The Great Libya Folly

Edward McLaughlin

Excellent piece Mr Bright.

Particularly the observation that the mass adulation and the consequent anguish this might cause the bereaved families, was not even on the blissful horizon of those who drove this through.

BTW congrats on the JC post. Does this mean you're on your way or are you to be one of these two job johnnies?

TrevorsDen

It exposes the pacifist lefty appeasing heart of the SNP

Rick

Nicely put Martin......

Tom Gallagher

Congratulations Martin on affirming the view of the progressive Left which tries to uphold a set of universal values , prominent among which is the need to affirm that the deliberate targetting of civilians is a crime under international law wherever it happens.

I am sure that if it had been a planeload of Scots who had been blown up over Lockerbie, Kenny MacAskill would have stuck to his earlier position that whoever had been convicted in a Scottish court must serve out his sentence.
The SNP's mindset and priorities are parochial ones and it would not have risked the wrath of so many bereaved Scots. But the victims were mostly from the US, a country whose institutions and indeed its people are regarded with scorn by pro-SNPers - as any glance at newspaper electronic comment spots will quickly show.
Absent from the Scottish airwaves and from the opinion pages of newsapers like the Scotsman and the Herald are left-wing journalists like yourself Andrew Anthony, Joan Smith and Nick Cohen who try to stem the slide of the political Left towards making common cause with religious obscurantists who, if they prevailed, would wipe out many of the civilizational gains of the last 500 years.

Too many 'small toon kailyard Nats' wre prepared to find excuses for Milosevic in the 1990s and Middle east tyrants today because their defiance of big powers is a reflection of their own struggle against foreign overlords. These Nats overlook any moral dimension and asume that it is the small country resisting American power which invariably has right on its side even if its policies are tyrannicial, genoicdal and deeply misogynist.

The Grande dame of the Scottish chattering classes,Lesley Riddoch who struts her stuff on BBC radio, the scotsman and the Guardian hailed MacAskill for 'placing compassion above vengeance , and independent decision-making above kow-towing to the world's most poweful nation'. (Guardian 21 August)
She even approvingly linked al-Megrahi's release with MacAskill's plans for non-custodial sentences for violent offenders and knife-carriers.

She showed the elitist and essentially non-democratic mindset that prevails among he interst groups that flank the SNP by arguing these policies must be right because of the support of profssionals and a range of quangos involved in criminal policy.

There was no mention of the plight of ordinary Scots many of whom will never get true 'independence' because they live in communities where thugs prevail and the authorities just walk on by.
So it make sense that Alex Salmond, macAskill or their new friend Lesley Riddoch ought to be unconcerned about the new wave of hurt caused to relatives of the 1988 bomb by the feting of al-Megrahi in dictatorial Libya.

When the Scottish parliament meets on Mnday it is likely that the Riddoch view that the Scots have just won gold in the OLympiad for international compassion will prevail.

We can only hope that his episode which fans hostility to the USa for electoral captital and credibility in the metropolitan media will spur Scots who want their country to have a progressive and responsible role in the world (whatever its constitutional status), to become more vocal and organized.

JohnAnt

Quite right, Martin. But there's another aspect too - why exactly did neither the Scottish Justice Dept nor the British Government, who of course knew what was going on in edinburgh, forsee the consequences of this miserbaly shortsighted act of 'compassion' on foreign policy, relations with the US, and on terrorism and anti-western feeling in the ME?
McCaskill may talk about 'Scotland', but he has made my country - Britain - more vulnerable to attack. And the British Government has simply sat on its hands and done nothing to counter the effects.
Megrahi now wants to proclaim and 'prove' his innocence before he dies. That too was entirely predictable.
Brown, Miliband, Salmond - whose side are they on?

Bobby Boyce

Read Scotland and the Scottish Raj, Blair, Brown, Darling and so on. I'm English, commentators should not try to blame this one on the English, it's becoming a bit tedious.

Lady Astor's son-in-law

Haggis-eating surrender monkeys!

logdon

Seen the 555 comments in the Mail?

Rightly or wrongly, another nail in Macavity and his tartan cohorts coffin.

David Lindsay

The SNP is a big business party with its heartland in the North East of Scotland. It has oil coming out of every pore.

If anyone still doubts the need for clean coal technology and for nuclear power, then the answer is now "Lockerbie".

Oh, well, we should at least get a public inquiry now. And when MSPs reconvene on Monday, then there will be, as there always are, far more of them not from the SNP than from it. So if they wanted Kenny McAskill's scalp, then they could certainly have it. And if his, then how not Alex Salmond's?

What a shambles devolution is, when something like this can happen! And are the SNP just first-timers out of their depth, with no idea what the unwritten rules are? Or are they a lot more sinister than that?

ndm

Martin Bright writes:

-- This was a truly dark day for the reputation of this country.

No. A truly dark day for the reputation of this country was March 20, 2003 - the day Tony Blair joined with President Bush to launch a war of choice that killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It is quite posssible that Bush and Blair are ultimately responisble for the killings of more Iraqis in six years than Saddam Hussein was responsible for in thirty years. Yet these two men still enjoy unfettered daylight. Each and every day Bush and Blair remain unpunished for their horrendous crime is another dark day for Britain and the US.

D. John

Geoffrey Robinson's quote just shows he does not know Scots Law, let alone English law, on compassionate release of ill, long-term prisoners. The original crime that caused the incarceration does not come into consideration, the compassionate release criteria are based solely on the health status (terminal illness) of the long-term prisoner - justice tempered by compassion or mercy. If Al Megrahi is innocent as the Libyans and many others believe and, for a moment assuming he is, why should he repent (i.e., express regret for 'his' wrongdoing) when he is considers himself innocent.

ndm

Tom Gallagher writes:

-- These Nats overlook any moral dimension and asume that it is the small country resisting American power which invariably has right on its side even if its policies are tyrannicial, genoicdal and deeply misogynist.

Knowing when to think and when to write are evidently learned skills.

Edward McLaughlin

ndm

'It is quite possible....' Ah yes, the Carlsbergian fudge.

Is that as in 'not anywhere near to being conclusively proven but just something I like to bang on about'?

Auntie Analogue

D. John: To your blinkered nonsense of a comment I riposte that justice does not inhabit a vacuum, that it serves wider, nobler, and far more humane purposes than your narrowminded ejaculation seems to have been capable of comprehending.

Ray

Is it just my suspicious mind, but would it not appear that two symbiotic strands have come together here?

Firstly, the SNP are ever eager to ascribe to their administration all the trappings of a de facto independent Scottish government. Therefore, basking in the international limelight by publicly sticking two fingers up to Uncle Sam (and in the process embarrassing Downing Street) fits the bill perfectly.

Secondly, despite Mandelson's denials, some kind of behind-the-seals deal has gone on between Her Majesty's government and the Gaddafi regime, presumably involving trade contracts of some sort.

This would perhaps explain Gordon Brown's strange reticence on this matter. In return for Meghrahi's release, the UK has obtained an oil and gas deal that was absolutely critical for a nation that is now increasingly dependent upon imported gas to fill the energy shortfall caused by having to phase out many of its older power stations. Meanwhile, Brown is more than happy to let the SNP cabal in Edinburgh take the flak from an aggrieved US government - "It was nothing to do with me, Mr President!"

That said, I find it difficult to believe that Downing Street could not have overriden the Scottish Executive if a matter of overarching national interest was involved - such as might threaten co-operation between our principal ally on the extradition of international terrorists.

Incidentally, isn't it amazing that our 'busy' Prime Minister can take time out of his day to pass comments about contestants on 'Britain's Got Talent' but not on one of this year's biggest foreign policy crises.

Edward McLaughlin

D John

"The original crime that caused the incarceration does not come into consideration"

Back to the drawing board perhaps?

hadrian

Tom Gallager-
I am baffled by your assertion of the SNP's making common cause with 'religious obscurantists'. Who are these 'obscurantists'? Most of the staunchly Protestant Christians I know would deplore MacAskill's phoney 'compassion'.
How exactly are we supposed to threaten the continuance of 500 years of putative Scottish civilization? The real threat stems from the morally indifferentist 'multi-culturalists' for whom every value is but relative.

James Matthews

No. A dark day for the reputation of Scotland. Scottish decision. Scotland's consequences.

JohnAnt

Whether Megrahi was freed on the grounds of "compassion" is very difficult to prove, but it is always a popular card for a politician to play, particularly in a celtic culture, and even more so where the action will offend anglo-saxon neighbours.
On the other hand, if such a move furthers nationalist political goals, personal ambitions, local and national oil, energy and trade interests, and placates an angry and energy-rich foreign country that might unleash terrorism if disobliged - that can all be a powerful motive for exercising 'compassion'.
Come off it Kenny - the bit about the 'higher power' (whom we know you don't believe in)overegged the pudding and gave the game away.

MikeS

Very well said, and by Geoffrey Robertson, hardly a stalwart of the far right.If Scotland ever becomes independent it will becomw a haven for terrorists.

Lady A

I think a lot of people are missing the point in attacking the Scottish Government for releasing Megrahi. Ask yourself this. Lockerbie is only a few miles from the English border. If the plane had crashed in England, do your really think that Megrahi would not be in Libya today?

Sam Armstrong

Excellent article. The first time I have agreed with you. But then, this is not a left/right issue. It is an issue that divides not along political lines, but divides people into decent and disgusting, brave and craven, freedom-loving and serf of the state, life-eating and suicidal. Although I do tend to regard most lefties as essentially depressed and petulant I am pleased that you didn't choose the dark path to hell, unlike that Alex Massie who really ought to live out his last days at Dignitas.

Sam Armstrong

Brown, Miliband, Salmond - whose side are they on? posted by JohnAnt.

They are on Gramsci's side, they want the West dead.

Sam Armstrong

A message to nationalist Scottish people: if you wanna go, just go, we can't be bothered any more. About becoming a successful independent state: yeah, good luck with that...

blueharry

Would the Geoffrey Roberston QC be the same Geoffrey Roberston QC who was sacked from the Sierra Leone war crimes court for bias?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3499644.stm

He's also married to Kathy Lette which shows he has no judgment at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3519484.stm

Andy Leeds

For once I agree with you. This was a shameful and disgraceful decision. Watching Mandelson's interview on Saturday denying any deal was done means there damn well was a deal. Seems that the SNP have been used as patsies by Brown etc. Nevertheless it is a disgrace that a man can be convicted of murder and serve a mere 10.8 days per death. A very modest tariff.

Dirty Euro

It is wrong a cruel to release this man, just so some crooked oil barons can get money. By the way was the queen involved in this?.

logdon

Two takes here.

This with plenty of links to the back story....And self evident in it's message.

http://www.boycottscotland.com/

And this by John Bolton who, as usual brings a clarity, unmuffled by PC and the cover of pseudo 'compassion'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6079431/Was-the-Lockerbie-release-bad-diplomacy-or-good-business.html

There is no doubt that this has set US/Scottish relations back and yet further harmed the whole of Britain's international reputation.

No mean feat, the transformation of Britains global image from indomitable bulldog to the running variety in twelve short years yet Labour and the left-wing SNP have pulled it off with flying colours.

After our Navy's pussilanimous capitulation to a bunch of AK wielding Iranian thugs in an inflatable rib in the Shatt al- Arab waterway I thought that this was as far as we could sink.

I was obviously sadly mistaken.

Brian Smith

We tend to forget that both the SNP and Plaid are fairly way out on the left wing. Plaid's cozying up to Islam in Wales is particularly disturbing. Good job we have the good old extreme right BNP to give us a bit of balance on the nationalist scene

David

It seems to me 2 distinct things have got confused here. Are we really sure he was guilty and should he be shown compassion? Because of the doubts about the first a wholly inappropriate decision has been made about the second in respect of the greatest mass murderer in UK history. It creates an inevitable suspicion (a) that contracts and business have intervened and (b) that the appeal might have been too embarrassing for the Scottish Establishment. The recent disclosure FOR THE FIRST TIME that there was a break-in in London relating to the baggage of the flight is truly shocking in respect of a case largely built on circumstantial evidence. The families deserve the truth and so do the rest of us.

Original Tony

The fact that the left remain split over the release of this horrid man says it all about liberal politics in general....that sometimes dancing with the devil is okay because it's the end result that counts. Maybe the end desired in this case is Libyan oil??

I doubt the conservatives are divided over this issue.

Dirty Euro

Why did Gaddaffi thank the queen?

Archie

The result of a typically half-baked and ill thought-out Blairite nonsense, better known as devolution! Here we have the preposterous situation of two Justice Ministers, one of whom can seemingly act independently and cause much aggro for the other and his colleagues' foreign policy, not to mention cause a rift with an ally. Where do we go from here?

Roy

How can the English establishment or you, Lady Astor's son-in-law, call the Scottish surrender monkeys? When the clapped-out degenerative English parliamentarians have virtually given away the homeland of Britain to foreign implants.

Hysteria

Lady A - and what if Hitler had invaded Britain (England)? What if the Russians had launched missiles from Cuba?

Let's deal with the issues at hand and not hypotheticals - bad call by the SNP I reckon

Dixon

Its as though U.S foreign policy were to be decided by the "justice minister" of the state of Iowa. It illustrates the kind of situations that its obvious this idiocy of "devolution" would lead to.

Creating devolved administrations on lower tiers of administrative heirarchy in effect lowers the bar which aspirants must hurdle to get into positions of authority. Not so much "dumbing down" as stooping to the lowest denominator of local tin-pots. The kind of talentless, ignorant, thick as aplank cryptograms of humanity who you would normally only expect to encounter in the beaurocracy of a county council have been given an entire country to play with: Scotland.

You cant blame Alec Salmond. I mean, only a fool would imagine he had nothing to do with the decision. But you cannot blame him, because he only gave in to his natural urge to fulfil the lifetime ambition of acting as though he is running a country independent of Westminster, or the rest of the World for that matter. Independent, indeed, from reality.

Obviously there are the conspiracy theorists who claim it was all orchestrated from London. Can you imagine Salmond and his pals cooperating with that? The ideas potty.

On the contrary, its more like a case of the tail wagging the dog. They get the chance to act all grown-up and independent, but its the rest of us ( the UK as a whole ) who have to take the blow-back. While they say "thats nothing to do with us, foreign policy comes from Whitehall". In other words, they can make the choice but are not held responsible for the consequences. I always say you shouldnt allow children to play with cutlery unless under adult supervision.

What would happen if all the regions got devolved assemblies as poroposed, and took to acting "independently".

Its completely crazy.

Dixon

ndm:"No. A truly dark day for the reputation of this country was March 20, 2003 - the day Tony Blair joined with President Bush to launch a war of choice that killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians."

Why should the deaths of Iraqis be considered a bad thing for THIS country?

You can give us emotion ( ooh, that violin, dunnit it whinge ) but can you actually provide a REASON why I or anyone in this country should give a fig how many Iraqis die.

Actually, I found it all very entertaining to watch the daily carnage whilst having my dinner of an evening. Although its all died down now that, ahem, the US has won..in spite of the best whingeing efforts of folks like ndim.

Oh and by the way, we didnt kill those Iraqis did we, they were mostly killed by each other, apart from those killed by foreign insurgents.

Arnie Sagnussen

A convicted mass-murderer is freed from a British jail, is feted back in his homeland causing distress to the bereaved families and untold harm to our image abroad - and the British Prime Minister has nothing to say on the matter.

Paul L

What is annoying me most at the moment is the uncritical acceptance of the pro-release media that compassion means only one thing - release. Was he not allowed visitors? If he is ill his family and, judging by his welcome back, his many many friends could have visited him in prison could they not? He was receiving medical treatment, he is still alive, unlike his victims and enjoyed years of freedom after the act.

It seems that the SNP is telling us that Scottish law obliges them to release anyone who contracts a serious illness while in custody.

It looks like we can add compassion to the list of words whose meaning has indeed been truly perverted.

Indy

You are quite right that 'the mass adulation and the consequent anguish this might cause the bereaved families, was not even on the blissful horizon of those who drove this through'.

Because that is not what the law requires.

The main thing to emerge from this debate in Scotland will be the transfer of powers to authorise compassionate release from ministers to a panel of judges.

The reason for this is because of the idiocy of political commentators who insist on turning a judicial decision into a political one and sharing their highly opinionated - yet wholly ignorant - opinions with the world.

The only blogger on this site who appears to have the slightest understanding of how the Scottish legal system works is Alex Massie, presumably because he is Scottish.

The rest of you do not have a clue and evidently can't be bothered finding out.

Edward McLaughlin

Indy.

We don't need to be experts in Scottish Law to express discontent with the results of its workings.

"Because that is not what the law requires."?

Scottish Law exists, like any law, to serve the people and to ensure that the general sense of right and wrong holds sway. A difficult task yes, but one could not get it as wrong as Scottish Law appears to have done on this occassion, without trying very stubbornly.

To heed compassion and to have it reflected in the workings of the law, seems to me to be just. But this has been badly interpreted in this case due to the absence of any accompanying sense of measure.

Some crimes are greater than others and compassion can be shown to varying degrees. Here we have a grotesque mis-match.

Lastly, I would suggest that if highly opinionated comments are not to your taste, then this blogging thing might not be for you; although it has to be said that you have made a promising attempt in that direction.

Thirladean

Unless my memory is at fault, the law permitting compassionate release from Scottish jails of prisoners who are near to dying was passed in 1993 that is, six years before devolution. Since then compassionate release has been granted to more than twenty such prisoners. You may think it a bad law, but it is the law in Scotland. It was indeed passed by the Westminster Parliament when the Conservatives were in power. It is an agreeable irony that the SNP vigorously declared that that Conservative Government had no true authority to legislate for Scotland on account of what they called the "democratic deficit" - that's to say because the Tories held only a handful of Scottish seats. For the FBI director to assert that al=Megrahi's release is an affront to the rule of law is ridiculous, since the release is in accordance with the law. It is also hypocritical, given the USA' recent record over Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition - neither, however they may be justified by "necessity" , displaying anything but contempt for law.

Quaddafi

Glad to see them flying the Libyan National Flag at Tripoli Airport ..... you know - the one with the cock-eyed (drunken?) white cross on dark blue ...

logdon

"Dirty Euro
August 24th, 2009 4:00pm

Why did Gaddaffi thank the queen?"

Because, in his puerile mischief making way, he could.

john Norman

start burning the Scottish flag in the streets. And cut the absurd and criminal subsidies we give potato-head Alex Salmond

Crystal Bullet

Days after Lord Mandelson was linked to this questionable deal with Libya, he announces quicker and stronger action to tackle “illegal file-sharing”. Why? After global energy security, America’s greatest concern is the loss of external revenue from such activities. America has powerful lobbies aiming to reduce IPR (Intellectual Property Right) theft. Did he announce it simple to throw the outraged Americans a bone? There are considerable direct and indirect costs involved for any country “being tough on” IPR theft, while the main economic beneficiary will be America. If mismanaged it could curtail hi-tech growth in those targeted countries agreeing to do so. In a roundabout way, we are paying for our energy security by sacrificing our digital future. In this instance, the lives of the Lockerbie victims are being traded for prison sentences for file-sharers.

If Britain is to be a nation at the leading edge of the digital creative industries it requires cheap electricity and a benign electronic information infrastructure. By failing to develop nuclear energy, it obviously falls short of an energy rich future. However Britain may also be forced to increasingly subjugate domestic policy-making to appease America’s IPR lobby. If America had France’s 80% nuclear energy generating capacity, it would still need to police world oil supplies. If Britain committed to that same generating capacity, the consequences would be entirely different and much more beneficial to our small nation. Britain needs a new political will to harness the splitting of the atom and to liberate our foreign policy from magnifying energy insecurity.

John Lea

John Norman: just curious, how can you send a comment whilst wearing a straightjacket? A rare skill indeed.

A. MacAulay

One of the fundamental differences between countries like the UK and countries like Libya is equality before an independant judicial system. This means our Judges, Police and even politicians can make mistakes whereas in Libya fulfilling the whim of Col Gaddafi is never a mistake. Revenge is not part of our understanding of justice. Punishment is. The reverse is true in Libya. Compassion has a place here, in Libya not.

It is utterly depressing to read the "Hang 'em High" bravado of most of the commentators here. I quote a recently read, unfortunately without attribution, comment from an American lawmaker. "Either we have the most evil people on earth here, or there is something wrong with our penal system"

And these hypocrites can abuse us as they like, to serve party interests in the US. Shame on them!

Marilyn Mackenzie Inglis

I am appalled at the arrogance of the Scottish Parliament and, of Kenny MacAskill in particular. Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish Court whose justice system has always been a source of pride to the people of Scotland. An appeal was heard and dismissed: a second appeal, which seemed to have little chance of success was pending until a deal was struck and Megrahi withdrew it thus confirming his guilt.

That has been ignored by MacAskill as have the wishes of the relatives of the victims whose only small comfort was the knowledge that at least one of the perpetrators of this horrendous act of terrorism was behind bars.

All this perversion of justice so that MacAskill and his colleagues can have their day posturing in front of the TV cameras, spouting specious arguments, pretending to take the moral high ground and cocking a snook at the US.

It makes me ashamed to be a Scot.

I offer apologies on behalf of the vast majority of my countrymen to the families of the victims of Lockerbie

ndm

Marilyn Mackenzie Inglis writes:

-- An appeal was heard and dismissed: a second appeal, which seemed to have little chance of success was pending until a deal was struck and Megrahi withdrew it thus confirming his guilt.

In 2007, when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission refered Al-Megrahi's case it pointed out that almost two-thirds of referred cases had been successfully appealed. That is hardly a "litle chance of success." Furthermore it is quite clear that his withdrawal of the appeal, coincident as it was with the imminent announcement of the response to his request for prisoner transfer or compassionate release, was a legal maneuver and certainly NOT a confirmation of his guilt.

Scot Richards

D John says: Geoffrey Robinson's quote just shows he does not know Scots Law...

Mr John, this shows that you also do not understand Scots law. McKaskill only had the right to parole al Megrahi to his 'registered home' which is in Newton Mearns, Scotland. He had no right to allow him to flee to Libya. That was in the remit of Westminster.

Shuggy

He also makes an important point about the morally corrupt thinking behind Kenny MacAskill's bizarre decision

You might think that it's 'bizarre' to follow the precedents of Scots' Law on this matter but once people have calmed down a bit, I don't think you'll find strong support for the notion, promoted by people like Aaronovitch, and now you, that we should bend our laws to appease those whose lust for vengeance is inexhaustible. I suppose you could argue that the decision the Scottish Government made was legalistic but consider the way in which a disregard for legalism led the Americans down the road to Guantanamo Bay.

The Libyan regime funded IRA terrorism, pursued and murdered its dissidents on the streets of European cities and is the only foreign government I know that is responsible for the killing of a British policewoman.

So why don't you ask your pal Blair why he was so keen to suck up to the regime rather than bashing an obscure Scottish minister who at least has the balls to resist the 'silent majority's' lust for a public hanging.

P.S. The whole Megrahi affair has been a dark day for British journalism, and you're part of the problem, comrade. The idea that Megrahi should be punished for what the IRA did shows how degraded your reasoning has become. Was he in jail for what the IRA did or for the murder of a British policewoman? No he wasn't - so what are you even mentioning this for? You've taken a wrong turning. I think it was when you turned sharply to the right.

History Mayne

What in God's name are you on about?

The man was quite clearly innocent in the first place.

To get hung up about this while ignoring the far wider problem – that no guilty party has ever been brought to book for this crime – is ridiculous.

If he really were a "mass murderer" while acting on behalf of the Libyan state, might our government not have enquired further? Might there not be people slightly higher up the food-chain whom we might want to question?

Grow up.

john

As the new editor of the Jewish news will you be calling on Israel to sign up to the NPT and aloww IAEA inspectors to check out it's nuclear sites as Iran is doing?

Drakken

I have to ask, where is a Longshanks when you need him?
To you silly hypocritical Scots. As an American I am outraged that you let a terrorist go because of compassion, well I say to you Scots, you can take that high moral ground till they bury you in it, me ? I say get a rope and use it.

Mark Adrian Solomon

People talk as if all the victims of Lockerbie were Americans - yet in the plane there were almost 100 from other countries and 11 Scots were killed on the ground - how do their families feel about this release? The inexperienced SNP government has insulted all of them and demonstrated its total unsuitability for governing anything larger than a parish council.

Given that it is utterly inconceivable that the UK government did not know what was being planned - whatever proven liars like Brown and Mandelson may say - has anyone considered why they did not put a stop to it - beyond the boring old oil argument which is trotted out far too often for everything these days? By allowing the SNP government to demonstrate its utter unsuitabilty to govern by going forward with this decision, they no doubt cynically hope that Scottish voters punish the SNP next time round and reward Labour instead. Labour simply cannot afford for the SNP to be successful because if Scotland ever became fully independent they could never win power in England again and Scotland would probably be safely in the hands of the SNP in gratitude so it would be RIP Labour in both countries. This sort of low political calculation is entirely in keeping with NewLab, indeed is what the whole 'project' has always been about.