The Scottish electorate has responded resoundingly to Labour Scottish parliamentary leader Iain Gray's contention that Alex Salmond's handling of the banking crisis and release of the "Lockerbie bomber" exposed “fundamental flaws” in the SNP leader’s character and judgement. I am particularly pleased at the redoutable Christine Grahame's victory in the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale seat.
What must now be hoped for is that Alex Salmond and the new SNP majority government, at long last, demonstrate sound judgment over the shameful Megrahi conviction and immediately institute an independent inquiry. The first indication will be who is appointed to the office of Lord Advocate to replace the disastrous Elish Angiolini QC. If her successor is another Crown Office minion rather than an independent advocate or solicitor, the prospects will remain bleak.
Incidentally, Windhoek is not merely the capital of Namibia, it is the brand name of the county's best beer (brewed in accordance with the Bavarian Reinheitsgebot). Today I had to wade up to my knees through a seasonal river to sample a few pints of it. But it was well worth the effort.
Yes Robert: let's hope they'll get that "primary legislation" needed to publish the SCCRC findings through quickly. They have the majority required to do it without needing support from anyone else.
ReplyDeleteRolfe, if you're about I hope you're having a well earned rest over the weekend.
ReplyDeleteDear Jo G,
ReplyDeleteI take it that the use of "primary legislation" and "quickly" is intended as a joke. Please feel free to put me straight if otherwise.
Toodle pip.
Hello Quince, well, not necessarily. It depends on the level of pressure we apply here and the sooner the better. Prof B has written about this as you know. He has pointed out that via the statutory instrument route the thing could be done in weeks!
ReplyDeleteWhatever they do its up to us to start pushing immediately. Salmond made the promise on Newnight Scotland on 10 February. I hope you'll be writing to him. I certainly shall.
He doesn't need help to get the decision through: his Government can make it and do it. He is on record that he will.
Yesterday, I relayed Professor Black's Windhoek musings (which included a call for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie conviction) to the following Scottish National Party friends on Facebook:
ReplyDeleteJon Gallagher
Derek Mackay MSP
Anne McLaughlin MSP
Mike Russell MSP
Nicola Sturgeon MSP and
Vincent Waters.
The new SNP government might decide to "immediately institute an independent inquiry" as Prof Black demands. Alternatively, Mr Salmond could leave the issue for the new Parliament's Public Petitions Committee to resolve (see Justice for Megrahi petition PE1370 hearing of 1 March 2011).
In my view, a better and quicker solution would be for the new Lord Advocate (replacing the "disastrous Elish Angiolini QC") to immediately apply to the High Court of Justiciary and have Mr al-Megrahi's conviction quashed, on the grounds that the Gauci brothers were bribed $3m to secure the wrongful conviction of the "Lockerbie bomber".
Patrick, what we should use to begin with is the promise, made publicly by Salmond on 10th February, to address, if re-elected, the publication of the SCCRC findings.
ReplyDeleteThe publication of the Commission's full Report, would, alone, unleash not one elephant into the room but an entire herd of them.
Your view outlined above re any new LA deciding to just have Megrahi's conviction quashed is at best unrealistic and at worst risible.
Dear Quincy (or other JFM person):
ReplyDeleteSome of us non-locals don't fully understand the platforms of the various political parties. I take it that the election of a majority SNP government is the outcome JFM was hoping for? Is the SNP the party most likely to take steps whereby justice for Meghrahi might be acheived?
According to Professor Black, the new Lord Advocate must be an "independent Advocate or Solicitor" (not a Crown Office staffer like the outgoing "disastrous Elish Angiolini QC").
ReplyDeleteHow about Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen QC?
According to Wikipedia: Keen defended Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, one of the two accused Libyans, at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial and deployed his legal arguments meticulously. In cross-examination, he spoke towards the Judges rather than the witnesses. Acerbically, Keen asked the prosecution "star" witness, Abdul Majid Giaka, if he had ever heard of a fictional character named "Mitty, first name Walter". When another witness, Edwin Bollier, told a fantastic tale about a mystery man ordering him to take a letter to the American embassy in Austria, Keen asked him if, as he walked the streets of Vienna, he had heard the sound of the zither playing the Harry Lime theme music.
Fhimah was acquitted whilst his co-defendant Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was represented by William Taylor QC, was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
Sounds to me just like the sort of Lord Advocate who would not hesitate in having Mr al-Megrahi's conviction quashed, on the grounds that the Gauci brothers were bribed $3m to secure the wrongful conviction of the "Lockerbie bomber"!
Dear Fullinquiry,
ReplyDeleteThe current party elect of government in Scotland (SNP) is the same party which: could have begun dealing with the problems surrounding the publication of the SCCRC's Statement of Reasons within a month of taking the reigns of power in 2007 but didn't, only making distracting promises at the end of its term in office four years later; it is the same party which claimed for over a year that it did not have the power to open an inquiry until finally admitting that it did have such power all along when backed into a corner by JFM; passed emergency legislation which effectively put the kybosh on reopening the second appeal; maintained, erroneously that time consuming primary legislation is required to deal with a secondary instrument preventing the publication of the Statement of Reasons; and has parroted factually inaccurate advice identical to statements made by the Lord Advocate. Yes, the SNP is not hidebound by the same links with HMG that the Labour and Tory party are, however, we are dealing here with a case in which the Crown is central and which transcends party politics.
Speaking personally, and in light of the above, I do not see that an emboldened SNP will make JFM's cause any easier to advance, in fact, it may become considerably more of a challenge. If, as may well happen, the new government appoint yet another career civil servant (from the same stable as Elish Angiolini) to the position of Lord Advocate, that will be a strong indication of what we can expect.
On a positive note, the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (SPPPC) received PE 1370 extremely well, facilitating its survival over 3 rounds at Holyrood. JFM now requires to be very nimble on its feet and hope for the same reception from the SPPPC as it has experienced in the past.
Yours,
Robert (Sec, JFM).
Full, I think he means yes.
ReplyDeleteQuncey, please can you ask Prof B to send me your email address. I think we should have words. This campaign doesn't have room for arsing about. Time is short.
The Petitions committee is SO last term Quincey! Do catch up!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Jo G,
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that we do not "arse about" nor are we, as you suggest, out of touch.
JFM has a duty to the victims and bereaved resultant from the Pan Am 103 tragedy, to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system and to the 1,646 signatories to PE 1370. With the invaluable assistance of its membership, I believe that JFM has made, modest albeit, progress towards getting a little farther down the long road to a review of the Zeist case through its actions.
Given the tone of your request, I must, therefore, respectfully decline to provide you with my email address.
Yours,
Robert Forrester (Sec, JFM).
Quincey you just mixed up the election results from 2007 and 2011in declaring there were 147,000 spoiled votes on Thursday. If my tone offends you perhaps it is there because I expect you to know better! It was, after all, four years ago!
ReplyDeleteYou have a promise from Salmond to publish the SCCRC report. Get on with pushing him to publish it. If you don't then you are indeed arsing about! I asked you earlier, have you written to him about that pledge? Because I have. If you haven't, I suggest you get on with it. Remind him: 10th February 2011: if re-elected we will take the necessary steps to get the SCCRC report on Megrahi's conviction published.
How difficult can that be?
Have a go at me about my tone if you like Quincey. Water off a duck's back. Just get on with taking on Salmond re this pledge. Then we'll both be happy. : )
Striking while the iron is hot. Hat's off for all you gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteSM, ahem, some of us are ladies. ; )
ReplyDeleteDear SM,
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Dear Fullinquiry,
If memory serves, from previous comments you have made, I believe you are from the States. I hope that the information I provided above in answer to your question has given you a better perspective on how JFM perceives the post election challenges it faces. I will, of course, be happy to supply you with any other information regarding JFM that I can. I should also say that I am at a loss to comprehend what I wrote in my reply to you that could have generated such an outpouring of vitriol on the part of one of the commentators on this thread and hope that I have not offended others such as yourself. Having said that, however, it appears that the reaction relates to a statistical slip I made on another post, and which I apologised for when my attention was drawn to it.
Yours,
Robert.
PS
ReplyDeleteI omitted to mention, although I did refer to it in answer to the original question, JFM's position on Alex Salmond's pledge to introduce primary legislation to deal with the publication of the Statement of Reasons is that it is a highly time consuming and unnecessary delaying tactic. Something we are altogether only too familiar with.
Quincey, you "be at at a loss" if you like. You got no "vitriol" from me, you simply got a kick up the bum. Don't delude yourself that you are more dedicated than some out here towards getting justice for Lockerbie. Plus, some of us don't mix up more than over a hundred thousand spoiled votes in 2007 with votes cast in 2011!
ReplyDeleteAnd if an "outpouring of vitriol" equals correcting someone who has got something wrong then God help us if we're supposed to be on the same side!
ReplyDeleteQuince, I apologise if I've been unfair to you here.
ReplyDeleteI do hope you will see that we have a pledge from Salmond to get the SCCRC findings published. I just think the JFM, with the rest of us, should be at once reminding him of it and beginning the push to hold him to it.
I know its a new term but the time will fly again.
While I share your disappointment with how the SNP handled the whole matter they remain the only Party we are likely to get any sort of result from. The Unionist Parties at Holyrood would not agree to any sort of publication for their own reasons. Salmond has played games I agree but the pledge is there and the sooner the pressure on him to honour it begins the better.
Re the Committee my understanding is that the makeup of the committees changes in the new parliament so you could be talking about a whole different bunch of people.
I see Christine Grahame has put her name forward for the post of Presiding Officer. Why? No disrespect meant but finally she actually wins her seat and she wants to take up a post which will very much leave her unable to get involved because of the absolutely neutral status the PO post carries. What about the SCCRC report being published, pushing for answers on Lockerbie? Is she going to stop talking about them?
ReplyDeleteIn any case we've had a Lib-Dem PO, a Nationalist, and a Tory. Is it not appropriate that the next one should come from the Labour, the Greens or the Independent benches?
Having just spent a fortnight busting a gut to get Christine elected, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I had no idea she had this in mind. (Possibly she didn't, because it wouldn't have been an option if the SNP had formed a minority government which is what she hoped for and expected.)
ReplyDeleteShe may well not get the post of course.
Hi Rolfe, well yes, I'd thought of your hard work too and it clearly paid off.
ReplyDeleteI don't think an SNP nominee will get it anyway. The others will prob want a PO from a Party other than the governing one.
How are you? Did you get a good rest?
I need to stop reading the reams that are being written about this, including the Scotsman comments sections, which have been hilarious. I don't know why unionist trolls adopt serial fake identities to spew rubbish, except maybe to disrupt constructive debate, but they are very amusing.
ReplyDeleteI think it's hard to know what to do about the Lockerbie scandal without knowing why the government is behaving the way it has been behaving. And to that conundrum, I have no answer. I suspect they know something they agree should not be publicly revealed, but I'm only speculating.
I'm wondering if she's seeing this as her last term as an MSP and maybe intends to let one of the south list MSPs look after constituency affairs if she got the PO job thus introducing them to the constituency for next time? What age is she Rolfe do you know?
ReplyDelete66. (Google is your friend.) Maybe. It would also be very rewarding for her financially.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a plan for Christine then. Tho I don't think she'll get the job personally. With the majority the SNP have I think the last thing they're likely to get is the PO post too! Maybe the other Parties will nominate Margo! ;)
ReplyDeleteChristine Grahame would be an excellent Presiding Officer. She certainly spoke very well at the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee hearing on 1 March 2011 concerning JfM petition PE1370.
ReplyDeleteDear Jo,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I hope I can put your mind at rest when I say that the JFM committee is on the case, regarding the Holyrood end of things, and has been for some time. Our current concern is to advance 1370. The government can make whatever promises, and for whatever reasons, it wishes. how it eventually deals with that is ultimately down to them. I hope you don't regard this as reflecting complacency on our part, far from it, however, JFM can and does have a major influence over the advancement of 1370, and that is where our focus lies at the moment. Moreover, be reassured that even if 1370 ultimately falls, we won't.
Yours,
Robert.
Hi Patrick
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure. She seemed so keen to win her seat outright this time and surely wants to do more than abandon the constituency to take up what is an impartial post in the Parliament. We also need her to continue demanding answers on Lockerbie. I think I'm disappointed in her to be honest. What will her people think too having elected Christine and landed with a list person instead? (I have a sneaking suspicion that one particular list person will be earmarked for the job. She seems to be a rising star in Salmond's eyes anyway.
As I said to Rolfe tho, I think the other Parties may successfully argue against an SNP Presiding Officer.
Hi Robert
ReplyDeleteI hadn't meant to imply earlier that the petition wasn't significant. What worries me about it is that you may be dealing, this time around, with a completely new Committee altogether and possibly a different outcome when it comes to getting backing and support from them. I agree however you should do all in your power to take it forward.
The pledge by Salmond in February was a very public and specific one concerning the SCCRC report and I believe that no matter how cynical we may be (and we have cause to be deeply cynical) his words at the time were quite clear. All the better to quote back at him.
Yes, Jo, we certainly will be facing a new group on the SPPPC. When we originally lodged the petition, this was always in the offing. The thing was that if we had left it any later, we couldn't have lodged it until post this recent election, so, we just went for it, half thinking that we'd possibly not survive this far. Nevertheless, this is where we are right now, and we simply have to get on with it and make the best of the new dynamic. There are other factors too right now, such as who becomes the new Lord Advocate. We'll just have to wait till we see what kind of cards we're dealt. Don't worry, we most definitely will not neglect pledges and the like; to blow our own trumpet for a moment, one thing we are usually not too bad at is picking up ammo and not wasting it once we've got it. We could always do with a few artillery shells though if you have any lying around.
ReplyDeleteThe PO remains as his or her constituency member, working for the constituency in the usual way.
ReplyDeletePity that Anne McLaughlin (who was instrumental in keeping open JfM petition PE1370 in the last Parliament) was not elected at Glasgow Provan!
ReplyDeleteWord in the Scotsman is that the SNP is in favour of one of its own members being PO, but that Tricia Marwick is favoured over Christine.
ReplyDeleteQuincy:
ReplyDeleteI'm not an American but am not European either. Thanks for clarifying. I am of course aware of JFM's work and am a signatory to the petition as well.
You won't hear any criticism of JFM's work from me - it is doing an excellent job and is in for the long haul - that fact alone should make any goverment take notice. At the end of the day JFM's job is the same regardless of the governing party in power. I was simply curious if the campaign might "catch a break" so to speak by way of the SNP majority.
Can I just make it clear I was not criticising JFM's work but simply discussing various possible angles. The petition is one such angle and I signed it too. The SCCRC report is however another major piece of ammunition and Salmond has promised to get it published and he must be held to that. To ignore the fact that the commitment was made would be foolish indeed. There is nothing to stop anyone from going forward with the Petition Business while also calling for Salmond to begin the process of having the SCCRC findings published.
ReplyDeleteRolfe I got a ticket for Lockerbie: Unfinished Business. Its at Dumfries Art Festival on May 26th.
ReplyDeleteDear Fullinquiry,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I want to wait until I see who Salmond appoints as Lord Advocate before deliberating too much. However, the more I allow this election result to sink in, the more depressed I am becoming about the prospects of the SNP doing anything other than serving the interests of the Crown Office than the interests of justice. Given the last SNP government's appalling record on the case, I am doubtful in the extreme that the SCCRC's Statement of Reasons in its complete form will ever see the light of day under this new emboldened SNP administration short of taking them to the printer's at gun point.
The first indication will be who is appointed to the office of Lord Advocate to replace the disastrous Elish Angiolini QC. If her successor is another Crown Office minion rather than an independent advocate or solicitor, the prospects will remain bleak.
ReplyDeleteHaving listened to BBC Radio 4's Any Questions tonight, I'm now of the opinion that Helena Kennedy QC would be an excellent Lord Advocate for Scotland - if Richard Keen QC can't be persuaded to take the job, of course!