the Lockerbie Trial, which is not making headlines in our democratic press.

 

 

Statement by Dr Hans Koechler, International Observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Trial), on the withholding of supposedly secret evidence from the Defense by order of the Government of the United Kingdom

Los Angeles, 25 February 2008
P/RE/20878c-is

Upon conclusion of an information and consultation visit on international law issues to the Asia-Pacific region, Dr Hans Koechler today issued the following statement on the decision of the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary not to allow the disclosure of a document, provided by a “Foreign Government” that is related to the electronic timer device which supposedly triggered the explosion of a bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103:

1.       The continued withholding of evidence related to the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi makes a new appeal actually impossible. Should the document in question not be made available, criminal proceedings under Scots Law will have to be terminated.

2.       The behavior of the British Government is in contravention to the commitment it made vis-à-vis the United Nations Organization prior to the adoption of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998) to enable a fair and independent trial of the two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie case under Scots Law.

3.       The invocation of “Public Interest Immunity” (PII) – unprecedented in the history of Scottish criminal justice – is tantamount to political interference into the Appeal Court’s conduct. It is obvious that criminal proceedings cannot be fair if the Defense is denied access to a piece of evidence (document) which has been revealed to the Prosecution.

4.       Under the highly politicized circumstances of the Lockerbie Trial, the issuing of a PII certificate by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom appears to be a rather desperate measure to influence the conduct of the court in a manner favorable to the British Government; it further strains the constitutional relations between Scotland and the United Kingdom.

5.       The separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary is a basic characteristic of the rule of law. In the present case, this principle is violated because of the outright interference of the British Government in a matter of the Scottish Judiciary.

6.       The British Government’s interference makes devolution of authority in matters of Criminal Justice to Scotland entirely meaningless. What is the meaning of “devolution” if a Scottish Court is prevented from operating according to its own rules? Scots Law is not to be administered under the terms of a Protectorate. The crucial question will now be whether the Scots will be able to assert their (constitutional) independence in devolved matters.

7.       It is to be hoped that the Scottish Judges will uphold the independence of the Judiciary and will reject the British Government’s interference. A court of law is transformed into a political body should the Judges allow this kind of interference.

8.       The persistent refusal of the UK Government to allow the disclosure of vital evidence to the Defense points into the direction of a cover-up. In the context of the irregularities at the Lockerbie trial and appeal in the Netherlands (described in the undersigned’s reports of 2001 and 2002), this development demonstrates the need for an independent investigation under a United Nations mandate – especially since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has declared that a “miscarriage of justice” may have occurred.

9.       The convicted Libyan national has a right to a genuine judicial review of his verdict outside the confines of international realpolitik. In June 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to the High Court of Justiciary for a second appeal. If appeal proceedings are now made impossible due to the British Executive’s interference, Mr Al Megrahi will be denied his right to fair trial under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this case, he will be entitled to proceed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

                                                      Dr Hans Koechler

 

 

 

MSPs’ Allowances

An interesting article in this week’s Sunday Herald on the Committee Review of MSPs’ allowances, raised my eyebrows slightly.  It was all about the mortgage payment method, adopted by the Parliament when it was set up, and how there had been abuses of it, so that it was going to be abolished by 2011.

The names of those who had benefited from the scheme had almost all been the subject of reports in the Sunday Herald over the past few years, with none of them having broken the rules.  What struck me as odd was that four Liberal MSPs were named, two Tories and two SNP, and I wondered if any Labour MSPs had so benefited?  Or were they all within commuting distance of Edinburgh?

 

I was also surprised to see the name of John Swinney mentioned, as I cannot recall him being the subject of any publicity on this subject, but perhaps I just missed that;  on the other hand as the review group is headed by Sir Alan Langlands, Principal of Dundee University, a known hotbed of New Labour, perhaps only selective information was supplied.  Hmmm.

 

 

 

Oddities

 

I am indebted to Andrew Kerr (our man in Surrey) for an item from the Guardian ;  we taxpayers  paid £470 million for a nuclear plant opened in 1998 at Sellafield in Cumbria, to produce atomic fuel for foreign power stations.

 

It was planned to have an output of 120 tonnes of fuel, but the most managed in any 12 month period was 2.6 tonnes.

 

These people are trusted with our nuclear power stations.
 

---

 

Congratulations to Mark Beaumont from Fife who cycled round the World in 195 days; he started and finished in Paris; other cities he went through were Istanbul, Calcutta, Bangkok, Singapore, Perth (Australia), Brisbane, Auckland, Dunedin, San Francisco, St Augustine and Lisbon.

 

And he never had to go near the centre of the world – London.

 

 

Billions of pounds worth of PFI projects including the refurbished Treasury Headquarters and the Home Office have been moved offshore by their new owners (City firms) to avoid paying tax, according to a report in the Guardian (Again supplied by Andrew Kerr).

 

Let me work this one out;  when Chancellor, Gordon Brown approved the above contracts, to save money and keep them off the Treasury balance sheet.  Now that the City financiers have possession, we the taxpayers pay for the PFI project, and the “partners” on the projects make a load of profit on which no taxes are paid.  We, the aforementioned taxpayers, now have to pay more taxes to compensate the Treasury for the loss of additional revenue to run the NHS, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, Trident etc ad nauseam.

 

I am still unable to work out how that makes Gordon Brown financially competent.

 

 

 

 

Broken promises – broken record

 

It becomes rather tiresome, to say the least, to hear Wendy Alexander and Nicol Stephen (The leaders of the Labour Party in Scotland and the Liberal Party in Scotland, pro tem anyway) mouthing off “Broken promises” every time they come within range of a microphone;  they never elaborate that much, but the mere repetition of the words is enough.  One can imagine their respective spin doctors saying things like, “Just roll it round the mouth, and look aggrieved;  nobody will ask any details!”

One thing that they continually forget is that the Parliament lasts for four years, and that not everything happens immediately; in fact when they were in charge, nothing very much happened at all, which is perhaps the source of their chagrin.  Now we know that everything will not sail along smoothly, and that some things will not work out;  that is the nature of government.  What we do know, is that this Scottish Government is a lot smarter than the two previous ones, even if that can be seen as damning the SNP with faint praise.

 

There are numerous instances of how the “opposition” have been shouting and bawling about a promise being broken, only to be proved wrong, when in the fullness of time, the Scottish Government gets round to that particular issue, and the “opposition” look stupid.  I use the word “opposition” in inverted commas, because they are not really an opposition, just a ragbag  of  individuals trying to score points, and not familiar with joined up thinking.

 

Cases in point:  Iain Gray, Labour Finance spokesman, castigating the SNP for taking away a benefit to the bakery trade, and not even blushing when it was revealed that the benefit had been taken away by the previous administration.  (Of all MSPs, he should have known better).  Then a great fuss about brain surgery being centralised, which it wasn’t, the Aberdeen Dental School , which will be built, cancer care for children, not being centralised, even the Gorgie Children’s Farm not being closed.  Also claims about failures on central heating installations are shown to be lies. (See Synopsis – Christine Grahame MSP)

 

Some of the things that the Labour leader is stomping about Scotland with are already in the Budget, which she does not seem to have read, and both parties have quite shamelessly cast aspersions on local government, accusing them of neglecting the most vulnerable in society; this has certainly got right up the noses of Labour Councillors in particular, and the local government unions in general.  Perhaps Ms Alexander hopes that these memories will have faded by the time the next Holyrood election comes around, as she will be dependant on councillors and union officials to do the donkey work.

 

 

 

 

Clamjamfrie

 

 

 

Donnie MacNeill

 

A Bridge not Far Enough.

 

“So,” I thought, “Alex Salmond doesn’t rule the world after all!”

I had just passed through the tolls on the magnificent bridge and tunnel that connects Denmark to Sweden, 325 Kroner lighter for the privilege of a one-way traverse of some 8 kilometres of modern engineering marvel. The motorists who were busily forking out some £30 in fairly large numbers were obviously not Fifers, or Skeanachs!

Why do we make such a big issue of whether or not we should have another Forth crossing, and what form it should take, when our Scandinavian cousins just get on with it?

Driving along through Sweden on the E20 and the E4, I think that this is the way the A9 to Inverness should be, wide dual carriageway with a mini-hard shoulder. The traffic, away from the coastal ports’ area, is much lighter than it is on the stretch from Perth to Inverness, so how do the Swedes manage to do it and we can’t?

Visiting our neighbours in the ‘Arc of Prosperity’ is so revealing – and so frustrating. Better roads, better trains, better airports and yet, we are potentially wealthier than they are. I feel a fact-finding commission coming on!

 

 

Flying the Flag.

 

On arrival at the factory I am visiting in south central Sweden, my spirits are raised as I see the Saltire flying proudly alongside the yellow and blue Swedish flag. On the other side (and on the other hand!) there flew the union flag. My Swedish hosts explained that they knew of the current situation in Scotland and that was why they felt it only proper to fly the Saltire for my two Scottish colleagues and I.

One of our English associates was aggrieved not to see the cross of St George, but I told him that as they had ‘hi-jacked’ the union flag for so long, it served them right! I swear I saw our Swedish hosts chuckling.

 

 

Say no More!

 

Thinking about budget fiascos and Iain Gray, who obviously ‘has a big tip for himself’, as they used to say in Glasgow, brings to mind something an old Islay worthy used to apply to someone of similar pretensions to the would-be leader of Scottish Labour. (I was a wee boy at the time, but it’s amazing how these things stick in your mind). “See him,” he would say, “if he was twice the man he thinks he is, he would still only be half the man he is today!”

 

 

Get a Half-Life

 

I see that the cost of decommissioning Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations has risen to £73bn; that’s £73,000,000,000 to you and I, but a mere isotope on the beach compared to the Northern Rock fallout. More alarming is the news that estimated costs of decommissioning ‘continue to rise rapidly’. Help ma Boab, where will it all end?!

If this is the sorry state we are in just trying to deal with the detritus of 14 out of 19 stations being closed, why in the name of the wee atom are we looking to build more of the blighters?! No doubt some of our regulars will tell me!

As I drove down the road from Aberdeen recently and looked at the flooded fields and swollen rivers, I wondered why we weren’t investing in new hydro-electric plants. We certainly have no shortage of water, and it is renewable. Furthermore, the half-life of H20 is miniscule compared to that of plutonium and, after use, the stuff can easily be flushed down the drain – just like the money we are paying for decommissioning nuclear power stations – and Northern Rock.

 

The Ultimate Make-over.

 

So, Wee Wendy is to be re-branded as a soft, cuddly wee wumman who’s good to her weans and ‘has an understanding of ordinary families’ (according to Cathy Jamieson – remember her?). The ‘best brain in British politics’ has been shown to be no match for the old grey cells of our own Bamber Gascoyne (remember him?!) of a  first minister, so it has to be ‘plan B’. I wonder what ‘plan C’ is? If Andy Kerr is the answer, it must have been a pretty stupid question!

Wendy, meanwhile, will be no doubt encouraged to note that all her cabinet colleagues are behind her (as is the Electoral Commission), but so were Julius Caesar’s!

 

 

Crime and Punishment, British style.

 

A Tory MP pays his family £1.5million in wages, perks and bonuses for work not done and has the party whip removed. Some wee wifie in a ‘scheme’ diddles the social out of £500 to buy Christmas presents for her family and spends six months in Cornton Vale.

The crime is the same – stealing taxpayers’ money, but the sentences seem strangely at variance with the amounts stolen.  Who said there was one law for the rich and another for the poor? Whoever it was, they told the truth!

 

 

Unsettled Will

 

Wendy Alexander wants a ‘commission’, but Gordon Brown wants a ‘review’, so what are we to get? Well we (the independence-eating monkeys) will get nothing.  As we would only talk about what the others won’t mention, we won’t be allowed into the club!

Going on past precedents, you can safely bet that whatever happens, it will be because of what Whitehall decrees and not what Wee Wendy, Aunty Annabel or Nicol Who? would like to see happen.

 

 

Lord of the Wrongs

 

My old school chum, Lord Robertson of NATO, once famously (and rashly) predicted that devolution would kill independence ‘stone dead’. All I can say is that we must be having one hell of a wake, when people are queuing up to join in.

Take the good burghers of Berwick, for instance; so entranced are they with the allegedly lifeless corpse that is post devolution Scotland, that they are champing at the bit  to join us in our coffin! Mind you, if I were in their shoes, remembering how they were battered from both sides of the border in their turbulent history, I would declare Berwick to be an ‘offshore’ tax haven. It would be much more convenient for Labour and Tory party benefactors to keep their money there, and Wendy Alexander could deliver her ‘thank you’ letters in person!

His Lordship, meantime, will no doubt be patting himself on the back whilst celebrating the independence (what? not separation?!) of Kosovo from Serbia. The Kosovars, in turn, are celebrating being stone dead!

 

 

Losing One’s Head

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury buys a copy of the death warrant of Mary Queen of Scots, signed by her cousin Elizabeth Queen of England. Is it just my stupid sense of humour, or does anyone else find this a strangely coincidental purchase in light of the Archbishop’s very recent comments that Sharia Law should be considered for adoption in English Law?

Move on; chop, chop!!
 

---

Gunnaichean-adhair

 

‘S e call a th’ ann gun do thagh buill na pàrlamaid a dhol an aghaidh molaidh gum bu chòir lagh a bhith ann gus smachd a chumail air gunnaichean-adhair. Bha e follaiseach gun tigeadh an latha nuair a thachradh a leithid. Feumaidh fianais a bhith ann nach bi na Nàiseantaich ach a’ feuchainn trioblaid a dhèanamh eadar Alba agus Sasann mus tèid an SNP a shlaodadh gu sàil, agus gu mì-fhortanach chan eil sin cho soirbh oir chan eil e air a bhith a’ tachairt. Mar sin ‘s dòcha gum b’ e targaid bhog a bh’ ann an atharrachaidhean don lagh air gunnaichean. Rachadh aig na pàrtaidhean eile a shealltainn nach robh iad a’ dol leis na Nàiseantaich, gun a bhith a’ dèanamh cron mòr air riaghladh na dùthcha aig an aon àm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tha daoine air a bhith a’ cleachdadh gunnaichean-adhair fad bhliadhnachan, agus bidh a’ mhòr-chuid gan cleachdadh gun dragh sam bith. Ged a tha màthair a’ bhalaich bhig a chaill a bheatha a chionn goirid den bheachd gum bu chòir dhuinn cur às dhaibh uile gu lèir (agus tuigeadh neach sam bith sin), nì cruadail droch lagh. ‘S dòcha an àite faighneachd a bheil feum againn air barrachd smachd, gum bitheadh e na bu fhreagarraiche a dh’fhaighneachd dè ‘m feum a th’ anns na gunnaichean sin. Tha iad fada tuilleadh ‘s cumachdach a bhith nan dèideagan. Chan e buill-mhaise a th’ annta. Tha gunnaichean-adhair comasach air a chur às do chuideigin - agus ghuidhinn nach tigeadh neach sam bith a-mach leis an abairt fhaoin “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. ‘S e sin cnag na cùise – cuiridh daoine às do dhaoine eile. Le gunnaichean. Mar abairt, tha i suas an sin le “Cha do ghoid mi e, bha mi dìreach ga chumail bhuat.”

 

Mar sin, ma ‘s e buill-airm a th’ ann an gunnaichean-adhair nach eil e ach ceart gun tig iad fo na h-aon riaghailtean ‘s a thig gunnaichean sam bith eile, gu h-àraidh on a tha iad air fàs nas cumhdachdaiche? Ma bhios cuideigin ag iarraidh daga, bu chòir dha no dhi sealltainn gun e neach freagarrach a th’ ann no innte, gun tèid an gunna a chumail ann an àite sàbhailte agus gun tèid a chleachdadh taobh a-staigh an lagha. Ma bhios e tuilleadh ‘s soirbh gunna fhaighinn fàsaidh daoine blasé mun deidhinn, agus tha sin cunnartach. Targaid chèarr, a bhalachaibh.

 

 

Translation – Airguns

 

It’s a loss that MSPs chose to oppose the recommendation that there should be legislation to control airguns. It was obvious that the day would come that something like this would happen. There needs to be evidence that the Nationalists are only trying to cause trouble between Scotland and England before the SNP can be pulled to heel, and unfortunately this isn’t so easy as it hasn’t been happening. Therefore maybe changes to the gun laws were a soft target. The other parties could show that they were opposing the Nationalists, but without causing a great deal of damage to the running of the country as they did so.

 

People have been using airguns for years, and the majority use them without any bother. Although the mother of the wee boy who was killed fairly recently feels that we should cease to have airguns at all (and anyone can understand that), hard cases make bad law. Maybe instead of asking if we need more control, we would be better asking what use these guns are. They’re far too powerful to be toys. They aren’t ornaments. Airguns are capable of killing someone – and I pray that no-one comes out with the idiotic saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. That’s the whole point – people do kill people. With guns. As an expression it’s right up there with “I didn’t steal it, I was simply keeping it from you.”

 

Therefore, if airguns are weapons isn’t it only right that they should come under the same legislation as any other guns, especially as they have become more powerful? If someone wants a pistol he or she should have to demonstrate that he or she is a suitable person, that the gun will be kept in a safe place and that it will be used in a lawful manner. If it’s too easy to get a gun people will become blasé about them, and that is dangerous. Wrong target boys!
 

---

 

 

Cameron shaws his true colours

 

   It wes ainly ti be expeckit that the day wad cum whan  the Unionist pairties wad pick theirsels aff the flair, efter the sair dunt they got frae us at the Mey electiouns, an staun up agane afore the voters. In fack, Wendy Alexander wes the first ti set oot her staw wi a new Scottish poalicy, bit the news wes smoorit aneath the muckle boorach o hir weel-kent tribbles. Dauvit Cameron haes nou taen up his poseetion on that quaistion. Sae whit is ti be the Tory repone ti the rise o the S.N.P.? Cameron disnae minch his wirds. Scottish naitionalism is an “ugsome tash on the Union flag” that ilka guid Tory soud try ti “dicht oot”. Bit it maun be admittit that forbye this snash, Cameron haes a positive veesion. Ye ocht, he propones, ti hae twa levels o patriotism at aince; English an Breetish, Scots an Breetish, Welsh an Breetish, tho he wul allou, at a pinch, that ye coud be juist Breetish. It’s gey odd that he disnae say “Irish an Breetish”; deed, the name o Norlan Airlan  ainly kythes at the en, as an afterthocht. Why soud that be? An whit wey daes he caa Britain a nation, bit never Scotland?

    Ti pruive he is nae backwart-luikan Unionist, the Tory leader kens he haes ti shaw why Scots that want the best fir their hamelan soud be Breetish an aa. Whit is the case fir the Union? Weel, “Scotland an Wales [bit agane, nae Norlan Airlan] ding abune their wecht i the Airmit Forces” (that’s richt eneuch) an “Britain dings abune its wecht i the warld acause o thae airmit forces”. Sae the pynt o Breetishness is ti keep mair sodgers in Iraq! Is that aa? Na, forbye, it’s aboot leeberty unner the ruil o law (wad we no hae that in Scotland?), unnerstaunan o oor history (A wuss mair o us did unnerstaun Scots history, bit likely that’s no the kin o history he meant), an respeck fir the Monarchy (Eleezabeth I, Queen o Scots, souns aa richt ti me). An efter aa this, dae the Tories ackually hae ony parteeclar chynges in min ti the Breetish Constitution? Weel, Maister Cameron says, he’ll lat us ken whit they may be ane o thae days (bit dinnae haud yer braith). Gin this is the best he’ll can dae, there’s no muckle ti fleg us!

 

Kenneth Fraser