The Lockerbie Case: Cost of Scottish public inquiries

Monday, 11 June 2012

Cost of Scottish public inquiries

[Christine Grahame MSP has lodged two parliamentary questions seeking information on the cost of public inquiries in held Scotland since 1999. The answers could be relevant to Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) for an inquiry into the prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Although the Scottish Government has not yet cited cost as a reason for opposing such an inquiry, some SNP supporters have done so. The questions read as follows:]

Question S4W-07671: Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 06/06/2012

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it has given to either a taxation process or fixed fee system in respect of public inquiries.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 20/06/2012

Question S4W-07672: Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 06/06/2012

To ask the Scottish Executive what the cost of (a) administration and (b) legal fees has been for each public inquiry held since 1999.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 20/06/2012

2 comments:

Vronsky11 June, 2012
"Although the Scottish Government has not yet cited cost as a reason for opposing such an inquiry, some SNP supporters have done so."

Appalling, if true. Is this where we have arrived - we can't afford justice?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Rolfe14 June, 2012
"Some SNP supporters"? - who they?

The internet being what it is, you'll find pretty much anything you're looking for, said by somebody. The pages of Newsnet Scotland in particular are infested with posters (I suspect a lot of them very young) who harbour a blind approval of anything the SNP says or does. This often takes the form of inventing excuses for SNP policies that the party itself neither needs nor desires.

A lot of these people aren't even members of the SNP. And even if they were, being a party member doesn't give you any sort of influence over policy except in the most limited and formal way through conference motions. Some loon posting mince on the internet means nothing, basically. If an official SNP spokesman says it, well, you can worry about it then.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.