Lockerbie bomber released.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:20 am

My afternoon is hectic so doubt i'll see or hear much of this until early evening.

I'm not very informed on politics but have been taking a keen interest in the SNP the last few years as most people have. I cant see today going as far as a vote of no confidence but if it does i'll send you 50p or an Aberdeen buttery.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 am

buttercup;1233766 wrote: My afternoon is hectic so doubt i'll see or hear much of this until early evening.

I'm not very informed on politics but have been taking a keen interest in the SNP the last few years as most people have. I cant see today going as far as a vote of no confidence but if it does i'll send you 50p or an Aberdeen buttery.

BBC NEWS | UK | Bereaved father commends 'brave' decision

I think labour just see it as a chance to kick the SNP. MacAskill was damned either way-if he hadn't released him he would have been giving in to pressure from the Americans.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:06 pm

gmc;1233753 wrote: Today in (Scottish) parliament looks interesting, labour are a set of shits that still can't believe they lost the last election. I'm sure they are convinced it was fixed in some way they haven't thought of using.
I'm sure it was fixed. They fixed ot themselves by their corruption and sheer bloody incompetence.

gmc;1233753 wrote: This could be quite interesting if they force vote of no confidence it would mean a new election. Who do you reckon would win?
I can easily see the SNP getting back with a majority this time.....

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:49 pm

Chookie;1233887 wrote: I'm sure it was fixed. They fixed ot themselves by their corruption and sheer bloody incompetence.

I can easily see the SNP getting back with a majority this time.....

Even my English wife would vote for them rather than labour-mind you she still thinks Thatcher was wonderful. Nobody's perfect I suppose:yh_sad

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:18 pm

gmc;1233773 wrote: BBC NEWS | UK | Bereaved father commends 'brave' decision

Thank you.

I think labour just see it as a chance to kick the SNP. MacAskill was damned either way-if he hadn't released him he would have been giving in to pressure from the Americans.

Agree completely.

Chookie;1233887 wrote:

I can easily see the SNP getting back with a majority this time.....

Lets hope so.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:23 pm

Having looked at the proposed boycott, it is aimed at UK products, not just Scottish.

Well, this Englishman stands with you on this. And I never thought I'd say that about anything an SNP person said. (dislike and mistrust nationalist parties)

I find I now regard Scottish independence as inevitable. All I'll say is for Heaven's sake make it work.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:33 pm

What a strange thing to say Clod, of course it would work.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:26 pm

buttercup;1233910 wrote: What a strange thing to say Clod, of course it would work.

It'll work even better after the Labour Party self-destructs.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:52 am

Clodhopper;1233905 wrote: Having looked at the proposed boycott, it is aimed at UK products, not just Scottish.

Well, this Englishman stands with you on this. And I never thought I'd say that about anything an SNP person said. (dislike and mistrust nationalist parties)

I find I now regard Scottish independence as inevitable. All I'll say is for Heaven's sake make it work.

Americans really do not understand british politics do they.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:31 am

Very few by the look of it. It's probably not as bad as it looks - big place, the USA...One possible intepretation is that the FBI, at any rate, think the British Parliament should be pressuring the Scottish in those very areas where powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Even before the current round of devolution, it's an issue that would have been decided according to Scottish Law, if I remember right, though whether a more cynical old style Scottish Secretary might not have quietly let Megrahi rot rather than rock the boat is open to question.

btw, you might want to have a look at Redglitter's famous people on religion thread. Think it provides some evidence for my theory about why so many Americans seem not to get the concept of mercy - too much hellfire and brimstone and burn the witch. Not all, or even most. But a sizeable and vocal minority.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:38 am

Clodhopper;1234742 wrote: Very few by the look of it. It's probably not as bad as it looks - big place, the USA...One possible intepretation is that the FBI, at any rate, think the British Parliament should be pressuring the Scottish in those very areas where powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Even before the current round of devolution, it's an issue that would have been decided according to Scottish Law, if I remember right, though whether a more cynical old style Scottish Secretary might not have quietly let Megrahi rot rather than rock the boat is open to question.

btw, you might want to have a look at Redglitter's famous people on religion thread. Think it provides some evidence for my theory about why so many Americans seem not to get the concept of mercy - too much hellfire and brimstone and burn the witch. Not all, or even most. But a sizeable and vocal minority.

Says a lot though. We must be about the only ally they have left yet some obviously think it OK to try and wreck our economy because when they said jump we didn't say how high. Do you think they know there at british troops actually fighting alongside american and a rather high percentage of them are scots. If it does happen I think one reaction might be the demand to remove our troops straight away. That christians can't understand compassion is a bit depressing.

Can't say I fancy Gary McKinnon's chances of a fair trial in america. didn't think he would get one anyway.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:42 pm

Can't say I fancy Gary McKinnon's chances of a fair trial in america. didn't think he would get one anyway

Probably true, going by trials of IRA suspects in Britain at times. Society under threat, public outrage and all that.

Says a lot though. We must be about the only ally they have left yet some obviously think it OK to try and wreck our economy because when they said jump we didn't say how high. Do you think they know there at british troops actually fighting alongside american and a rather high percentage of them are scots. If it does happen I think one reaction might be the demand to remove our troops straight away. That christians can't understand compassion is a bit depressing.

It does seem a bit odd. There seems to be a certain lack of connected thinking, if only becausing paying for those British troops is something of a strain at the moment. We'll see how it pans out.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:42 pm

Clodhopper;1234863 wrote: Probably true, going by trials of IRA suspects in Britain at times. Society under threat, public outrage and all that.

It does seem a bit odd. There seems to be a certain lack of connected thinking, if only becausing paying for those British troops is something of a strain at the moment. We'll see how it pans out.

I would never accuse the christian right of being capable of connected thinking. Paying for those british troops a bit of a strain? you lost me there

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:16 am

Paying for those british troops a bit of a strain? you lost me there

Assuming they're telling us the truth when they say they want British troops in Afganistan: We're still standing around down here waiting to see if the financial floor is going to give way as a result of the banking fiasco, running expeditionary forces is very expensive, and the Yanks (or at least the FBI, by the look of it) try to hit us in the economy...an American boycott of British goods gives us the perfect excuse to pull out on the grounds we can't afford to keep troops there.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:40 pm

Clodhopper;1235076 wrote: Assuming they're telling us the truth when they say they want British troops in Afganistan: We're still standing around down here waiting to see if the financial floor is going to give way as a result of the banking fiasco, running expeditionary forces is very expensive, and the Yanks (or at least the FBI, by the look of it) try to hit us in the economy...an American boycott of British goods gives us the perfect excuse to pull out on the grounds we can't afford to keep troops there.

I actually saw this at the time, the guy clearly doesn't know much about british politics. What relevance does it have what americans think should have been the decision and he doesn't seem able to grasp the concept that the scottish givernment don;t dance to westminster's tune-at least not the snp one.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Clash over Lockerbie bomber release

I think even the fact they would contemplate it shows what they really think of us.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:03 am

Bolton clearly doesn't understand that the only way the Westminster govt could influence the Edinburgh one not to release Megrahi is by insisting that Westminster wanted him released. Scotland under the SNP will do everything it can to demonstrate its difference and independence. The worst thing Westminster could do is try to interfere.

Still, American administrations always know they are right about everything. It shows in the number of real friends they have internationally.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:15 am

New way to spell oil deal. Lockerbie bomber's release.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:19 am

New way to spell oil deal.

You mean it's not spelled "invasion of Iraq" any more?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:49 am

Clodhopper;1235595 wrote: You mean it's not spelled "invasion of Iraq" any more?

Naw............

It is now spelt "UK sells out for oil"

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:08 am

It is now spelt "UK sells out for oil"

sigh

I say it again: The British parliament had no say in the matter. Trying to influence a Scottish Nationalist MP would almost certainly cause him to react to protect the independence of the Scottish Parliament and give the verdict he felt would most underline that independence.

It is quite possible that the British Parliament, guessing the likely behaviour of a Scottish Nationalist MP, reacted to take what advantage it could from the matter.

But I say again: The English, Welsh and Northern Irish did not make this decision. It was not a UK decision. It was a Scottish decision, made by a Scottish Parliament. The US boycott of UK goods has made it a UK matter.

And if the Scots were releasing Megrahi for UK oil concessions (and I appreciate this is now regarded as a definite fact in the USA), being condemned for doing so by the country that invaded Iraq to secure its own oil supplies has an amusingly unselfaware hypocrisy about it. Who are you to make moral judgements about what we will or won't do for oil?

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:29 am

BTS;1235647 wrote: Naw............

It is now spelt "UK sells out for oil"

Think of it as analogous to US death sentence commutation. That's not in the hands of the President, it's entirely down to the State Governor. Who do you blame for a commutation, the State Governor or the President?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:29 pm

spot;1235664 wrote: Think of it as analogous to US death sentence commutation. That's not in the hands of the President, it's entirely down to the State Governor. Who do you blame for a commutation, the State Governor or the President?

You REALLY believe this was ALL decided by the Justice Minister MacAskill? No outside influence whatsoever?

You are not that naive are you spot?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:39 pm

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:40 pm

I say again. The Scottish Parliament is new. REALLY new. Macaskill is a SCOTTISH NATIONALIST. How do you think he is going to react to pressure from the UNITED KINGDOM he is trying to be independent of?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:52 pm

Just read Bruv's letters. I take it all back. It was a deal done for oil we've been working at. When was Libya involved in terrorism recently? Good for Mandelson.

Iraq, of course, was nothing to do with oil. :-6

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:54 pm

BTS;1235720 wrote: You REALLY believe this was ALL decided by the Justice Minister MacAskill? No outside influence whatsoever?

You are not that naive are you spot?Do State Governors have autonomy when deciding on commutations? I have no doubt at all that the Scottish Justice Secretary had complete autonomy over this decision. To what extent he took advice I've no idea but it was entirely his call at the end of the process. The UK government is not an outpost of the Mafia and the Scottish Justice Secretary is already at the apex of his political career. You're not suggesting he was bribed, I hope?

Bruv;1235723 wrote: The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

I'm not quite sure of the relevance of that. No prisoner transfer took place. It might well have been a contingent element of the BP deal but it never happened.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:52 pm

hoppy;1235594 wrote: New way to spell oil deal. Lockerbie bomber's release.

This is exactly the response i thought you'd give.

BTS;1235647 wrote: Naw............

It is now spelt "UK sells out for oil"

This is not the one i thought you would give.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:55 pm

Clodhopper;1235724 wrote: I say again. The Scottish Parliament is new. REALLY new. Macaskill is a SCOTTISH NATIONALIST. How do you think he is going to react to pressure from the UNITED KINGDOM he is trying to be independent of?

That's a bit unfair Clod, surely your not suggesting he made the decision JUST to **** Westminster off?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:33 pm

That's a bit unfair Clod, surely your not suggesting he made the decision JUST to **** Westminster off?

From Bruv's post it appears it was a clear indicator of a deal with a no-longer-terrorist (ie he's got grandchildren).

Go on America - HATE HATE HATE.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:41 pm

Ah, i'm with you now. Thanks for that.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:22 am

BTS;1235720 wrote: You REALLY believe this was ALL decided by the Justice Minister MacAskill? No outside influence whatsoever?

You are not that naive are you spot?

At the time of the prisoner exchange deal there was an almighty row about it because Tony Blair has no authority or right to make decisions concerning Scottish prisoners or to overturn the Scottish courts. Back then the scottish government told them to back off. If jack staw or tony blair had been in a position to get the scots op release magrahi they would have done so then.

Yes I think macaskill's decsion was on compassionate grounds. were it not for the fact he is going to die soon HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELEASED. It is actually that simple. Why is it americans cannot accept that a politicians might actually make decision purely based on the law and it's requirement to take in to consideration of the need for compassion? As a christian Ii assume you are-correct me if I'm wrong) You should really not have the concept of compassion explained to you. it's even in tyhe lord's prayer

Forgive us our sins,

as we forgive those who sin against us.

You cannot show compassion to someone who is deserving of it-we have words like justice and fairness whose meaning you should perhaps look up.

The easy way out would have been NOT to release him. You may not b aware but all the churches in scotland have given their support. So has Nelson mandela

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Mandela backs Lockerbie decision

Though no doubt since he is a convicted terrorist you probably think he should still be rotting in jail.

You quite clearly do not grasp a fundamental point about the UK-scotland and England have separate legal systems-the english cours do not have jurisdiction over scottish ones-nor can the UK justice minister tell a Scottish one what to do-especially one who is a member of the Scottish national party whose whole reason for existence is to make scotland completely independent from England.

Besides scotland has oil-why would we want to increase the supply and bring the prices down? That's why the exchequer is so worrief about Scottish independence-our oil has been subsiding it for decades.

posted by buttercup

That's a bit unfair Clod, surely your not suggesting he made the decision JUST to **** Westminster off?

Probably not but I bet he wasn't too bothered if it did.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:35 am

Just read Bruv's letters. I take it all back. It was a deal done for oil we've been working at. When was Libya involved in terrorism recently? Good for Mandelson.

Iraq, of course, was nothing to do with oil.

:o Just like to make it clear I was trying to be sarcastic. Wise old forum saying - never post when drinking... oops.

I think I'm right in saying that the timescale on Bruv's letters goes slap bang through the middle of the creation of the Scottish Parliament. We have two jurisdictions and power transferred between them during this time

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:33 am

Latest on the letters:

BBC NEWS | UK | Megrahi freed: Some answers

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:08 am

Funny how the daily mail et al have forgotten what happened the last time new labour tried to get megrahi released so they could make a deal with Libya.

Blair pressed on prisoner exchange deal - Edinburgh Evening News

check the date of the article. If new labour had any say on the matter he would have been released two years ago.

Scottish ministers attack No 10 over Lockerbie bomber | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Scottish ministers attack No 10 over Lockerbie bomber

The agreement has sparked the first major row between the government and the minority SNP administration in Holyrood.

Mr MacAskill told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that Westminster's handling of the affair was "at minimum, discourteous to the first minister and the Scottish parliament".

Mr MacAskill continued: "There's no mention of al-Megrahi [in the memorandum] but we have many people in our prisons ... but we have only one Libyan national in our prisons.

"So when we're talking about the transfer of Libyan prisoners they are not secreted in Barlinnie, Saughton, Perth or anywhere else.

"We have only one Libyan national in custody and when we talk about the transfer of prisoners, frankly it is ludicrous to suggest that we are talking in a context other than this major atrocity that was perpetrated on Scottish soil and which was dealt with by a Scottish court and with a sentence provided by Scottish judges."

Note the dates and by the way the name of the minister involved-yes that's right it's the same man now accused of giving in to pressure from Westminster. The only man that has behaved with any integrity is now called a liar by people who regard it as a sell-able commodity and who suffer from memory loss.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:51 am

Seems pretty conclusive to me.

But many of our American friends appears to have decided this release was a UK plot for oil, and I doubt they will let a few inconvenient facts destroy their beautiful theory.

btw, in the Offie last night I saw a few bottles of Fat Bastard wine. Have you moved into viniculture?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:10 am

Clodhopper;1236096 wrote: Seems pretty conclusive to me.

But many of our American friends appears to have decided this release was a UK plot for oil, and I doubt they will let a few inconvenient facts destroy their beautiful theory.

btw, in the Offie last night I saw a few bottles of Fat Bastard wine. Have you moved into viniculture?

Apparently it's french wine with dumbed down labels aimed at the american market.

FAT bastard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fat Bastard Wines: Our Story

I make no further comment:yh_rotfl

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:38 am

You know, one of the weirdest things that's been going on in the last 20 years is that the English have been getting on increasingly well with the French.

I don't understand it. It's probably immoral.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:56 pm

Clodhopper;1236136 wrote: I don't understand it. It's probably immoral.
Well maybe, I guess S-E-X might be involved. Or are the French against it?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:46 am

Well david cameron has stamped his little foot and completely missed the point it wasn't up to westminster what happened to megrahi. Still he has no MP's to lose up here anyway thanks to maggie. I see alex is now bringing forward his call for a referendum on independence. do you think the opposition will dare try and stop it? I've never actually voted SNP but I would if they did.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:44 am

Oh let's hope so.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:21 pm

Well maybe, I guess S-E-X might be involved. Or are the French against it?

D'you know, funnily enough it seems to be Rugby as much as anything else. For example, Brive have a lot of English players and the Brive match programme has a great section on "Les Rosbifs".:yh_rotfl

There is also a lot of respect for the way the French people will just say, "Up yours! We're blockading the Channel Ports" and they don't give an eff for politics, or convenience, or even rationality!.

We can relate to that.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:41 am

gmc;1235942 wrote:

Though no doubt since he is a convicted terrorist you probably think he should still be rotting in jail.

.

Compasionate grounds my arsse.

Weather he will die very soon or not, I never believed for a minute that he was guilty. If he was not in such failing health, there would have been an appeal and his lawyers were poised to show documents that showed the CIA had far more interest in Lockerbie than the Lybians.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:18 am

oscar;1236833 wrote: Compasionate grounds my arsse.

Weather he will die very soon or not, I never believed for a minute that he was guilty. If he was not in such failing health, there would have been an appeal and his lawyers were poised to show documents that showed the CIA had far more interest in Lockerbie than the Lybians.

He's been released cos he's going to die. It really is as simple as that. If it were not for that he would still be in jail. I remember the fuss at the time they made the prisoner exchange agreement , jack straw might have released him but he was told in no uncertain terms it wasn't up to him. The only one that has behaved with any integrity or consistency is macaskill and yet he is the one accused of lying and caving in to pressure.

Cameron doesn''t get it either-if he were prime minister he could not over rule the scots either, if he tries it we will have an independent scotland by the start of the next decade imo.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 am

gmc;1236845 wrote: He's been released cos he's going to die. It really is as simple as that. If it were not for that he would still be in jail. I remember the fuss at the time they made the prisoner exchange agreement , jack straw might have released him but he was told in no uncertain terms it wasn't up to him. The only one that has behaved with any integrity or consistency is macaskill and yet he is the one accused of lying and caving in to pressure.

Cameron doesn''t get it either-if he were prime minister he could not over rule the scots either, if he tries it we will have an independent scotland by the start of the next decade imo. You quoted me yet deviated from my post. His whole conviction was dodgy from the outstart. That is what I question. The more I hear, the more it sounds like a publicity stunt for the SNP. No-body wants to admit anything. Even his Lovliness was on tv today telling the country he had nothing to do with it because he doesn't want the government to get any backlash from America.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:19 pm

oscar;1236877 wrote: You quoted me yet deviated from my post. His whole conviction was dodgy from the outstart. That is what I question. The more I hear, the more it sounds like a publicity stunt for the SNP.

Oh yeah, sure BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | SNP defeated over bomber release a publicity stunt. Your Gods minions up here are in trouble - if this results in an election the Liebour Party are history.

Not before time. Their corruption and sheer coruscating bloody incompetence is unbelievable.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:23 pm

Chookie;1237033 wrote: Oh yeah, sure BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | SNP defeated over bomber release a publicity stunt. Your Gods minions up here are in trouble - if this results in an election the Liebour Party are history.

Not before time. Their corruption and sheer coruscating bloody incompetence is unbelievable. So why's his worthiness saying 'nothing to do with me mate'? :wah: (But in a dour sexy scottish type way)

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:35 pm

I'm quite surprised you think its a publicity stunt Oscar. Every single customer i have had since the release or people that i have spoken to in general have said the decision to release him has put them off the SNP. Yes, granted, most if not all of my customers, neighbours ect know little of politics or history but i do think they represent women of all ages and walks of life in my area. So it would seem among your everyday women here that its not been a very successful publicity stunt, if like you say that's what it was.

I live in Alex Salmond's constituency, i agree with the decision made. I support the SNP. I only wish i was as clever with words and facts as some of the people here on FG to be able to defend that decision to those women better than i am doing at present.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:41 pm

oscar;1237038 wrote: So why's his worthiness saying 'nothing to do with me mate'?
Because it isn't. The time that Gordon the Gopher has spent down in Westmonster has totally atrophied his last remaining braincell. The British government is incompetent (in more ways than one) to dictate how our legal system operates, and any attempt to do so will meet a pair of stuck up fingers.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:42 pm

Sorry, double post.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:49 pm

buttercup;1237059 wrote: I'm quite surprised you think its a publicity stunt Oscar. Every single customer i have had since the release or people that i have spoken to in general have said the decision to release him has put them off the SNP. Yes, granted, most if not all of my customers, neighbours ect know little of politics or history but i do think they represent women of all ages and walks of life in my area. So it would seem among your everyday women here that its not been a very successful publicity stunt, if like you say that's what it was.

I live in Alex Salmond's constituency, i agree with the decision made. I support the SNP. I only wish i was as clever with words and facts as some of the people here on FG to be able to defend that decision to those women better than i am doing at present. First of all... don't put yourself down here. I have never thought for a moment that you are not as politically aware as any other on this forum or could not use words or facts. You get your point across just as fine as any one else. :-6

My argument is that I never believed he did It. I always believed that Lockerbie was revenge by the Iranians over the US accidentally shooting down an air bus of theirs. At the time, it was also alleged that the US CIA were dealing in heroin in the Iran/Contra affair. On that plane, were 5 Identified CIA officers, and some un-Identified. Along with them was a large carrier of heroin and a huge amount of money.

He was not tried alone. There were two of them with the exact same evidence being produced by the defence for the two men. One was aquited, one was found guilty. How can that be when the exact same evidence was used against both of them?

I do have figures and names if you want them but they are on my other pc and I can't be bothered to go in the other room.