Has he something to hide or is he just rubbish?

I thought that the early release of Ronnie Biggs was wrong, and also the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. In both cases, they did not serve their full sentences - yes I know most people only serve just over half but these people had not even done that. To release them on compassionate grounds sounds great, but where was their compassion when they allowed or made innocent people die?

Following on from these bad decisions, the attention has turned onto our PM and his views about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Yesterday, on his release from a forced holiday, Mr Brown stated that he found the jubilant scenes in Libya of al-Megrahi's return repulsive.

The PM was repeatedly asked whether it was right for al-Megrahi to be released, and the line repeated was that this is a decision for Scotland's parliament alone and the UK should not have a view.

What a load of bunkum. Firstly, although the legal decision was for Scotland alone its impact on UK foreign policy is profound and should have been considered. Secondly, if GB takes that view then he will not be able to express a view on other issues for which Scotland has sole responsibility. So what happens when the SNP recommends a referendum on independence? Can you imagine Gordon Brown saying that it's entirely a matter for Scotland? Not on your nellie, he'll be the first to say that it shouldn't happen.

So why does he say things which are plain wrong? If he has nothing to hide then it's simply bad politics, it would be bolder to express a view and cope with the consequences. So maybe he is just rubbish at politics.

Or is it that he has something to hide, and we would all want to know what deal had been done for GB to agree with the SNP's release policy. Or would he be exposed if he disagreed with the judgement as being duplicitous? Maybe he is frit. So much for the author of 'Courage'.

Squiffy.