Alex Salmond is completely accurate in terms of international laws and precedents when he and his fool Macaskill refused to attend an American enquiry into the Lockerbie bombing. The Americans are now saying that he was invited and not instructed to attend as some news outlets have been saying; there is no precedent for one country demanding that someone from another country attend anything. Would the American president respond positively to such a request/demand? ‘who is this dude Salmond tell him to go take a hike’ America does not; despite appearances rule the world and their behaviour over this enquiry has been like that of an undemocratic bully.
Salmond however as usual cannot stop himself from swaggering and grandstanding and by doing so he has managed to turn a success into a setback. He could and should have dealt with this in a different way but; as is often the case he proves himself to be out of his depth and the buffoon MacAskill with him when it comes to the world stage that they so covet. These American politicians are chasing votes and elections are not far away and he has given them an out by behaving as he has. They; particularly the Republicans will point the finger at Britain for failing to cooperate and in turn blame Obama for not acting tough enough. Unfortunately Salmond is nowhere near intelligent enough to cope with this and the Republicans will be thanking their lucky stars that they are dealing with a foreign affairs novice and a dim one at that.
Salmond had he had a bit more nous should have lectured the Americans on international law in a polite genial way and then agreed to attend because he has as he keeps saying ‘nothing to hide’ and as a friend of America he would be delighted to accommodate them in this grave matter. With the proviso repeated as often as possible that he is doing this out of friendship and compassion (remember that word) because no one can make him do it etc. etc. Instead; what he has done is play into the hands of the right wing politicians and the febrile American media who will now castigate him and Scotland and by association Britain for saying ‘we are clean’ Can’t you hear the booming riposte all over America; whipped up into a rage “if you are clean what are you afraid of” The reactionary American press and media outlets know their clientele and they are not a pretty bunch; think of the Tea Party Protesters (look it up) they are now a massive group and they say variously that Obama is a) a Terrorist b) a Marxist and c) not even a real American and a lot more.
Salmond’s craving for the limelight has once again led him into a position where he cannot win and neither can Scotland; oh he might never attend and he might brazen it out but; as every good and smart politician knows perception is everything. He and us will be perceived as disloyal and devious so; come on, if our hands are clean then let’s help our American friends to find closure. Because we want to not because they can force us; because they know they can try to force us but we know they can’t. Let's do it for the right reasons and possibly teach our US cousins a thing or two about manners and behaviour.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
"He and us will be perceived as disloyal and devious so; come on, if our hands are clean then let’s help our American friends to find closure"
Jack (I've only got 4 houses) Straw tells yanks to F@ck off. oh dear, after 'Scottish' Labour demands Scottish ministers to go and explain themselves to our American masters and the world government in Washington.
What will Tony 'deals in the desert' Blair do to avoid tarnishing the medal he got from the yanks for his sacrifice of our troops in the Iraq invasion?
Labour, What a shower.
(Anonymous) 12:22
Straw considered and politely declined the American’s invitation to attend, Salmond should take lessons from him. If Blair has done something wrong surely that would be a reason for Salmond and people like you to cooperate with the US.
"Salmond’s craving for the limelight"
If this is indeed his motivation Terry, then you'd think he'd jump at the chance to appear at this enquiry. No?
Incidentally, did you read Salmond's letter to Sen. Kerry?
It was the very height of diplomacy.
Sorry Terry, everything you right on Salmond is utterly undermined by your determination to portray him in a negative light.
It's student politics at it's most risible.
I do agree however, that he should have agreed to appear. What an opportunity to reveal for all the world to see the dirty corrupt dealings of the British Labour Party who connive in American imperialism for a few stolen crumbs, who lie to take us into an illegal war, who cover up payments to Saudi despots, who keep in exile the inhabitants of Diego Garcia just to please Uncle Sam, who were complicit in torture....
I could go on forever.
I feel sullied having lived in this country while that disgusting self-serving trash were in Government.
Firstly, when Tony Blair was "doing a deal in the desert" the SNP rushed forward to show faux outrage and insisted that prisoner release from Scottish jails was the preserve of the Scottish government.
Then they had to make a decision about the release but, in my view, made the right decision too early.
Between then and now wee Eck and the SNP have grandstanded at every turn insisting Scotland is represented at this EU summit or that UN summit and indeed wee Eck himself gatecrashed the climate change summit in (I think) Norway.
With the chance to appear at one of the biggest political arenas on the planet you would've thought the bravehearts would be raring to go but not wee Eck or McAskill.
They're out of their depth and they know it.
(voiceofourown) 16:40
He is getting the limelight by defying America. The language used in the letter is completely irrelevant it was the decision which the letter conveyed which is important if you knew anything about how international diplomacy works you would know that. There are lots of genial good natured and polite ways at this level of telling someone to go f**k themselves; you are as much out of your depth here as Salmond.
“Terry, everything you right on Salmond is utterly undermined by your determination to portray him in a negative light”
This statement because of what follows it is a collector’s item, it is impossible to parody it’s beyond satire. It ranks as one of the most stupid things I have ever read. Let me set you a task, see if you can work out why I say this.
(Oakwood) 17:42
I have only one slight difference with this; when asked to go to America Salmond’s instinct was to grandstand and show the world that Scotland could not be bullied even by America that led to his decision to tell the mighty US to f**k off.
Now we all know he should have been a bit more careful and less arrogant. In a delicate situation involving international diplomacy having Salmond as a player is a recipe for disaster.
Kelly, Straw's refusal to appear, translates as 'Nowt to do with me Guv, some big kilted person was responsible!'
Jack Straw was complicit in every dirty deal his government did. The man is a serial, buck passing, coward.
(Byeck) 24/07/10
Why is he not in Jail then?
Kelly @ 12.10
He isn't in jail, because being an immoral unprincipled liar, is not yet a criminal offence.
If it was, he'd be slopping out with the rest of the Cabinet
(Anonymous) 13:24
Have you ever thought about a career in the law? You clearly have a forensic mind.
"Lying is not yet a criminal offence"
Tell that to Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer etc.
Kelly @ 2.02
Terry, dear boy, they lied under oath...it's called perjury...and that is a criminal offence.
Besides, they're both Tories, so, in the gospel according to Kelly, a touch of the devious is to be expected...isn't it?.
Alex Salmond was not invited to attend. Kenny MacAskill and Dr Andrew Fraser were invited to attend – the letter of invitation is published on the Scottish Government website and makes clear that the subject matter of the enquiry is what substance there is to allegations that a multi-million pound oil deal between BP and Libya influenced the release of Megrahi.
Alex Salmond wrote back to say that, since there had been no contact between the Scottish Government and BP over the release of Megrahi and that the SG has published all materials related to the release (except the correspondence which the US Government wishes not to be published), he declined the invitation on behalf of Kenny MacAskill and Dr Gray.
The willingness of Labour politicians – who argue that the invitation should have been accepted – to expose Dr Fraser to spurious accusations that he fraudulently compiled a medical report to further an oil deal with Libya is noted. Clearly public servants under a Labour administration could expect to be made public whipping boys if it suits US senators.
I feel wee Eck should have brought in Renfrewshire’s' wee Del Boay McKay he is king of hand gestures, sly smiles, fake tan, double standards, lair lair pants on fire.
Del Boay has gravitas and I know Terry that you will agree as a Cabinet Minister in waiting, this would have been an ideal opportunity for Del to stretch his sea legs.
If only he had been in Hollywood Eck wouldn't have gotten himself into this mess.
Hopefully it isn't too late for the Nats in Edinburo. As for Kenny McCakull, he loves the limelight, the attention, the grandstanding, this guy has the opposite of ADD, and he has I need attention all the time disorder.
I also heard a rumour that the Nats might send a high powered team to Washington
On a high powered speed boat, headed by Captain Pug wash, seaman B Lawson, Nicholson the cabin boay and first see Lord, wee Kenny McNumpty McLaren.
(Byeck) 25/07/10
Perjury is indeed a criminal offence and anyone guilty of it should be brought to justice so if; as you say someone is guilty of it; the full force of the law will be brought against them.
There is no excuse for this not to happen particularly as you have now passed judgement.
Absolute nonsense Dr. Fraser and McasKill’s reputations have already been thoroughly traduced by the actions of the SNP Govt. Labour did not to do that they did it themselves.
They should have taken a leaf out of George Galloway’s book and faced them down; there is no argument that Scottish witnesses had to go but they had a chance to put America in its place and enhance Scotland’s reputation they did neither because they are out of their depth and it is not going away.
(Anonymous) 13:28
I enjoy these portraits of our local SNP as long as they do not go too far. You highlight here whether inadvertently or not a serious point which is that Cllr. Mackay seems destined to flourish in Holyrood such is the paucity of people with any ability in the SNP.
If he gets there do you reckon he can edge ahead of talents like Bill Wilson, Christine Grahame and Sandra White?
Kelly @ 3.25
Terry, not for the first time, you've lost me!
I thought Archer and Aitken did. in fact, go to jail for perjury, but if you know differently....!
What a foolish comment Cllr Terry.
By appearing, they would simply give credence to the idea that there is a case to answer.
The Scottish Government - and its officials - had no contact with BP.
That is simple and unequivical enough for anybody to understand.
Whatever questions there are about the influence that BP had on the Prison Transfer Agreement can only be answered by those who agreed it. Tony Blair and Jack Straw.
However, since no prison transfer took place it would be a rather pointless exercise. Which is why, I suggest, Jack Straw also declined his invitation to attend.
It is a good job that Scottish ministers and ex-UK ministers are not as excitable as many of the commentators demanding that they drop everything to go and answer a lot of foolish questions which have no actual pupose. That would simply make them look like idiots.
Clearly I have some SNP sympathies, however I think that only you diehard Labourites are able to find fault in the manner in which the SNP and Alex Salmond has handled this, and that is because your prejudices against the SNP make you incapable of judging it rationally.
I would have loved for them to go to the USA and put them right on a few things - not the least of which would be David Cameron's frail grasp of history, but it is not for the Americans to summon our representatives before them.
Regarding Gorgeous George, I watched him dismantle the US senate, but then I saw the US news coverage - which was an utter disgrace. Each time George tore the senators to bits, a narrator spoke over the top of what George was actually saying in order to "describe" what George was saying, usually as a "rant". I've never, ever seen such a disgraceful piece of partisan reporting - which is something, considering how I often I drop by here to read your posts ;-)
(Byeck) 26/07/10
Of course they did because they were found guilty; any clearer?
(Jim) 09:45
“Only us diehard Labourites”
You have been on holiday I take it.
“your prejudices against the SNP make you incapable of judging it rationally”
My anti SNP prejudices did not stop me from supporting the release of Megrahi I think you are being a bit unjust here.
“but it is not for the Americans to summon our representatives before them”
I have already agreed with this, what is happening to you?
Galloway triumphed in America; the world knows that. He did what Salmond etc. should have done; they bottled it and we might learn why some day.
(Indy) 26/07/10
Does regurgitating this stuff make a difference? They should have faced up to the US and did what Galloway did, they bottled it and are now branded as having something to hide, whether they have or not the damage is done as I said in another comment, in politics ‘perception’ is all and we, Scotland are now perceived as having dodged this issue.
"Galloway triumphed in America; the world knows that."
Unfortunately not, due to the manner in which the American media covered it, the people who really needed to see and hear George taking them to task were not able to do so.
Why should our elected representatives put themselves in that position? If the Senate commitee need to hear it from the horses mouth, then they should make an appointment and come and visit... I recommend they come in August and take in some of the Edinburgh festival whilst they're here, but should probably stay in Glasgow and get the train through.
(Jim) 12:09
You are not making sense here the world witnessed it, he humiliated the Americans and it’s all over the internet and U tube, Google it and it comes up with over a million reports.
“Why should our elected representatives put themselves in that position”
How many times do I have to say it ‘perception’ is all, and we are now perceived as cowards who are running away from the truth. This is the question that the Americans can now ask of Salmond and McasKill “if your hands are clean and you have nothing to hide what you afraid of?”
They have blundered, whether they are obliged to go or not is irrelevant they have played into the hands of American senators chasing votes and they did that because they are novices at this level.
You and I both seem to agree that George Galloway slapped them silly.
American media views things differently. CNN reported on the Senate committee's report
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/24/galloway.accused/index.html
This is the report made by the Senate committee subsequent to Galloway's appearance.
The report alleges:
• Galloway sought and received vouchers to sell Iraqi oil on eight occasions between 1999 and 2003 for a total of 23 million barrels.
• Galloway's now estranged wife, Dr. Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received roughly $150,000 in oil money.
• Galloway's political campaign, the Mariam Appeal, received at least $446,000.
• Hussein's regime got kickbacks of more than $1.6 million from the oil allotted to Galloway and the Mariam Appeal for sale in violation of U.N. sanctions.
• Galloway "knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath" before the subcommittee.
CNN is where the average American gets his news. As far as the average American is concerned Geaorge Galloway made some disturbing rant against their Senate, but is responsible for dealing with Saddam Hussein.
If you can't make sense of that, then it's pointless continuing this particular thread (American media spin).
As for us being preceived as cowards? That's ridiculous! It would be far more cowardly to go kowtowing to them as if their Senate had any right to demand an explanation from us about our laws.
(Jim) 15:00
“CNN is where the average American gets his news”
Get real Jim the ‘average American’ thinks Winston Churchill is the British Prime Minister and Margaret Thatcher is the Queen we are not talking about the ‘average American’ here we are talking about Washington and the chattering political classes and they are the ones who matter.
“As for us being preceived as cowards? That's ridiculous! It would be far more cowardly to go kowtowing to them as if their Senate had any right to demand an explanation from us about our laws”
Nonsense it’s far more courageous to face your enemies/accusers than to hide from them that’s what people will perceive and this is the 3 rd. time you have gone back to the “Americans have no right” argument let me say again and hopefully for the last time that is irrelevant!
"Nonsense it’s far more courageous to face your enemies/accusers "
So should Jack Straw go?
"we are not talking about the ‘average American’ here we are talking about Washington and the chattering political classes and they are the ones who matter."
Very unlike you to put the 'chattering politcial' classes before Jo Bloggs. Why do the American chattering political classes, who didn't listen to a single word George Galloway put to them, suddenly matter so much to you?
Absolutely he would be a side show though it's the SNP people who released him and they are the main culprits in US eyes.
(Jim) 09:33
You are clutching at straws if you say the American political classes didn’t listen to George Galloway; why did they try to censor him if as you said they didn’t listen to him.
Washington matters so much because the American public are possibly the most gullible politically in the world, that’s why we should not give them ammunition on a plate as the SNP have done.
“Very unlike you to put the 'chattering politcial' classes before Jo Bloggs”
You have just lost this one.
"You have just lost this one."
Terry, I know that in your eyes there's only ever one winner on these threads. I'm happy for others to make their own minds up as to who 'won' here.
"the SNP people who released him and they are the main culprits in US eyes."
I thik you'll find the US is pretty strongly focused on BP and what they can do to destabilise a foreign oil company with the end game being American companies assuming the drilling rights which BP have acquired.
(Jim) 12:21
The issue for the American people and the American politicians is the release of a terrorist who murdered lots of Americans.
(Jim) 16:04
I’m not really that interested in “winning” semantic arguments what I am trying to emphasize is that the quote by McasKill that you lead with is a perfect example of the complete nonsense that is nationalism.
I and I’m sure many others find his use of words like ‘our’ and ‘we’ and his references to ‘compassion’ ‘ mercy’ ‘beliefs’ and “our values as a people” as if Scottish people inherited such traits simply by being Scottish is offensive.
I despair at people like him saying that he speaks for me; particularly when he is so evidently lying and spouting propaganda.
In fact it's worse that that it's downright dangerous and it's the kind of thinking that leads to people being assaulted because of they are English.
Terry
I assume this reply is intended for my post here on the other thread.
I find it extraordinary that you should be so upset over the semantics of the Scottish Justice Minister describing the Scottish Jusice system as "ours", as in belonging to Scots or Scotland.
I think you're being particularly petty on that point, simply because it suits your party political agenda.
I don't see how you can link Kenny MacAskill describing the idea of compassion, as enshrined in the Scottish legal system, to someone assaulting an Englishman. That makes no sense whatsoever!
Jim
(Jim) 08:23
The semantics was our exchange not MacAskill’s .
The idea of MacAsKill referring to Scottish compassion and the rest of the repellent spiel that he spewed out is designed to make people who are Scottish feel superior, it creates division and chauvinism, nationalism is sinister and irrational, “the measles of the planet earth” As Einstein correctly called it.
Interesting that you should quote Einstein. Whilst it's understandable, given his problems with the National Socialist German Workers party, that he was so against 'Nationalism', didn't he also enjoy the dubious double standard of being a proponent of Zion?
Personally, I think it's moderation in all things, so to deny your history and achievements as a people is as palpably stupid as imagining that those past achievements somehow make you better than others.
I think I see where you're coming from but I think you're over-compensating for your distaste of the far right by trying to find an impossible position - after all, where do you draw the line? Is It ok for me to support the National teams at Hampden and Murrayfield or am I already formulating plans for that assault on an Englishman? Can I support Andy Murray at the tennis, without wishing ill upon Spain?
(Jim) 29/07/10
Einstein was right about nationalism and he also turned down the offer of becoming Israel’s Prime Minister, he saw himself as a citizen of the world and of course a Socialist.
“so to deny your history and achievements as a people”
You mean as Scots. which is completely unsustainable; being Scottish is completely meaningless when it comes to people’s achievements.
As far as sports are concerned I think it is unhealthy to want to beat England so badly that you finish up supporting anyone who plays against them at anything which is the position of Scots. who buy the drivel spouted by people like MacAskill.
I’m afraid that people like you will never understand because you don’t want to; Bonnie Scotland and tartan and flags and kilts are like a big comfort blanket to you it’s a blanket some people need I don’t. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King whom I paraphrase “ I want people to be judged by the content of their character not by the colour of their skin”
LOL
First of all you assume my position on supporting a team:
"As far as sports are concerned I think it is unhealthy to want to beat England so badly that you finish up supporting anyone who plays against them at anything which is the position of Scots. who buy the drivel spouted by people like MacAskill."
Then you say "People like you will never understand..."
Brilliant!
But come on Terry. Is it OK to support Scotland because I'm Scottish?
(Jim) 11:13
“First of all you assume my position on supporting a team”
No I didn’t I couldn’t care less whether you support a team or who that team might be.
“But come on Terry. Is it OK to support Scotland because I'm Scottish?”
I don’t get this question I have never said that there is anything wrong with supporting Scotland if you are Scottish or for that matter supporting any team no matter where you come from. People who are driven by such trivia worry me.
I support the first part of MLK’s quote nationalists support the second part.
Terry
I can understand why you don't want to answer understand the question about supporting Scotland just because I'm Scottish - why should anyone expect you to be able to justify your views on Nationality through a simple analogy, particularly if it highlights the deficiency in your position.
Jim
(Jim) 16:07
Again I’m not sure what you are getting at; I told you I am not interested in who someone supports. If you feel the need to declare yourself a patriotic supporter of your country’s team then I hope it makes you happy; it’s trivia but; I suppose some people feel better clinging to it. This started to become tiresome quite a while ago.
"Again I’m not sure what you are getting at"
I'm not sure if I believe you.
On the one hand it's entirely feasible that you don't have the cognitive ability to extrapolate your position on Nationality (being meaningless) to International sport.
On the other hand you may do, but then might also realise the absurdity of that position when put into such a context and not like to admit to it.
Fair enough! You're a conviction politician and can't always be expected to face up to the consequences of your fanatacism.
Either way, it's been interesting and illuminating discussing it with you, so thank you for taking the time to exchange with me.
(Jim) 18:41
It’s always nice to talk to someone who can use such big fancy words even if they are meaningless. Perhaps some other time eh?
"Unfortunately Salmond is nowhere near intelligent enough"
How ironic!
Gordon Brown was a great one for banging on about "British values." I wonder what they might be? Perhaps universal human values rather than "British" or even "Scottish" ones.
What's ironic?
(Anonymous) 08:02
I can’t answer that for you. What I can tell you though with absolute certainty is that Countries and Nations do not have values; people do.
Terry, you wrote:
"Straw considered and politely declined the American’s invitation to attend, Salmond should take lessons from him."
Then, you wrote:
"The language used in the letter [Salmonds] is completely irrelevant it was the decision which the letter conveyed which is important if you knew anything about how international diplomacy works you would know"
Hmmm.
You then (in your tiresomely predictable way) wrote:
"This statement because of what follows it is a collector’s item, it is impossible to parody it’s beyond satire. It ranks as one of the most stupid things I have ever read. Let me set you a task, see if you can work out why I say this."
Well, let me see..... is it because you found it difficult to argue with the content of my post so decided to resort to abuse - you know, like you always do?
Voiceofourown
(Anonymous) 07/08/10
I can only hope you did not work too hard on this because you have addressed none of the points,
‘voiceofourown’ suits this rubbish no one else would bother with it.
Oh Terry, you've outdone yourself!
More abuse and no points addressed.
Well done again!
(voiceofourown) 08/08/10
No abuse and the points were addressed rather well: it’s not fair to blame me if you can’t find an argument to support yourself. If you were capable of taking me on you would not be quivering in your hiding place would you?
Post a Comment