WARNING: THESE IMAGES MAY DISTRESS YOU

Seriously: Do not read on unless you have a strong stomach.

I wanted to share this with you.

Not everyone who reads this will feel as strongly about this as I do. We've talked about it on here quite a few times, and I know there are some who at least to some extent, disagree with me.

That's fine. I have no problem with disagreement, but it won't make me feel any less wretched.

The refugee crisis is horrific. I'm not sure that horrific is quite strong enough a word, but it is the best I can do for just now. Maybe you can improve upon it.

My Twitter feed keeps throwing up pictures that I find seriously distressing. It would be easier to simply unfollow the people who are tweeting this, but that won't make it go away.

Just for example, here is Homs in Syria. A before and after pic. This is what people are fleeing. 

It used to be a nice place, busy, clean, greenish... and now it's not.

People used to live in these houses, work in the shops, go to the schools.

This is where some of these people are now. (Don't go any further unless you are prepared for a shock).

I don't know whether these dead people came from Homs or not. The chances are that they didn't. They may not even have come from Syria. They may be Libyan, or Iraqi, but Homs is typical of the kind of place they are leaving. And the conditions there aren't a hell of a lot different from those in Tripoli or so many other places in the Middle East or North Africa.

This has happened to too many people. Too many people desperately looking for a new life have found death at the hands of people traffickers who have charged them their life savings to get away from the bombing and killing.

Humza Yousaf, our minister for external relations, has said that Scotland and the Scottish government stands ready to do its part in the international effort to help the refugees, along with countries like Germany, Sweden, Austria and even little Iceland. Nicola Sturgeon has backed him on this.

London, it appears, does not share his humanitarian outlook. 

It seems the British Prime Minister, whilst busily reminding us that "we" are a Christian country, hasn't got past page 2 of his Bible and his boss, whose every action is  mindful of the teachings of Christ, must be on a day off.

These kids could be your kids, or my kids. How can we do so little?

HOW MANY WILL WE LET THIS MAN KILL? OR IS OIL THE REAL REASON FOR OUR EXCURSION IN LIBYA?

Today we have seen pictures of dead boys and men of Yemen, shot through the head by their government’s forces in the worst day of violence in Sana'a for 30 years.

Live fire was used to clear the demonstrators calling for the resignation of the president. But it’s not working. Incredibly brave young men are taking off their jackets and walking towards the troops, pointing towards their chests as if to say.... go on then, shoot.

If President Saleh thought that his killing spree, using weaponry supplied by the West, purchased with military aid from the USA, would end the rebellious behavior of the country’s youth, his guess has fallen rather wide of the mark.

More and more young people are coming to the capital to join in the protests. I suppose the trouble is that like the leaders of many other of the Middle East countries, Saleh is an old man, and he is dealing with a people that he simply does not comprehend. Over 60% of the population is under 25. They are equipped with cell phones and they have access to internet. Many of them are highly educated, but there are no jobs, and the regime so far hasn’t made anything much in the way of an effort to make the country a place that anyone would want to invest in. These men are not like the people of Saleh’s generation. They refuse to be poor, ragged and hungry while he and his like salt away vast fortunes. The days of quiet subservience to brutal, greedy, self serving old men, is over.

But how many more will he kill before he understands this.

Yesterday the

UK prime minister told us in a world leader and statesman like fashion that: “We simply cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him, kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others striving for democracy across the region”

Now I know that Libya supplies oil to Europe, and that Yemen does not. I also understand that it is the government’s duty to look after the interests of the British people, and that that includes making sure that we have a steady supply of oil.

But if British airmen are fighting tonight in Libya because they have oil, and not fighting tonight in Yemen because they do not, why cannot Mr Cameron just come out and say that?

If he meant what he said yesterday, however, can I just take this opportunity to remind him that the dictator Saleh has killed well over 50 of his own people this weekend so far, because they have rejected him. Can I further point out that to let him away with it simply sends a chilling message to all the other brutal dictators of the area (and there are many, some of them our dear friends and allies).

Pics: A bloodied, but still alive boy is carried away from the protest having been shot by his own army snipers. The president of Yemen, Mr Saleh, a man we could all do perfectly well without, and Yemen citizens are literally dying to get rid of. The capital of Yemen (map), the beautiful and mysterious city of Sana'a

THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS; AND THE MORE I FIND OUT, THE LESS I KNOW

So finally we are ready to go to war yet again.

And, before we even start, the Tory press are hailing David Cameron as the great leader, while apparently Obama vacillated and the French (whom I thought were taking a very gung ho stance) were, I am reliably informed, albeit by the Daily Telegraph, were only posturing. This, says Nile Gardiner, is David Cameron’s war. Erm, maybe a little premature there Nile old chap. At the time of writing it’s not actually started yet.

Of course the truth is rather different. Yes, Mr Obama has been quite quiet on the subject and it is, allegedly, 8 days since he spoke to the “junior partner”. However, quite appropriately Mr Cameron has been dealing with Secretary of State, Mrs Clinton, whilst all the negotiations have been progressing. That is, after all, the job of the de facto foreign minister, and if we had one worth his pay, it would have been our foreign minister that would have been involved. But as the headlines this week have been saying that he couldn’t run a bath, it’s perhaps best for all that the prime minister has been doing his job for him.

The Telegraph reports that Mr Cameron was doing a diplomatic shuffle last week: The King of Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and the prime ministers of Qatar and Canada, then the King of Jordan, the president of South Africa, the German chancellor, Denmark's prime minister and the president of Nigeria.

So just like Blair, Cameron is doing the work. Still, I expect in fairness to the man, that charm is one of the things you learn at good English schools, so he’s probably better at it than the rest of them. Come to think of it, Blair went to a good Scottish school, and he was first rate at it.

So the resolution has been passed according to the Telegraph due to Cameron's “deft handing”.

Now all this is massively impressive, but there are a million questions left to be answered (and clearly not sufficient space here to ask them all).

But taking just a few lines from Cameron’s polished and impressive delivery to the House of Commons today, thus:

“We simply cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him, kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others striving for democracy across the region.”

I feel immediately compelled to ask about the 30 people who were killed by Yemen troops when they were protesting yesterday. What of them? Can we just stand by and watch this happen? What of the relatively few, I’ll grant, Bahrainis who have died, what about the possibility of trouble in Saudi Arabia itself? King Abdullah is hardly a democrat, and all demonstrations have been banned, but what if the young Saudis decide to ignore this, safe in the knowledge that a precedent has been set? What if they expect Mr Cameron to rise in the Commons and phone endless leaders around the world on THEIR behalves? And wider afield what about the Côte D’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Chechnya, Dagestan? What about their downtrodden people?

I’m sure that our latest great war leader has answers to those and many other mysteries, like what is the end game here. Mrs Clinton has said (and of course she’s right) that Gaddafi will have to go. Who or what will replace him? And how can we afford this when we are cutting essential services? I’m sure all this and much more will become clear in the next few days.

In the meantime, I wish the guys leaving this morning from RAF Lossiemouth much luck and safety in their mission. It’s as well that this happened now and not in a few years when the base has been closed.

Come back safe.

Pics: (1) The hero of the hour, the consummate diplomat, at least according to the Telegraph. (2) Mr Fiasco. Everything he touches turns to dust, from planes that can’t take off to botched SAS jobs, from papers that are not ready for aid workers in Japan, to rescue planes that are costing more than people can afford and run empty! Some lad is the Vague one. (Must have been those 14 pints a day when ‘e were nubbut a lad.) (3) Libya bang in the middle of North Africa. (4) Clinton decided that he should go...she also thinks that Gaddafi should go.

GEORGE SHOULD WRITE A DEAR JOHN LETTER IF HE'S STUCK

The cost of unleaded petrol in the UK continues to rise and will probably rise even more over the next few weeks as the crisis in Libya pushes oil prices higher.

It is thought that by the middle of the week £1.32 a litre (that’s an amazing £6 a gallon), will be the price over large swathes of Scotland. It may well be more on the islands and in the North West Highlands.

Is this then, a brilliant time to apply the promised fuel escalator, which will add another 5p a litre to the cost of petrol. That would mean that be the end of April we would all be paying another 10p a litre at the pump.

And depending how far the troubles spread into the serious oil producers, that is to say Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, this may be just the beginning of the price hikes, which some have suggested could see petrol at £2.00 a litre before the end of the year.

So surely the fuel stabiliser, first proposed by Alex Salmond and included in the Tories election manifesto, and then dithered over by David Cameron on the grounds that it would be difficult to administer, must be brought into play. This would cut the tax rate as prices rose, meaning that the government would continue to receive the same amount of tax revenue as it had anticipated, at no, or little, extra cost to the driver.

And it’s not just motorists that will have to cope with steep rises in prices. Public transport companies, taxis, airlines train companies running diesel trains will all be hit (and so will their passengers). And as most things in the shops are transported by road of diesel train, that means we can look forward to more inflation in everyday items (with increased revenue to the government).

Even electric train rail passengers will be hit hard as inflation increases on the back of dearer oil. Commuter fares are linked to the RPI. So the cost of season tickets will be likely to rise by 10% plus at the end of the year because the Government now allows even the regulated fares to rise by 3% above July’s RPI.

So George, if you are reading this, I’m sure you will do the sensible thing, and set the great minds of HM Treasury to find a way of introducing a fuel stabiliser. If they fail I’m sure John Swinney will explain how to do it, if you write him a nice friendly letter...

AT THE BACK OF THE QUEUE TO RESCUE EX-PATS

You would be hard pressed to make this up.

This morning at around 6 I heard that Turkey and the USA had sent in boats to rescue people from Libya. Since then I have read that Bulgaria, Russia, China, Tajikistan, France, Portugal and several other nations have managed to remove their citizens from the country.

Bulgaria even sent in military aircraft.

Britain, however, was doing its best to charter a plane this morning, while oil workers were saying that they had tried to get in touch with the British Embassy in Tripoli but that no one had got back to them.

Later in the morning, after criticism from families of ex-pats and from the Labour opposition they had stirred their stumps and a plane was due to leave at 12.30, with another later in the day and yet another tomorrow.

As of 7 pm, the chartered flight due to leave at 12.30 pm still hadn’t gone (according to on line papers). It was on the tarmac at Gatwick, broken down. And Alistair Burt, a Foreign Office minister, pictured below, said when questioned about it: "Sometimes planes develop faults through nobody else's fault or error. We will hopefully get those planes out as quickly as possible."

Hopefully Mr Burt? Hopefully, you say? Oh well, there’s not much you can do in an emergency when British citizens are trapped in a foreign country that is in the middle of a violent and deathly revolution and a plane brakes down. Especially if you’re only the government. I mean it’s not like you could get another bloody plane or anything, is it?

I’ve just checked and it appears that the plane has now left (8pm). At long last.

And Cameron has the brass neck to say that he has done everything possible to get stranded Brits out of there, and that the FCO officials were working round the clock to get people out. He said: "I don't want to give details of the exact plane arrival times or what ships and when, but we are doing everything we can to make sure we get people out and there are all sorts of different means that we can use to make sure that happens." Just as well you didn't hand out the timetable, huh? What with it all coming down to one broken plane.


All I can say is that they seem to be pretty crap at it if they were doing everything possible and this was the best they could manage. I think too that they might want in their redundancy programme to look at some of the officials who work round the clock to produce a laughing stock fiasco like this.

"THIS IS A MATTER ENTIRELY FOR THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE", LIED DAVID MILIBAND AND JACK STRAW

The UK government, pssinly aided by a member of their royal family, advised the Libyan government on how to deal with the Scottish government over the release of Mr Al Megrahi. Then they were economical with the truth about it so that their “friends”, the Americans (the ones that think they are pathetic), wouldn’t be cross with THEM, but with Alex Salmond instead.

Documents released by Wikileaks show how desperate Western governments were to do business with the massive oil economy of Libya. They illustrate in detail how Brit ministers and officials were determined not to let Libyan anger over Megrahi’s imprisonment get in the way of money that was there to be made from a business relationship between the countries.

Blair even went to Libya and met with Gaddafi in his desert tent, all huggy and kissy, and signed a prisoner transfer agreement, although, as the only Libyan prisoner in the UK was in Scotland, and the responsibility of the Scottish government, it’s doubtful that he had the right to do this . But why would Tony Blair ever bother with what the law said when there was money to be made?

However, in October 2008 Megrahi was diagnosed as suffering from cancer and within a week Bill Rammell, a junior Foreign Office minister, had written to his Libyan counterpart advising him on how this could be used as the grounds of securing al-Megrahi’s compassionate release from prison. You have to admit it, Labour can move pretty sharpish when there’s a buck to be made, and good taste goes right out the window when there's a sniff of cash.

The FCO immediately wrote to the Deputy First Minister of Libya giving details of the process for requesting compassionate release from a Scottish prison. The Scottish government knew about this as the FCO had had to check the details with them.

The leaked document, from the Americans says that: “Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond told Jack Straw that he will make the final decision in this case. Salmond told Straw that he would make the decision based on humanitarian grounds, not foreign policy grounds.

The Qatari government was also involved in making representations to Edinburgh, and Washington was said to be concerned that they (the Qataris), as one of the richest nations in the world, were offering financial incentives. The Qatari response was: 'That is ridiculous; it was not necessary to offer money. It was all done within Scottish law. We offered no money, investment, or payment of any kind’.

Did the Senators not have this information when they, somewhat imperiously, summond our First Minister to appear before them?

Another American document shows that Prince Andrew and even the Queen may have played a role. It reports: “He, Gaddafi went on to thank his 'friend Brown’, the British Prime Minister, his government, Queen Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who 'against all odds encouraged this brave decision’. Gaddafi noted that the UK efforts would positively affect 'exchange’ between the two countries.

So, all the released papers square with what Alex Salmond has said all along (except that Salmond told Straw that HE would make the decision, whilst he told everyone else that it was Kenny MacAskill who would take it).

A comment from Iain Gray would, at this point, be interesting, if not (almost undoubtedly not) helpful. Doubtless, however, if asked, Mr Gray would simply mention that it sounded like another SNP broken promise and a personal humiliation for Alex Salmond. Yawn.


Pics: Mwa mwa dahling, Gaddafi and Blair’s love in in the desert; First Minister’s story is borne out by Wikileaks; Qatari money, the cash that really talks, but we didn’t need any of it. The law was enough; Blinky Straw, the man with the moral rectitude of a tape worm.

WIKILEAKS COMES TO SCOTLAND

I listened to Alex Salmond on the Today Programme this morning. He occupied the peak listening slot at 8.10 am normally given to very senior English politicians.

The main thrust of the interview was the Al Megrahi compassionate release question and its re-emergence into the public’s eye today grace à Wikileaks.

In fact the leaks tell us virtually nothing new. They confirm that the British (English) government was told that if Mr Al Megrahi died in a Scottish prison the Libyans would punish Britain economically. An American diplomat used the expression “cut off at the knees”. Apart from that phrase, we knew all that anyway.

We knew that Blair made a deal with Kaddafi on prisoner transfer (which, in fact, was probably out with his remit to do); we knew that the British Foreign Secretary wrote to the Scottish Government saying that it would not be in British interests if the prisoner died in a Scottish jail; we knew that the Libyan Foreign Ministry contacted the Scottish government and offered “treats and blandishments”, which were turned down.

We also knew, because it was laid out to us in the simplest terms, the steps which Scots Law demanded be taken in the case of a person considered to be dying in prison. We know that these steps were followed to the letter. We know too that there was some politicking by Labour and the Tories, but that no senior legal figure has come forward to dispute that what was done was correct.

Alex Salmond performed faultlessly. In a calm and measured tone, with none of hysterical arguments or the trotting out of the latest political buzz phrase so habitual at 8.10, he explained that Wikileaks had told us little that was new. He agreed that he had spoken with the Edinburgh Consul General of the United States Government. He agreed that the just of what he had said was transmitted on to Washington, although not in the exact language that he had used.

Reflecting on the circumstances I can see no reason, other than the one that Alex offered, for releasing Al Megrahi. The government knew that it was dealing with a situation with ramifications well beyond Scottish shores, and most importantly in America. It will not have been lost upon them how much America could hurt Scotland economically. When France refused to join its illegal war in Iraq, it was rewarded by a ‘hate France’ campaign which not only involved changing the name of French Fries, but was economically damaging to France particularly in wine exports and tourism! Scotland’s tourism industry is hugely dependent on American visitors. Its whisky exports to America are not insubstantial. The release risked damaging these businesses.

What measures Libya could take against Scotland along these lines is not clear. The threats made were against the British government and presumably had to do with arms sales and oil exploration. Given that the British government had treated the new Scottish government with distaste and disdain, and that relations between Alex and Brown were abysmal, it seems unlikely that the Scottish government would have risked Scottish tourism to save British armaments.

In all his dealings with the United States, with the UK government, with John Humphries this morning, and with our own parliament and people, Alex Salmond has shown that the process was both thought out and carried out in accordance with the principles of Scots Law.

Great post here.

Iain Gray supports David Cameron

Labour leader, Iain Gray, has calls for an apology over the Lockerbie bomber's release. In yet another example of attacking the SNP because that is what Scottish Labour does, rather than actually thinking and being a credible opposition. Elmer Fudd has said that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill should make a public apology if the Lockerbie bomber survives for a full year after his release from prison. Why after a year Mr Gary? Wouldn’t after the 3 months he was supposed to live have been a better anniversary? And how ghoulish is it of all these Labour apparatchiks to be marking these anniversaries anyway?

Megrahi was the only person ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, which claimed 270 lives in 1988. Jailed in 2001, the 58-year-old was released on compassionate grounds by Mr MacAskill, who said medical advice gave Megrahi less than three months to live, on August 20th last year. Despite pleas from the US Government to keep the Libyan behind bars.

US senators are still investigating the decision to release Megrahi. Some US politicians have said they suspect BP, which has a £500 million oil deal with Libya, influenced negotiations accusations that have been angrily denied by First Minister Alex Salmond. How ludicrous is it to suggest that the SNP colluded with Labour at Westminster to facilitate a dodgy deal?

In an exclusive interview with the Dundee Courier, Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said the SNP Scottish Government must provide the US with details of how it reached the decision to free Megrahi, who has always maintained his innocence.

"We have to make it clear to the US what the basis of the decision to release Megrahi was," said Mr Gray yesterday. "I don't believe that lobbying by BP had anything to do with his release. I think it was a decision made by Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond and a decision I think they both got wrong.

"If we reach the anniversary of his release and Megrahi is still alive, I think Kenny MacAskill should apologise and admit he made a mistake and should apologise to the families of the victims."

Asked if he believed Mr MacAskill should resign if Megrahi survives until the first anniversary of his release, Mr Gray said, "I think the time to resign was when he made the wrong decision. I think the most important thing now is to get a change at the next election in May.

"But it's not just about the decision to release Megrahi. Just before the parliamentary recess they passed legislation to release short-term criminals from jails. Obviously, these crimes were not the same as Megrahi's but these are all people released by Kenny MacAskill."We need a change of administration, to one that puts the victims before criminals."

Talk about political opportunism? Now David Cameron can count on the idiot Gray to do his dirty work for him. The vast majority of the Scottish public do not like to see the Scottish Government bullied by US politicians with a hidden agenda the size of Texas nor do they like to see a British Prime Minister prostitute himself to that agenda at the expense of the vaunted respect he was due to show the Devolved Administrations (respect that lasted 2 and a half months). How sickening it must be to see the leader of the supposed opposition grab on to the coat tails of that agenda for very short term political gain. Let’s hope everybody sees this for what it is when they come to cast votes next May.

IF YOU CAN'T SHOW RESPECT FOR SCOTLAND, DON'T EXPECT ANY FROM SCOTLAND

Before I say anything else let me make it clear that, if it is proved beyond doubt that there was collusion between the Scottish government or Kenny MacAskill, and the foul Libyan regime of the slimy chancer Qaddafi, the odious London Labour regime of Gordon Brown and his seedy lord chancellor Straw man, or the greedy, grasping, money-grabbing, BP management, then I shall tear up my SNP membership card and vote for another nationalist party.

That said, I find it hard to believe that Kenny or Alex wouldn’t be wily enough to realize that the release of the supposed Lockerbie bomber was likely to cause so much of a stir in places where it mattered, ie Washington DC, that they would have to be mentally deranged to have got involved with anything even vaguely dodgy in its respect.

Embarking on this exercise I would imagine that, had I been Kenny, I would have been aware that my every move would be scrutinized, first in Scotland by the opposition parties, then by the London politicians, not to mention by every new programme, broadsheet newspaper, and finally by the government of the USA. This, if nothing else would have encouraged me to go, not just by the book, but by every single letter of the book.

At this moment I am so angry with David Cameron that I doubt if I shall sleep tonight.

I have watched and listened with growing incredulity at the news reports of Senators wanting to summon (yes, summon, if you please) Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to appear before them, of the criticisms and demands of the USA for inquiries into how the Scottish government conducts its lawful business, of criticism from Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, and finally of the banal utterances of David Cameron preparing for his first official visit to the Whitehouse, but whilst in England.

But what drove me over the edge was Cameron criticizing the workings of the Scottish government whilst he was in the United States. Doubtless this was done in an effort to worm his way closer into the affections of Mr Obama (and thereby sticking it to Gordon Brown, whom the president clearly disliked passionately).

Speaking at the White House, Cameron said: “It was a bad decision, it shouldn’t have been made. This was the biggest mass murderer in British history.”

There used to be a rule in politics, based on decency.

You do not criticise things at home when you are abroad. The reason for the rule was, of course, that those whom you were criticising, being thousands of miles away, would not be given an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Clearly Dave, in his desire for a pat on the head from his boss saw fit to ignore that old fashioned courtesy.

Cameron has clearly shown so shortly after announcing a respect agenda for Scotland, that he has none. We didn’t vote for him... and we are unlikely to do so in the future, so he doesn’t give a stuff about us.

So... don’t be too surprised Mr Cameron, if we don’t have much in the way of respect for you.

And just a wee word about the American senators who face re-election in a few months, and the president, who wants desperately not to lose too many seats in the Senate... You guys think of yourself as the most Christian country in the world. So, you will doubtless be aware that the Christian part of the Bible instructs individuals, in the Lord’s Prayer, to “forgive those who trespass against us” and Christians are warned in Romans 12:19 to “... avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

More or less what Kenny said actually? Just something to think about.

Please also have a look at:

http://darklochnagar.blogspot.com/2010/07/message-from-scotland-to-usa-fuck-off.html (strong language warning, but a brilliant post.)

and


http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2010/07/david-milibands-severe-case-of-false.html (The best Scottish politics blog ever...)

and


http://nomoradiaspora.blogspot.com/2010/07/bile-is-rising.html