logo
   Web Issue 3272 October 7 2008   
spacer
Clash over Jack Straw’s secret letter on Megrahi
LUCY ADAMS, Chief ReporterFebruary 15 2008
RAISING STAKES: Alex Salmond
RAISING STAKES: Alex Salmond

Alex Salmond yesterday raised the stakes in the cross-border dispute over the Lockerbie bomber, urging Jack Straw to allow the publication of all correspondence between the governments in Edinburgh and London.

The move by the First Minister followed the Lord Chancellor's letter in The Herald yesterday, in which he insisted the decision on whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi could be transferred back to Tripoli remains with Scottish ministers.

But sources revealed yesterday that a similar but confidential letter was sent by Mr Straw to the Scottish Government four days ago which had an extra paragraph, explicitly admitting that a prisoner subject to the controversial transfer agreement with Libya could take a case for judicial review - which would keep the decision in the hands of the Scottish courts.

A source close to Mr Salmond said: "Contrary to the letter in The Herald, Mr Straw wrote to the First Minister on February 11 and admitted for the first time that a decision made on this by Scottish ministers could be subject to judicial review. This is entirely different from his insistence that it is absolutely in the hands of Scottish ministers."

An excerpt from the letter, leaked to The Herald, states: "Naturally, as with any decision taken by a public body, a decision in relation to the transfer of a prisoner under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement may be subject to judicial review."

The source added: "We have written to Jack Straw on the back of his letter in The Herald saying it would be in the public interest for all of the correspondence on this matter to be put in the public domain.

"Part of the international agreement for Camp Zeist was that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in Scotland. To uphold the integrity of that process it would have been appropriate for them to have negotiated an exemption clause in the agreement."

Megrahi, who was convicted in 2001 of killing 270 people in the 1998 Lockerbie disaster, is appealing against his conviction and the case calls for a procedural hearing at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh next week.

Talks began in secret some three years ago for the prisoner transfer agreement between Libya and the UK. Officials in the North African country have consistently said these talks centred on Megrahi, but Westminster has denied such claims.

Yesterday Mr Salmond said that in a meeting with Mr Straw last autumn, both sides appeared to be in agreement that anyone convicted of the atrocity would have to serve their full sentence in Scotland.

The First Minister added: "He took that point completely. He said he would negotiate that. He seems to have changed his mind or his mind has been changed. It is up to Jack to tell us why."

David Cairns, Scotland Office minister at Westminster, said: "Scottish Ministers will have the final say over any prisoner in Scotland's jails. Alex Salmond has known that since last summer and his anger is entirely synthetic.

"His comments about a potential judicial review are completely wrong. No ministerial decisions can be reviewed unless they are made incompetently.

"If Alex Salmond is serious about fearing a judicial review, what he is really saying is that he fears that his own minister, Kenny MacAskill, is unable to make a simple administrative decision safely."

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, said last night: "I would wholeheartedly agree with the move to make all the correspondence public. Because if there are doubts about the machinations of this deal it has been because of an absence of information and the fact the talks only became known about through a third party."


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.



Posted by: glaswegian, Glasgow on 11:48pm Thu 14 Feb 08

According to the Labour Minister on Newsnight Scotland, if the case was sent for judicial review, it would then be refered back to Ministers. But what happens then? Kenny MacAskill and David Cairns seemed to be disagreeing over questions of fact... Can anybody confirm the legal position? Who would have the FINAL say... the courts or the Scottish Government?
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 12:11am Fri 15 Feb 08
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, said last night: "I would wholeheartedly agree with the move to make all the correspondence public. Because if there are doubts about the machinations of this deal it has been because of an absence of information and the fact the talks only became known about through a third party."
-Main Report

Forget the squabbling politicians. Dr Swire is one of the noblest and most honourable parties affected by the Lockerbie tragedy. Not for him a fast-buck payoff and synthetic "closure." The truth of what actually happened is for him paramount. We should support ANY measure that will help him secure it.
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 12:14am Fri 15 Feb 08
Alex has been eating the stakes and drinking a few beers by the look of him. Not fit for the world of intrigue but maybe bevvy.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:33am Fri 15 Feb 08
If Megrahi is going to appeal his conviction he can't be included anyway surely?
Posted by: Jimmy the Pie on 12:36am Fri 15 Feb 08
Bet they don't publish any correspondence!
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:38am Fri 15 Feb 08
Is Scottish justice worth preserving give the appalling miscarriages recently exposed? McKie, Asbury, FRaser, Slater, Swanson, Church,Meehan, Campbell, Steele, Surgit Chokar Singh, Stephen Johnson the list goes on.
Even yesterday we saw John Beckett for the Crown (sacked as Solicitor General for being Labour biased incidentally ) saying at an appeal someone was guilty just becasue they found a body( what a ridicuous argument )

When a Lawyer lies eg Boyd to Coulsfield re Maltese shopkeeper he becomes a Lord but when a lawyer tells they truth eg Anwar, Findlay or Campbell they get disciplined or charged with contempt!
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:39am Fri 15 Feb 08
Well, that's the other thing isn't it Jimmy? The refusal of the prosecution to publish certain things, all of which points to the reason for this agreement in the first place. Did they hope to get Megrahi safely away to Libya instead of an appeal going ahead? That would have solved a great many problems wouldn't it?
Posted by: Mike Simpson, Glasgow on 12:45am Fri 15 Feb 08
Clare,of course I respect the position of the terrible tragedy which was Lockerbie. But I am minded to say, that Wee Eck appears to be playing politics again with this issue by trying to fight turf wars with the Westminster Government, in spite of Jack Straw's assurances. Now that is dragging things into the gutter, don't you agree?
Posted by: Mercutio, Falkirk on 12:55am Fri 15 Feb 08
I think the FM is attempting to divert attention from his horrendous gaffe re the Scottish peoples aspirations.
Posted by: Thyme Kelpie on 1:03am Fri 15 Feb 08
Mike - know it is not dragging things into the gutter and you know it. It appears that there are conflicting pieces of information going about and like a great many people, clarity is essential for the sake of those who died.
This is not politics - its truth we want. What happened in Libya?
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 1:05am Fri 15 Feb 08
Clare.12:41. Clare pleads for respect for the dead! Is Clare honest!!
Posted by: wisnaeme, wisnae there on 1:27am Fri 15 Feb 08


Quote from the article:



Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, said last night : " I would wholeheartedly agree with the move to make all the correspondence public. Because if there are doubts about the machinations of this deal, it has been because of an absence of information and the fact the talks only became known about through a third party."





Cynicus, Scotland. Wrote at 12:11pm, Thursday.

Forget the squabbling politicians. Dr Swire is one of the noblest and most honourable parties affected by the Lockerbie tragedy. Not for him a fast buck payoff and synthetic "closure". The truth of what actually happened is for him paramount. We should support ANY measure that will help him secure it.




I would wholehearted agree with those words, Cynicus, Scotland.

But who was the third party and to whom are we obliged to for those "third party" revelations?

...and on the subject of squabbling politicians. Which squabbling politician would you feel more obliged and respectful towards; The squabbling politician who desires the public be informed on the truth of the matter or the squabbling politicians who desire us to remain ignorant and are indeed quite content for there to remain an absence of information, not only in the matter of the referred to correspondence but also to the events and the circumstances surrounding the whole Lockerbie tragedy. It is my perception that it is not only certain squabbling politicians that would desire this issue to disappear. Indeed, there is a perception that " Interested " parties not necessarily altogether of a UK disposition or influence have been and are more than helpful in the pursuance of keeping a tight lid on that can of worms that we are informed is the truth of the matter.

.




Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols, tripoli next year. on 3:04am Fri 15 Feb 08
the libyan government said they had negotiated a deal with megrahi with blair. and as no other prisoner what would be the point otherwise?

makes sense to anyone with half a brain, perhaps even including lanarkshire's great unwashed, who are at least looking for the soap now, if not actually using it yet.
(and no, i am not related to wullie)

blair said they did a deal but it did not include the only relevant prisoner, sttretches credulity, and of course salmond was kept in the dark as long as possible.
even london cannot treat salmond as a minion now, as he comes acroos as more statesman-like than most in westminster. whether he is in private is another issue.

so it comes down to this, who do we believe, blair (read straw) or the libyans?
for me it is no contest, it has to be the libyans.
their story has been consistent, whereas blair and now straw are moving with the wind, as the saudi revelations show. whoever beats the loudest drum wins, regardless of what is right and wrong.

the difference is that blair was caught lying on so many things that straw is in no place to cover up and use blair's honesty as a reason for his version to even be considered authentic.
sad that most of us probably trust gaddafi more than the labour party, but there you go.
Posted by: Brizerwatt, Singapore on 4:39am Fri 15 Feb 08
Graham wrote:
Alex has been eating the stakes and drinking a few beers by the look of him. Not fit for the world of intrigue but maybe bevvy.
Does Graham really think any Scottish newspaper would publish a photo of Alex Salmond not looking shifty, fat and/or like a drinker ? It's just one of the things they do to people they dont like.
Anyway , Churchill loved eating and drinking to excess and he was an expert at intrugue.
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich / Switzerland on 4:54am Fri 15 Feb 08

No secret deal over Mr. Al Megrahi’s prison exchange to Libya.

The only correct way that Mr. Al Megrahi can prove his innocence is via the decision from the Scottish Appeal Court expect on February 20 and trough the Scottish legal System!

This is the real way (if Mr. Al Megrahi is cleared) to go back in his homeland Libya. Al-Megrahi has consistently maintained his innocence and has vowed to stay in Scotland and win his freedom through the appeal courts.

For more details, pls visit our webpage:
http://www.lockerbie
.ch
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:25am Fri 15 Feb 08
And I thought it was Jackie Baillie and Lord Fooks who ate all the porkie pies.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:25am Fri 15 Feb 08
And I thought it was Jackie Baillie and Lord Fooks who ate all the porkie pies.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 7:51am Fri 15 Feb 08
Why are some even questioning who is lying or who is acting in our interests?
Collectively, Scots must be the thickest, most gullible group of people in the western world.
Like him or not, politically motivated or not, when has Salmond been found lying over a clash with Westminster?

Westmonster does not act in Scotlands interests. End of story.
Posted by: steve4349, larbet on 8:11am Fri 15 Feb 08
who believes a word that comes from the labour government in london,lie,lies and more lies,corrupt at every level
Posted by: Astonished, Inverclyde on 8:22am Fri 15 Feb 08
SNP - " We have nothing to hide -publish all the correspondence"

Labour -" We have everything to hide therefore - Sling personal insults and hope folk don't figure out the truth !"

Graham + Mike Simpson you should both be ashamed, very ashamed.

From Memory :
Here's to him that can read
Here's to him that can write
There's nane should be feared
That the truth be heard
Except those whom the truth would indite.

Burns
Posted by: Farquinella on 8:56am Fri 15 Feb 08
glaswegian wrote:

According to the Labour Minister on Newsnight Scotland, if the case was sent for judicial review, it would then be refered back to Ministers. But what happens then? Kenny MacAskill and David Cairns seemed to be disagreeing over questions of fact... Can anybody confirm the legal position? Who would have the FINAL say... the courts or the Scottish Government?
why does it matter?

unless the ministers intend to do something illegal?
Posted by: JohnJ, Edinburgh on 8:56am Fri 15 Feb 08
A judicial review could be sought on the grounds that the devolved Scottish Government did not have the power to keep a prisoner in Scotland in contravention of the treaty between the UK and Libyan governments.
Posted by: Farquinella on 8:59am Fri 15 Feb 08
Brizerwat
Does Graham really think any Scottish newspaper would publish a photo of Alex Salmond not looking shifty, fat and/or like a drinker ?


They might.

If they could find one.... :)
Posted by: -agw, argyll on 9:09am Fri 15 Feb 08
Alex Salmond is a former racing tipster; he knows the odds and is proving to be a better gamesmanship politician than most of the sad rag-tag-and -bobtail examples we witness each recent sleaze filled day.

Where are the defenders of the slaughtered in all this? Who is telling politicians to stop this fiasco and speak up for the victims and their families?

But this is not about them is it? It is yet another lucrative oil and arms deal for the hard-pressed British. Is there enough money to wash away the Lockerbie blood?
Perhaps there will be just enough generated to pay to the obscene bill still clocking up at Northern Rock?

Posted by: Blarney, Edinburgh on 9:15am Fri 15 Feb 08
Publish the letters Alex.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 9:16am Fri 15 Feb 08
This is for the disturbed politics gimps who cant see beyond the headline. This is about the actions of the child raping American CIA who aided and abeited the true bombers . For the Westminster parliament to release Megrahi would show the fabricated evidence was directly from the CIA. In effect this is merely another European government dealing with the mess created by the unaccountable psychopathic CIA.
Posted by: ge, wishaw on 9:22am Fri 15 Feb 08
"His comments about a potential judicial review are completely wrong. No ministerial decisions can be reviewed unless they are made incompetently."

This is the man who was on newsnight and commented that he has had 6 judical reviews on decisions he has made as a minister, what an incompetant fool this man is, he really is annoying me now, this is not an issue to be dealt with by a junior minister, Mr Jack Straw should be commenting on this not his puppy Cairns.

It is so obvious westminster are calling the shots here, no doubt along with some vested interests of big business, maybe they know this guy will be freed then they can say to Libya we would have sent him back anyway. Then the SNP and wee eck came along and threw a spanner in the works of big Tony who hated the idea of a Scottish parliment anyway. The westminster government are knee deep in a culture of lies and disinformation how can we really believe anything they say, Alex Salmond is right and wants honesty between the two governments, will we get it from westminster, I think not.
Posted by: Grassy Knollington on 9:23am Fri 15 Feb 08
The Unionists on here are incredibly prejudiced, apparently it's ok to call the First Minister a fat drunken pie eater but any mention of Wendy 's flexible coupon or Jackie Baillie's rotund and ample person is greeted with howls of "how could you target a politician's looks?"

Cairn's was wriggling on Newsnight last night especially when Derek Bateman pointed out that a high level suit from BP was in the tent in Tripoli with Blair and Gadaffi when the negotiations took place over prisoner transfer.
Looks like another case of follow the oil.
Pity they didn't have Wark interrviewing McAskill on the subject, she could have reprised her role as labour's rottweiler , wiped the floor with him before announcing "that's enough from you" and gone straight to youtube again.
Posted by: Vronsky, Scotland on 9:41am Fri 15 Feb 08
Essentially, Blair did a deal with Gadaffi in order to facilitate a £450 million oil deal between Libya and BP. BP got the deal, Gadaffi got the repatriation (effectively the release) of Libyan prisoners in the UK.

tinyurl.com/265bzh

The deal seems to have been done with no exceptions specified, i.e. under its terms Megrahi also would be returned to Libya. This breaches the agreement made at Camp Zeist, where it was determined that Megrahi would spend his entire sentence in Scotland. Clearly the possibility that Megrahi could escape serving his term in order to smooth the path for an oil deal would be deeply offensive to relatives of the Lockerbie victims, hence Scottish questioning of the arrangement.

Straw is between a rock and a hard place. Had there been the usual supine Labour/LabDim administration in Edinburgh it would have been nodded through, but now he has an undertaking with Gadaffi (they don't spoil a pair, do they) which he can't keep. His letter of four weeks ago indicates that he expects the Scottish government to refuse to release Megrahi and will seek a judicial review to overturn that decision. He appears confident that he can get the decision he wants from the Scottish courts - I wonder why that might be.

Perhaps Straw could procrastinate until Megrahi's appeal is heard. The witness who connected him with the Lockerbie bombing was known by the Camp Zeist prosecution to be a highly unreliable CIA asset, but this information was not given to the prosecution, as required by Scots law. Megrahi might well have his conviction crushed. Problem solved. But Straw won't want to be seen to be doing Salmond's bidding, that would never do.

tinyurl.com/yskv92
Posted by: turpie, clydesdale on 9:54am Fri 15 Feb 08
anyone ,who like me is too old to wait for the Lockerbie Papers to surface could make a googly start on....Iranian Airbus 655, USS Vincennes ,William C Rogers 111(George Bush, Legion of Merit) Iran, Ahmed Jibril, ABC Lockerbie RVN, Captain David Carlson,Wm. Crowe, Vice-President George W Bush, Dr. Jim Swire .....and on and on and ending with Mr. Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi still protesting his innocence....

Posted by: Grassy Knollington on 10:00am Fri 15 Feb 08
"He appears confident that he can get the decision he wants from the Scottish courts - I wonder why that might be."

indeed, it's scarily like the confidence Labour have that the media in Scotland will always give weight to their version of events. I often wonder what kind of country Scotland would be if the SNP had so many loyal and influential allies. Maybe we are the embodiment of the old cliche, "in Government but not in power".
Posted by: Mike MacKinnon on 10:06am Fri 15 Feb 08
JohnJ, you're wrong. It would have to be proved that Scottish law was at fault in charging Megrahi in the first place. There is no such thing as 'British Law!'
Posted by: Anne, Glasgow on 10:29am Fri 15 Feb 08
David Cairns, Scotland Office minister at Westminster, said: "Scottish Ministers will have the final say over any prisoner in Scotland's jails. Alex Salmond has known that since last summer and his anger is entirely synthetic.

"His comments about a potential judicial review are completely wrong. No ministerial decisions can be reviewed unless they are made incompetently .'

Who is to judge that Scottish ministers have reviewed the case incompetently? Westminster ministers? I have my doubts about Jack Straw and especially David Cairns. Jack Straw seems to have backtracked on his agreement last autumn. Alex Salmond is perfectly right to make the case for all correspondence to made public. This more importantly is backed by Jim Swire.
Posted by: JohnJ, Edinburgh on 11:10am Fri 15 Feb 08
Mike MacKinnon - I did not say that the treaty is subject to British law, there is no such thing. Unfortunately Scotland is not a party in international treaties, that is a function of the UK Government and any decision by our our government could be challenged as incompetent on that basis.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 11:12am Fri 15 Feb 08
Donald Anderson wrote:
And I thought it was Jackie Baillie and Lord Fooks who ate all the porkie pies.
Nah,
They just tell them!
Posted by: The West Awake, Argyll on 11:18am Fri 15 Feb 08
Good God! Politicians offering to be completely open and honest with us - where will it lead?

No wonder the SNP are running rings round lying Labour, the very concept of openness and honesty is alien to them. Smoke-filled back rooms, brown envelopes and secrecy are Labour's tools of trade.

"How are the mighty fallen, in the midst of battle".
Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 11:54am Fri 15 Feb 08
Brizerwatt wrote:
Graham wrote: Alex has been eating the stakes and drinking a few beers by the look of him. Not fit for the world of intrigue but maybe bevvy.
Does Graham really think any Scottish newspaper would publish a photo of Alex Salmond not looking shifty, fat and/or like a drinker ? It's just one of the things they do to people they dont like. Anyway , Churchill loved eating and drinking to excess and he was an expert at intrugue.
But, be fair, that's exacttly how he looks......!

As for "story, Dimunitive is still electioneering and therefore acts as such in all his utterances - statesman he aint.

No wonder our "government" is a shambles, the latest "kettle of fishes" leaving the needy deprived of help down to the shady deal over "freezing" Council Tax and the complicity between the old Tories and the TARTAN TORIES ! But back to the pictijre...just as I last saw him up here !!!
Posted by: Farquinella on 12:07pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Brizerwat
Does Graham really think any Scottish newspaper would publish a photo of Alex Salmond not looking shifty, fat and/or like a drinker ?


They might.

If they could find one.... :)
Posted by: Farquinella on 12:09pm Fri 15 Feb 08
glaswegian wrote:

According to the Labour Minister on Newsnight Scotland, if the case was sent for judicial review, it would then be refered back to Ministers. But what happens then? Kenny MacAskill and David Cairns seemed to be disagreeing over questions of fact... Can anybody confirm the legal position? Who would have the FINAL say... the courts or the Scottish Government?
why does it matter?

unless the ministers intend to do something illegal?
Posted by: Grahamski, Falkirk on 12:10pm Fri 15 Feb 08
The only question I want the answer to is this one: Why did Mr MacAskill refuse to face Mr Cairns on Newsnight last night?
Can I suggest it is because he knew he would be outed as the lightwieght politician and opportunistic charlatan he truly is? The Scottish executive's behaviour has been nothing short of contemptible over this - they have been told over and over again that the responsibility will lie with them. And there is the rub, whenever responsibility and hard decisions have faced Mr Salmond and Co they've run a mile. Shame on them.
Posted by: DJ on 12:20pm Fri 15 Feb 08
This is a complete joke. Salmond gave the impression that Jack Straw was about to allow the transfer of Magrahi over the heads of Scottish Ministers to get our interest up and it then turns out that he is making a technical point that I certainly dont follow about decision-making competence and the legal ramifications therein. He actually appears to be trying to use the issue to change the legal status of his government.
As for releasing the full contents of the documents on the issue, its simply a drum to beat Westminster over. What sort of an idiot would release papers about negotiations with Libya during, eh, the negotiations, but then it is Jack Straw, so you never know...
Posted by: ptw, at work... on 12:23pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Grahamski (just one of your many names, eh?), do be quiet man. You, and the psuedo-antipodean from Banff (??) are sad individuals who really should grow up. Nothing you two, and your ilk, say will EVER have me questioning my committment to independence. You only reinforce it.

Unionists should prepare to leave this beautiful country when Independence arrives; you'll not be wanted here. Prepare to be ostracised...
Posted by: Robert Baxter, London on 12:25pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Is there a more obnoxious politician than the totally obsequious and snide David Cairns.I am no Alex Salmon fan but he asks a very reasonable question of Jack Straw.
David Cairns cannot repond in any other way but snide comment, re: his comments the other day in criticising Wendy Alexander et al re: additional powers for the Scottish Parliament, he is a pompous little prat with nothing more to do with himself.
Posted by: Grahamski, Falkirk on 12:30pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Again, words fail ptw.....
Posted by: Grahamski, Falkirk on 12:34pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Mr Baxter,
A more obnoxious politician than Mr Cairns? Oh I could name a few - Mr Cairns hasn't made crass racists statements about our nearest neighbours - he left that to the justice minister. He hasn't described our flag as a butchers apron - he left that to various SNP activists and at least one SNP MSP. He hasn't...oh I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift....
Posted by: DJ, Glasgow on 12:39pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Robert, the fact of the matter is that Labour politicians and SNP politicians absolutely detest each other. Its not like having folk you are not too hot on, but can put up with. Hand out a few guns and they woud shoot each other.
Consequently their public utterances consist of attempt to hack each other down on a regular basis (Cairns is bad enough, you should hear the nat rottweillers Alex Neil and Rosanna Cunningham along with Pauline McNeill on the other side, the kind of people your mum warned you about when you were young). Its sectarianism, wonder where that idea came from?...
Posted by: tornface, at work on 12:44pm Fri 15 Feb 08
ptw, Well said.
Posted by: Grassy Knollington on 12:54pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Actually DJ word is the most entrenched hatred of the SNP comes not from our fallen New Labour comrades but from Tavish Scott and Nicol Stephen. In fact their desire to shaft the Nats with their phoney sleaze allegations about the Trump development has all but destroyed them in the Nort East. When it comes to playing dirty the Lib Dems make Labour look like rank amateurs.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 12:58pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Grahamski wrote:
The only question I want the answer to is this one: Why did Mr MacAskill refuse to face Mr Cairns on Newsnight last night? Can I suggest it is because he knew he would be outed as the lightwieght politician and opportunistic charlatan he truly is? The Scottish executive's behaviour has been nothing short of contemptible over this - they have been told over and over again that the responsibility will lie with them. And there is the rub, whenever responsibility and hard decisions have faced Mr Salmond and Co they've run a mile. Shame on them.
I wouldn't want to be in the same room as that wee slimy rat Cairns, maybe Mr McAskill felt the same.
Cairns is a prime example of anything can get elected in Greenock for the LIEBOOR party, well him and Drunky or is it Donkey McNeil, the msp who knows Hee-Haw about Hee-Haw
Cairns is a lightweight lickspittle who blows whichever way he's told, especially by the folk he contantly brown-noses, he reminds me of Peter Mandelson, only without the "charisma"
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:00pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Yes grassy knoll (was it you with the gun ?) and the people that Labour hate most these days are of course - Labour. Leaving the SNP to get on with governing the country.
Posted by: Grahamski, Falkirk on 1:10pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Good to see the nationalist posters haven't lost their touch when it comes to personal attacks and smears. Where would they be without them? Opposition, probably.
Anyway, I note the question of why Mr MacAskill refused to debate the issue with Mr Cairns face to face is unanswered.
May I suggest political cowardice - the SNP have got previous for this...it's looking more and more that this will be their political legacy, a fear that is fast becoming a phobia of taking responsibility.
Posted by: Grassy Knollington on 1:12pm Fri 15 Feb 08
No Observer I'm just a schoolboy with huge glasses and a wild tuft of black hair........