Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay lets assume that the current state of affairs is as told. The Scottish parliament came to their decision without any outside pressure. My comments also imply no support / or disagreement with Gordon Brown.

Currently Gordon Brown is getting flak for not expressing an opinion about the decision to release al-Megrahi. Surely if Scotland's decision to release him was allowed under the whole Scottish Devolved parliament set up, then it is right for Gordon Brown not to say anything. If he'd passed comment about a similar thing in the US or France or Australia he'd of been told to keep his mouth shut and to keep his opinions to himself. Which would be right and proper. However just because it's Scotland he's supposed to have an opinion. Now to me that makes a mockery of the whole concept of a Scottish Devolved parliament. To me it means that the people slating him don't consider Scotland's devolved parliament a serious insitution. They appear to be saying let the Scot's have a little bit of power just to keep them happy, but when it comes to the bigger picture they have no real power.

I also love the fact that Tories are saying that he's a coward:

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox was stunned by Mr Brown's refusal.

He said: "Gordon Brown is willing to give us his opinion on the death of Michael Jackson, he gave us his opinion on the racism row in Big Brother, he has taken time out to give us his views on England's victorious cricket team.

That'll be because they are trivial matters you prat, not matters of state.

Hear hear! Stuff the Tories!

He is recieving external criticism because:

1. People don't quite understand this was outside his remit and a matter for the Scots.
2. He could probably have voiced his own criticisms but that would have cost Labour votes in Scotland.
3. Ghadafi (sp) stated that he was a groovy guy for letting the dying murderer go.
4. It may further be complicated by the perception that due to Gordon Brown being a Scot, that there is some sympathy or hidden agenda.

The tories are taking potshots because:

1. They are the main opposition party.
2. They will take potshots no matter that they fully understand why he couldn't interfere.
3. They are blue meanies.

This was an issue for the Scots, they have a parliament of their own. Any angry letters should be addressed north of the border.

MGS, you forgot....

4. All the time they take cheap potshots, they can stave off people discovering they don't actually have any policies, having spent the last 12 years taking cheap potshots instead of trying to be a decent opposition party.

I thought Gordon Brown worked for the Scottish?

His bosses north of the border have probably told him to keep quiet on the issue or they will not let him vote himself another raise this year.

As to him keeping quite over the matter; he is free to talk about what he wants. Given how much it seems he is in the dog house at the moment, I would have thought his PR guys would have wanted him to stay away from anything that could possibly go sour, such as the issue in contention at the moment.

5. There the oposition, every other party does the same in their position.

Honestly, they are all as bad as each other.

Feth this all to hell.


Brian Blessed for God Emperor of the Isles!

Shouty Shouty Brian Blessed!

*Agrees*

We need to bring back Guy Fawkes...

SilverMK2 wrote:I thought Gordon Brown worked for the Scottish?

His bosses north of the border have probably told him to keep quiet on the issue or they will not let him vote himself another raise this year.

As to him keeping quite over the matter; he is free to talk about what he wants. Given how much it seems he is in the dog house at the moment, I would have thought his PR guys would have wanted him to stay away from anything that could possibly go sour, such as the issue in contention at the moment.

That's the point, he's not. On the world political stage there are certain things the leader of one country isn't supposed to pass comment on. Scotland's devolved parliament has moved it in to the realm of a self governing country. The whole subject is slap bang in the middle of a section of Scottish rule that allows them to make this decision on their own as any country would. You can't then throw a wobbly if you don't agree with it.

Guy fawkes would have our country run by the pope if he had his way. no ty.

As soon as Scottland gets out of our parliment and stops spending our money, then they will be free to do whatever they want in their snowy, sheep filled wasteland without comment.

Until then, Gordon Brown should be able to (if he desires) pass comment on what goes on in Scotland, as Scotland seems to be able to do about pretty much anything going on in England.

@ whatwhat:

Good point. Perhaps we should let him set the charges and light the fuse and then send him back in time again so he can get caught the first time round...

SilverMK2 wrote:As soon as Scottland gets out of our parliment and stops spending our money, then they will be free to do whatever they want in their snowy, sheep filled wasteland without comment.

Until then, Gordon Brown should be able to (if he desires) pass comment on what goes on in Scotland, as Scotland seems to be able to do about pretty much anything going on in England.

Move away from your copy of The Sun/Mirror/Mail/Express and find a newspaper that actually has facts in it Then go and spend some time reading through Luna's latest post http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253789.page

I don't read the paper due to often dodgy reports. I just like to spice my rhetoric a little, it is good to know that I can pass for the "uneducated masses" who can be so easily stirred by such sensationalist pap as the "newspapers" you mention.

Anyway, all flowery speach aside, as far as the issue goes, Scotland has not really been a country for quite some time, it will take them a while to become fully divorced from England.

Until such time as they essentially cast off all ties to England, it would be reasonable to assume that the ideas, concerns and actions of one would affect the other. It would also be reasonable to assume a certain amount of free licence for each "nation" to talk about the choices made by one another over internal and external matters.

Certainly on something that grabs international attention, it would be somewhat remiss of one of the two not to comment, even if it is just to say "This was their decision, they are their own country, etc...".

*goes to read the post you have linked to*

But he did. He said that he understood it was a difficult decision, but it was theirs to make.

Then I retract my initial statements (although I am pretty sure G.B. is a mole for the Scottish ). I was under the impression from your first post that he had not said anything at all.

As we all know, assumptions make an ass out of you and me.

Although I do believe that until Scotland becomes free standing, it should be permissable for the leaders of England and Scotland to comment upon each others decisions/actions.

..and one which he was no doubt happy to leave to them as we wouldn't want ti imperil the trade agreement Blair cut with Libya a few years back...

hmmm..... how times change eh ?

Alex Salmond, the newly elected first minister of Scotland, expressed concern Thursday that the British government had struck a deal that might permit the only person convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing to return to Libya to complete his sentence.

..and now he's saying what exactly ? As longa s you're consistent with your beliefs..look, a post about the SNP and we didn't even mention the RBS debacle !

See my other post on under Boycott Scotland. I have no doubt whatsoever that skullduggery has happened here.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Brian Blessed for God Emperor of the Isles!

GORDON'S ALIVE??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wolfstan wrote:Okay lets assume that the current state of affairs is as told. The Scottish parliament came to their decision without any outside pressure. My comments also imply no support / or disagreement with Gordon Brown.

Currently Gordon Brown is getting flak for not expressing an opinion about the decision to release al-Megrahi. Surely if Scotland's decision to release him was allowed under the whole Scottish Devolved parliament set up, then it is right for Gordon Brown not to say anything. If he'd passed comment about a similar thing in the US or France or Australia he'd of been told to keep his mouth shut and to keep his opinions to himself. Which would be right and proper. However just because it's Scotland he's supposed to have an opinion. Now to me that makes a mockery of the whole concept of a Scottish Devolved parliament. To me it means that the people slating him don't consider Scotland's devolved parliament a serious insitution. They appear to be saying let the Scot's have a little bit of power just to keep them happy, but when it comes to the bigger picture they have no real power.

I also love the fact that Tories are saying that he's a coward:

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox was stunned by Mr Brown's refusal.

He said: "Gordon Brown is willing to give us his opinion on the death of Michael Jackson, he gave us his opinion on the racism row in Big Brother, he has taken time out to give us his views on England's victorious cricket team.

That'll be because they are trivial matters you prat, not matters of state.

Actually as Prime Minister he is the principle pooint of diplomatic contact, excepting occassions where Her Majesty is involved. The Scottish parliament doesn't have aembassies.
It IS the central governments job to smooth over diplomatic relations. Ultimately it is Browns.

Besides there has been a lot of talk about whether Brown is as distant from this deal as his silence implies. He was quite recently talking to Gaddaffi and it is beleived this subject was one of many.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:MGS, you forgot....

4. All the time they take cheap potshots, they can stave off people discovering they don't actually have any policies, having spent the last 12 years taking cheap potshots instead of trying to be a decent opposition party.

Havent you got it yet?
Labout policy is Tory policy, all Blair did was adopt Thatcherism and then tell the press at the time to tell the people that the Tories had no policy. Meanwhile the Tories counter opinion largely drowned out of the press, particularly the BBC, compounded with selected scandal. i.e. look at what they are doing, but don't look at our own lives. Repeated long enough the people beleived it, some of them still continue to do so.

Put Archer in prison for lying over a sex scandal, allow Hoon to apologise for alleged 300k in tax evasion. Ok perjury is perjury, but if he was Labour he would never have been there. Hoon will get away with it, because he is a Labour minister. Surely you understand that if you were alleged of comiting 300k worth of tax evasion you would be in the dock yes.

Surely the blinkers should have fallen off by now Grots'. Martin Bell who was called in as a coalition candidate to remember a Tory 'sleaze' minister ended up saying sleaze is now a thousand times worse.

You are right in one thing, the circle has closed. labout started by usurping Tory policy and telling the sheep they had none, which really wouldnt work if there was not the gross press imbalance of the time. Now the Tories are emulating Labour because they know the BS that Blair started is the way to hoodwink the same sheep and statyy in power.
next year whwen they get in, they will be the New Labour and the Labour opposition will find itself without policy.
I dont support either of them, but the rot the true rot began with Blair in '97 with seeds sown about '91. That is when future historians will mark the fall of this nation.

Well this seems to be pointing towards two questions. 1) How much authority should London have over the constituent countries of the UK? This seems to me to be a huge issue, and while the states in the USA can release prisoners, they cannot release someone who committed an act of terrorism, that falls into federal matters. They also can't make a deal to send him home to a foreign nation, again that is federal. 2) Should the bomber have been let go? I honestly don't feel bad for the guy. He was involved in a mass murder, lets just call it what it is, and that is inexcusable. Do any of you Brits have any good reason why he should have been let go? FYI, I am no fan of any boycotting of the UK. Many consider me to be an Anglophile but I also don't think that other people should be telling y'all how to run your country. That doesn't mean I have to approve of everything you do...

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox

Did he study under Snape?

The affair itself has been handled and dealt with badly.

..but...

A. Scottish law says that a dying man/woman in prison is to be released on compassionate grounds.
B. In all honesty I don't think he did the crime in the first place, his whole conviction is.... debatable.