“I don’t believe that Al Megrahi should have been released. He was convicted of murdering 270 people so I believe justice would have been best served if he had remained in the care of the Scottish Prison Service.”David Kerr, Tuesday 25 August:
“The Justice Secretary took the right decision, and above all he took it for the right reasons.”
Ha ha ha
I thought you'd enjoy that. Cheers!
Oh dear.
How inept.
I know. Incidentally, Kerr’s volte-face virtually parroted Salmond’s wording: “The message is that Scotland did the right thing for the right reasons.”
Good post and fair comment.
Yes, the 'parroting' does help to suggest a verbal dressing down and new hymn sheet were given out...
Indeed. Message received!
Have to say this is possibly the most unarguable gloat in Scottish politics - ever!
serious point:
The SNP is just a political party like any other. MPs and MSPs will toe the oparty line whatever.
Up, you say? Up it is...
Sorry , you said down? Of course, of course, down, I knew that: down. Down it is. Of course.
THose othe parties have no morals or scruples, but i am dancingn on a pin in anoble cause.
Aye right.
Did you hear about the Frenchman that invented beach sandals?
Phillipe Fillop.
Edwin, as Indy and Observer's inpuit shows why it's deserved.
Alec, I must have been unclear - I mean Mr Kerr is unarguably indefensible, on this at least! And It's a very fine moderate gloat from SU.
If it's flip flops we are talking about ... SU initially twittered that he agreed with the decision, then changed his mind.
People can change their minds of course but we can equally speculate why ......
I think the past participle of ‘tweet’ is actually ‘tweeted’, but in any case compassion is an undeniably appealing ideal, and I don’t mind admitting that too many twits came close to making a tw*t.
But I’m only a blogger, so it doesn’t matter in the least. If I were a parliamentary candidate, it would of course be deeply embarrassing. ;-)
Do you think so? I suspect more people read your blog than read the Local News in Springburn but there you go.
'If it's flip flops we are talking about ... SU initially twittered that he agreed with the decision, then changed his mind.'
Indy, in fairness to all, I think it is actually quite a difficult question - someone said a few weeks ago that whatever your initial impression is, it's likely to be wrong - but Mr Kerr dug his own hole, and dug it with vigour, and he is a politician, so boo sucks to him.
Reading SU's last few posts - I only came to this site yesterday - I see that he is annoyed like me by the 'compassion' flag that has been waved over the release, especially by spokesmen for the Church of Scotland and the RC church. When I grew up in Glasgow in the 50s, both were teaching their parish children that their playmates of the opposite persuasion were going to hell. They changed their views (publicly at least) not because of any 'innate' Scottish compassion, but cos the rest of us are now free to laugh at them.
Guff like this - from what I can make out you cant actually get a fag paper between Scottish and UK law on the question - has tended to obscure the more important questions at the core, whatever the core may turn out to be.
Perhaps George Galloway got close to the truth in his merry quip that Kenny MacAskill is actually Labour's Manchurian Candidate!
Yes SU.
I think you're doing yourself down a bit there. A Top Ten Scottish Blogger with a substantial number of posts per blog, previously incarnated from the infamous AM2. You have a reputation to uphold. And I believe your reputation has been enhanced by your partial agreement with MacAskill's thinking, implying that this view is not just attributable to SNP voters. The same cannot be said about Kerr who is answerable to the media: an area in which you'd think he would excel.
Flattery over!
Flattery indeed. Quite unnerving, actually. ;-)
Meanwhile the parroting continues. Here’s Kenny MacAskill’s spokesperson, squawking earlier today: “The Justice Secretary took the right decisions for the right reasons.” What’s the chance that we’ll get broadly the same statement for a third time on Wednesday?
Scottish Unionist
In relation to David Kerr, do you agree with Eddie Barnes's view that Labour canvassers in Glasgow NE were "gleeful" at MacAskill's decision on the premise that whilst it might go down well in Glasgow's West End or Edinburgh's Morningside that it would not go down well in Glasgow's less well-off areas?
That isn’t quite what he said.
In such a defensive position, I guess you couldn't really expect anything else really. The 'due process' position has to be re-iterated to convey consistency.
The "squawking", however, seems to be coming from Scottish Labour's manchild, predictable as ever. On top of that, an endorsement by Mandela, silence from Brown , fudging by Straw, and even more silence from the normally opportune Murphy, suggests that the guns are turning away from MacAskill, toward UK Labour...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece
Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds, not transferred to a Libyan prison under the PTA. So I fail to see any great relevance in anything the British government may or may not have done.
Edwin, I suspect I agree with you. My views on David Kerr, who's fast becoming even more of am embarassment to the Snuppies than Osama Saeed, can be found here. My point was that Indy and Observer, whose defence on Macaskill's moral deficiency are entirely predictable, do not appear to grasp the significance of this volte face.
I know George Galloway - whom Terry Glavin has described as someone who would have once been described as a fascist thug - is still pushing the line that it was a Palestinian cell, but does anyone know how he's getting on explaining to the Khomenist propagandists at PressTV his belief, from all those years ago, than it was planned by Iran?
Macaskill had no right to offer compassion over a deed which he did not suffer as a result of. Mercy may be shown by third parties, but compassion belongs only to the persecuted.
To hear the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Scottish sectarianism, the RCC and CofS trumpeting their moral superiority sticks in my claw as well. I also have great difficulty accepting any moral lessons from a Church which expels those who assist a nine year old rape victim in aborting twins which would have torn apart her abdomen.
As Ophelia Benson says, evil unthinking mindless callous bar-stewards.
Incidentially, Mario Conti's first parish was here in Thurso. In 1997, the then priest hanged himself... the parish documents only say he died.
Incidentially, do we know who this "SNP spokesman" is, or must we simply assume it's Pringle?
How relevant or irrelevant is immaterial. Public perception is fueled by the media, and the media sniff an attempted stitch-up by Labour, Libya and BP. MacAskill had to take a decision based on entirely different reasons, but still linked to Megrahi's ultimate release.
I'd say it is absolutely inevitable that you will get exactly the same statement on Wednesday as you have had on every previous occasion. You would be the first to attack Kenny for inconsistency if he changed his position.
As regards the Labour story about Glasgow NE - this is really utter rubbish. I have been knocking doors in NE. No-one has raised it. The issues are what you would expect, mainly health, crime and amenitries (or the lack of them) and of course the ever-popular GHA.......
>> On top of that, an endorsement by Mandela,
Post-Apartheid South Africa has been as much of a social failure as post-invasion Iraq. Plus, 90 year olds say some strange things. Especially convicted terrorists.
Is Alec really calling Mandela a convicted terrorist in order to disparage him?
Did that really just happen?
Wind them up, watch them go.
Mandela never was recognized as political prisoner due to his pursuit of violence, and membership/association of organizations such as MK and Poqo. Check out the rallying cry of Poqo for starters.
He is presented as a promotor of passive resistence. He was not. He was not Gandhi [1].
[1] And by that I mean he didn't hold some disdain for black Africans, or use nubile teenage girls as blankets.
~*stir*~ ~*stir*~ ~*stir*~
Deary deary me, bad enough to disparage Mandela, but to add ageism into the insult as well? Many 90 years olds are far more on the ball than people a third of their age.
Or a tenth even, which is possibly the age that Alec is.
And it is complete and utter mince to say that compassion can only be offered by the persecuted. Says who? Not the law.
Regards to the Church, I am a godless heathen myself, but when they make clear and morally unambiguous statements such as they have done on issues such as the Iraq War, the renewal of Trident, and the release of Megrahi, where I find I can agree with them, I take pleasure in doing so.
There are many people of religion who do extremely good works and make a real difference in our society, and to tar them all with the same brush is just stupid.
Ah yes, The Alec defence of 'I was only kidding, sort of... I'm so clever don't you know'.
Familiar territory indeed!
Observer, let's go through this very slowly. Mandela is presented as an arbiter for non-violence. He is not.
Is that clear? Whether or not he came to see the futility in armed insurrection (which coincided with the collapse of the main sponsor of non-state terrorism, the USSR; leaving much malaigned Libya to carry the foul torch) is not relevent. It's what he did which is being discussed - and he did it 40 years ago.
Talk about living off ancient glory.
If the adoration of him was rational and accepting of what he was and was not, the horrified responses from you and Jim would not have occurred.
Because you would know that he did not represent an opportunity for the anti-establishment Left to support "resistance" movements abroad (in the same way 'normal' people play Grand Theft Auto to sate their thirst for vicarious violence).
Whether you are ignorant of this (no doubt thinking of black South Africans as one single big happy family) or place lesser standards on black Africans, I don't know. What is clear is that you need to do a bit of reading on the Apartheid era.
>> but to add ageism
Get over yourself, you numpty.
>> into the insult as well?
What insult? That he was involved in armed groups, such as those responsible for the Church Street bombing?
Carry on Lenin, you cannot airbrush out inconvenient truths.
>> Regards to the Church, I am a godless heathen myself, but when they make clear and morally unambiguous statements such as they have done on issues such as the Iraq War, the renewal of Trident, and the release of Megrahi, where I find I can agree with them, I take pleasure in doing so.
Some might say that makes you an opportunist. The position of religious organizations in Scotland is one of undeserved influence.
They can practice their faiths unmolested, and received considerable tax perks from non-believers. They merit no more.
There is an inherent hypocrisy in claiming to be a pacifist when protected by the most powerful militaries and state-security networks in the history to man.
Do you ever have a point, Jim? Or, as so many times before, are you playing the evil clown?
I have told you why I think Mandela is not what he is portrayed as. You can disagree with this if you wish, but unless you explain why, your opinion is of little worth.
Alec
You seem to have a lot to say but very little to contribute.
"Mandela is presented as an arbiter for non-violence."
Who said that? Anybody on the thread care to own up? You're making it up.
And your responses to posters' quotes are hardly convincing...
"Carry on Lenin", "Get over yourself, you numpty". "The position of religious organizations in Scotland is one of undeserved influence." (Your personal opinion.)
Can you not stick to the point?
Agent Provocateur.
Alec - ho hum.
Later.
Still, I'm grateful that I've given Observer and Jim summat to talk about rather than an SNP PPC who'd expressed a personal opinion being dragoon'd into compliance.
Their pain at avoiding the subject was palpable, and it was becoming cruel.
What piffle Alec.
We have been told unequivocally that Scotland has been shamed in the 'international community' because of this decision on the basis of comments made by American politicians.
It is therefore pertinent to point out that the decision has the support of Nelson Mandela, a person who enjoys extremely wide respect in the international community, and also the person who negotiated the handover of Megrahi in the first place.
Throw as many red herrings into the discussion as you like but the statement that Scotland's reputation has suffered 'internationally' because of this decision is not one that stands up to any scrutiny - except for those who equate the USA with the entire rest of the world.
Are you censoring me SU?
ANDREW BOD>> Who said that? Anybody on the thread care to own up? You're making it up.
Don't be absurd. Why did you appeal to his authority if you do not believe he is a moral arbiter? Blogs do not operate separately from whichever events are cited: of *course* he's presented as a symbol of the triumph of passive resistance against violence; Peace and Reconcilliation; negotiation. Which is why you referred to him.
This is as unremarkable a statement as saying Macaskill's decision was not judicial but political. The need to defend these statements, or shut down - oh so civily - dissent indicates why an appeal to authority is bad argument.
Mandela likes the Spice Girls. That really is depraved. Yet, if one can accept that's irrelevent to wider views on him, why is dicussion of other aspects of his past are declared verboten?
A argument should be defended or repudiated on this basis of what it is or is not. If you cite third parties, don't be surprised if others critique their actions.
>> "Carry on Lenin", "Get over yourself, you numpty". "The position of religious organizations in Scotland is one of undeserved influence." (Your personal opinion.)
Whatever I say, one thing I am not is a liar. It was manifestly obvious (to anyone who doesn't believe uncritical support for Mandela is an Article of Faith) that I was being sardonic with the reference to his age... yet Observer started blathering about ageism (right before she dismissed me as a nine year old) and coo'd over Mandela whom she stated is more alert than people 1/3 his age (her personal opinion).
Another unremarkable statement is the one about undeserved influence. The CoS and RCC, especially, enjoy their continued positions of influence primarily from being the baddest dogs in a bad fight centuries ago.
The RCC, in particular, claims its moral authority from the same source which vilified the protectors of a nine year old rape victim. Sorry mate, they will receive only my very unsilent contempt for that.
I repeat, they practice their faith unmolested. They receive tax-breaks 'cos they say some god is on their side. Speaking truth unto power is a reflexive axiom... the more likely one is to demand it of others, whilst firewalling oneself from criticism, the less likely one should be using said axiom.
To believe that one is entitled to the security and affluence enjoyed in British civic life, and to consistently challenge the state structures which give this, is decadent in the original sense.
>> Agent provocateur.
I prefer the label "ranter", but it's worked, has it not?
OBSERVER >> Oh well.
Shorter Observer... well, it's gonna be longer, but you know what I mean... Mandela is cool. Nothing can be said against him. Anyone who says something against him is just being insulting. Stop it!
I'm enough of a wind-up merchant to spot passive aggressive and cop-outs in others, and you're doing it now.
You're playing at high politics. Yer man on the street, about to loose his job at Diageo or seeing the ongoing Restoration of fat-cat bankers, doesn't really care about some war which ended years ago; or CCTV cameras on a street-corner.
He is more likely to care about Trident and military procurements, though, 'cos that would provide work. He does care about knife-crime, which Macaskill considers subservient to eating haggis in Canada.
Yet, you take *pride* in risk-free expressions of your moral superiority.
>> except for those who equate the USA with the entire rest of the world.
Relevent if you consider something called "the international community" to be a coherent force for anything, and not a ramshackle collection of competing rivalries and prejudices.
Your dismissal of opposition as the posturing of American politicians indicates this. They are reflecting the views of their constituents (another unremarkable statement), many of whom lost friends and relatives on Flight 103. These were humans; not only Americans.
Add to that the British politicians saying the same.
Had Macaskill said that he was releasing al-Megrahi based on a value judgement and analysis of the case, I would have still disagreed but would likely have seen it as the wrong decision for the right reasons. His invoking the views of the "Scottish people" was both the wrong decision for the wrong reasons.
Fair enough if you believe the cup of mercy should runneth over, but desist with the implication that al-Megrahi was not receiving inestimatable more mercy in Greenock Prison than all of the 270 victims.
Jim: Absolutely not. Did a comment go astray?
Alec: Any chance you could depersonalise this, please? Disagreement does not a numpty make.
Mind you: "Observer started blathering about ageism (right before she dismissed me as a nine year old)" - game and set, if not quite the match.
"my very unsilent contempt"
Is there ever a place in civil society for such a thing?
1.Mandela has received international recognition not because he is seen as a champion of passive resistance but because he used his position to promote reconciliation and a negotiated and peaceful transition to democracy in South Africa. Worth remembering that he received his Nobel Prize jointly with F W De Klerk, for that very reason. He overcame hatred and enmity; that is why he is seen as a moral arbiter.
2. Whether I consider something called "the international community" to be a coherent force for anything is irrelevant. The statement has been made that Scotland has been 'shamed' in the international community. That is simply not true.
3. Of course American politicians have a duty to represent their constituents and I would not expect anything else. That does not mean that we have a duty to do what they want us to do however. I would further point out that the US Government made no attempt to prevent the prisoner release going ahead although they were given advance notice (which would have enabled them to take action to prevent the release had they so wished).
4. Kenny MacAskill did not invoke the views of the Scottish people in his decision. He invoked the values of Scotland which are encompassed in our legal system. No application for compassionate release which met the criteria which Megrahi's met has been refused. Therefore, while it is perfectly valid for people to disagree with the decision, it is not valid to suggest that the decision was in any way extraordinary or based on the values of one man - it was taken on the same basis, in the same way and reflecting the same values as all previous decisions.
A couple seem to have gone astray, but hey ho!
I had tried to state that even with my limited knowledge of the world I had understood that Mandela spent 27 years in Robben Island prison, precisely because he refused to denounce the use of violence against his violent oppressors. I have never seen him as an "arbiter for non-violence" mainly because it doesn't make sense as a phrase, but I suppose Alec meant advocate.
What Nelson Mandela is though, is a totemic figure recognised throughout the world for his statesmanship. He understood that violence begets violence, but that the situation in South Africa had reached a stage where violent protest was all that was left to the black African. He was a key broker in getting the trial of Megrahi to happen in the first place.
For Alec to disparage the support of Nelson Mandela by lamenting his age was poor form indeed, but to then attempt to justify further his attack on MacAskill by calling Mandela a 'convicted terrorist', ie legitimising the abhorrent Apartheid system in South Africa is lower than I thought even he could stoop.
Regarding the original point of the post by SU though, I thought that my joke about Phillipe Fillop was indication enough that I felt SU had made an excellent hit on David Kerr - perhaps too subtle for some though.
Humph, I used numpty instead of certain other words. On t'Interweb it's generally considered to be a pointedly playful term, similar to silly billy.
>> Is there ever a place in civil society for such a thing?
Never stopped me before.
INDY >> Kenny MacAskill did not invoke the views of the Scottish people in his decision.
Blimey, you must have asbestos cheeks to come out with that guff!
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Safer-and-stronger/lockerbiedecision
>> In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity.
Sorry, you were saying?
And your point is Alec?
You have a genius for reading into statements what you wish to read into them.
Kenny MacAskill at no point has invoked the views of the Scottish people on his decision to release Megrahi.
If you can post anything that proves otherwise please feel free.
INDY >> Mandela has received international recognition not because he is seen as a champion of passive resistance but because he used his position to promote reconciliation and a negotiated and peaceful transition to democracy in South Africa.
And I explicitly said his post-release actions had merit. I said, however, that post-Apartheid has been a mixed-bag and the TRC often used by the perpetrators of horrific crimes simply to get off without punishment (as Gillian Slovo says of her mother's killers).
Furthermore, the immediate irrational response from Jim and Observer suggests they *do* think he is a paragon of virtue.
>> Worth remembering that he received his Nobel Prize jointly with F W De Klerk, for that very reason.
Considering whom it went to in 1976 1978 and 1994, and that Al Gore got it over Irena Sendler, my views on it ain't pristine either. The 1998 winners were a surprise, considering they deserved it.
>> He overcame hatred and enmity; that is why he is seen as a moral arbiter.
Wanna bet that had I defended de Klerk with half the verve which Mandela receives the response wouldn't have been approving?
>> I would further point out that the US Government made no attempt to prevent the prisoner release going ahead [...]
That's not what you said. You referred simply to American politicians, who may or may not have had Executive influence. Your implication was that they were meddling in Scottish internal affairs which only concerned the murder of 189 of their friends and relatives.
Plus, considering I opposed the release, why would I defend people supporting it through inaction?
>> Whether I consider something called "the international community" to be a coherent force for anything is irrelevant.
Er, yes it is when you go onto to claim its lack of disagreement is significant. Are you familiar with the concept of joined-up-thinking?
>> The statement has been made that Scotland has been 'shamed' in the international community. That is simply not true.
Not by me, so why should it affect what I'm saying?
Kenny MacAskill did not invoke the views of the Scottish people in his decision.
Blimey, you must have asbestos cheeks to come out with that guff!
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Safer-and-stronger/lockerbiedecision
>> In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity.
Sorry, you were saying?
>> I had tried to state that even with my limited knowledge of the world I had understood that Mandela spent 27 years in Robben Island prison, precisely because he refused to denounce the use of violence against his violent oppressors.
What was I saying about playing Grand Theft Auto? Apartheid died a welcome death, in no mean part, due to the even more welcome death of a truly foul world ideology - i.e. Soviet Communism - which it had been (wrongly) seen as a bulwark against.
South Africa failed to come into the post-Colonial period in which it was unacceptable for one ethnic group to lord it over a majority population (well, okay, for white Europeans to lord it over non white Europeans). However, the doughty resistance fighters invariably took their funding and cues from the Soviets or Maoists or North Koreans - or that bastion of racial harmony, Idi Amin - and killed more black Africans than Apartheid forces did.
The Zion Christian Church, for one, did not fair too well due to their refusal to denounce the use of violence against their violent oppressors. Similarly, for the first decade and a half, Zimbabwe and Uncle Bob received a get out of gaol free card because the oppression of black Africans by white Africans across the border was considered more unacceptable.
The Ndebele people certainly didn't feel the cooling rains on their faces during the 1980s.
interesting comment from former British Ambassador to Libya, Sir Oliver Miles.
“If I can make a personal comment on this, I find this rather extraordinary and rather disgusting because it seems to me that it was never intended, by the court for example that Megrahi should die in jail. The sentence he was given if he had had a normal life span it would have meant that he would’ve been considered for release in the future. To say that ‘he should have died in the prison’, seems to me the polite equivalent of the barroom language of ‘hanging is too good for him, throw away the key’. Now, I am frankly shocked, shocked, that all of our UK parties seem to by vying with each other to be more vindictive of the other. It’s enough to make me vote Scottish Nationalist, and I’m as English as they come.”
Miles' views are of no more significance than Jacqui Smith's.
>> Kenny MacAskill at no point has invoked the views of the Scottish people on his decision to release Megrahi.
Please stop it.
The politics of this become more preposterous by the moment.
The Telegraph is reporting David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official, as condemning the UK Govt thus:
''This (presumably Brown indicating that he was not hell bent on seeing Megrahi draw his last breath in jail) will damage US relations with Britain for years to come … I really can't think about a more duplicitous act by Britain vis-Ã -vis the United States in the post-war period.''
At the same time as Labour in Westminster are getting it in the neck, Labour in Scotland are accusing the SNP in much the same terms!
Truly, this has become a farce beyond any kind of redemption.
Please tell me that wasn't the real Indy. I cannot bear to agree with him.
Some things are obvious.
The Scottish Parliament made a right old fool of itself today.
Time for everyone to calm down, move on and discuss something sensible like minimum pricing or a referendum on independence ...
Agree with you Indy but please do avoid words like 'redemption'. There has been far too much godspeak in this debate.
If I were SNP, I wouldn't be too eager to mock though - Galloway's vision of MacAskill as Broon's Manchurian Candidate gets less whimsical by the day!
Re online polls, and their worthlessness, there is a classic on the Guardian's front page today asking if you support Scottish independence ('Aye') or not ('Naw') - so patronising in that delightful Guardian manner, but the striking thing is the weight of the 'aye' vote - it was running earlier at about 90%, which in no way reflects reality of course, just the fact that nats seem to care much more about voting in online polls.
Sorry - the idea of Kenny MacAskill as Labour's 'Manchurian candidate' must be mocked.
We have many ex Labour folk in the SNP but Kenny ain't one of them.
Come on Indy, there must be some reason for that glazed expression, the robotic delivery!
I actually think he has fought his corner quite well, but the truth - a sad truth for all of us - is that the opposition is generally pretty poor.
SU I implied that ALEC may be about nine years old - not you.
Anyway this whole issue is now going to move South as Cameron smells blood - and it ain't Kenny Macaskill's, and we can hopefully all start talking about something else.
>> The Scottish Parliament made a right old fool of itself today.
Ah, good, the same old Indy. I was getting worried.
Scottish Parliament + control = good.
Scottish Parliament - control = irrelevent/disobedient.
Maybe we should dispense with Parliament altogether.
>> SU I implied that ALEC may be about nine years old - not you.
Don't tell him, Pike!
>> Anyway this whole issue is now going to move South as Cameron smells blood - and it ain't Kenny Macaskill's, and we can hopefully all start talking about something else.
Yeah, it's not fair when we're not popular. Oh, look, Nelson Mandela!
Alec
I'm inclined to ignore your 'ranting', but I do need to correct you on something.
If you care to remember from a previous thread, i didn't agree with MacAskill's decision. If you also look at the context in which I use Mandela in this thread (August 31, 2009 10:05 PM,) you'll see that it was with regard to more media attention on UK Labour's Libyan agenda than on MacAskill.
So to suggest you have gone off on a tangent, is an understatement. The obvious implication is that I disagree with Mandela's endorsement of the decision, and means you've been wasting your brain. By the way, just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I have to rubbish everything he's done.
Then, Andrew, I stand corrected.
My odd comments the past few days have been accentuated by adjusting to new medication (stop that laughing at the back), but I'm better now.
>> By the way, just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I have to rubbish everything he's done.
And nor do I, as I elucidated on. Although this case has created a whirlwind of feelings, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a definite opinion to be expressed.
Your earlier comment must have genuinely passed me by as I generally do pick-up on comments made across multiple threads. As you can see now, after a lengthy exchange, as soon as you make clear your position, I offer an immediate retraction.
The remark was unashamedly made to elicit the sort of response which Observer and Jim came out with (and which Salmond, who can "live with"/dismiss blanket opposition, displayed today in Holyrood).
Some posts still seem to be going astray, but I'll try again.
Alec says:
"Post-Apartheid South Africa has been as much of a social failure as post-invasion Iraq. Plus, 90 year olds say some strange things. Especially convicted terrorists."
I ask "Is Alec really calling Mandela a convicted terrorist in order to disparage him?"
You describe my response as both horrified and irrational.
It was horrified, but hardly irrational. Calling Mandela a 'convicted terrorist' implicitly legitimises the South African Apartheid system and the courts which convicted Mandela.
You did so in order to undermine the support of Mandela just because his position does not agree with yours.
So, in order to attack Kenny MacAskill you would legitimise Apartheid and you wonder why that is met with horror?
Before you start one of your long diatribes now, you should consider that I simply don't understand your video game analogy, but:
I am instinctively against Apartheid and consider Mandela to be one of the great figures of the 20th Century. His activities in helping to bring about the Lockerbie trial in the first place give him every right to retain an interest, and the work he undertook in order to rebuild South Africa as a nation after the horrors of Apartheid make him an Internationally acclaimed statesman. His support for the Springboks in 1995 remains one of the greatest sporting moments ever and has helped South African rugby (the pride of the Africaans) become much more representative of the rainbow nation with the 3 superstars of the team all being black.
So, yes, you may disparage Mandela but it says a lot more about you than it does about Kenny MacAskill's decision.
Edwin says: Come on Indy, there must be some reason for that glazed expression, the robotic delivery!
Yep - this has been causing a lot of speculation in the SNP too. Voice coaching to make him understandable for American TV I think. There is no way they would understand Kenny if he spoke at his usual breakneck speed with his usual vocabulary.
Safe to say he will not be challenging Robert Carlyle or David Tennant for best Scottish actor award any time soon!
Jim: Your missing posts aren't reaching my inbox.
SU - I did read that there was a problem with google in the last week, but perhaps I haven't been diligent enough in checking the post status after I submit it either. I had tried to respond to both Braveheart and Alec in this thread and the previous lest they think I'm somehow persuaded by their stance.
In the end I'm happy to sit on the same side of the fence as Malcolm Chisholm and Nelson Mandela.
Jim
>> You did so in order to undermine the support of Mandela
No, I did it to extract the michael from you, and anyone else who wouldn't have defended de Klerk with the same verve.
>> just because his position does not agree with yours.
Erm, which bits of "his post Apartheid actions were not without merit" do you not understand?
(Indy, at least try to lie convincingly. That Macaskill invoked the views of Scottish volk is a matter of official record. You could try to argue he was couching his decision in necessary rhetoric so to display some realization of its significance, but instead you flatly deny it. Why do you do this???)
He's been reprogrammed Indy - this is the New Model Kenny!
Anyone else seen the deeply weird Steve Bell cartoon in today's Guardian? Bell's cartoons have been getting more and more impenetrable but this one is a cracker - if you're at all like me, you'll need the online comments to make even (provisional) sense of it all.
A friend says it is a very clever attack on both Brown and Salmond, for reasons that are probably not replicable on SU's douce site - me, I just think cartoons should be explicable.
"No, I did it to extract the michael from you, and anyone else who wouldn't have defended de Klerk with the same verve."
oooh gosh! you're so clever!
Extracting the michael from little old me with your witty repartee...
Or did you just thoughtlessly disparage the support of an International statesman and are now furiously backtracking...
As for this snippet of a sentence
"Erm, which bits of "his post Apartheid actions were not without merit" do you not understand?"
From this sentence
"And I explicitly said his post-release actions had merit. I said, however, that post-Apartheid has been a mixed-bag..."
Actually I couldn't find where you explicitly said his post-release actions had merit and I certainly didn't see you call it a 'mixed bag'. In fact I think your words were 'Post-Apartheid South Africa has been as much of a social failure as post-invasion Iraq'
I understand perfectly well though that you're trying to cover up your slur on Mandela's capacity and character.
Jim
PS
Is this where you are saying his post-apartheid actions were not without merit ?
"Whether or not he came to see the futility in armed insurrection (which coincided with the collapse of the main sponsor of non-state terrorism, the USSR; leaving much malaigned Libya to carry the foul torch) is not relevent. It's what he did which is being discussed - and he did it 40 years ago."
Or here when you once again legitimised the stance of the odious Apartheid system
"Mandela never was recognized as political prisoner due to his pursuit of violence, and membership/association of organizations such as MK and Poqo."
(ie he wasn't recognised as a political prisoner by the South African authorities and their supporters - I believe you're in fine company here with Thatcher and Tebbit)
Suggest the fact that you are all debating Mandela and not David Kerr or Kenny 'the robot' Mac means that this topic is now dead.
Agreed. Enough. Thread locked.