Yeah.

Sorry.

I think you could be right.

My last three posts were insulting and over the top, as you say.

What was I ever thinking - about expressing an opinion here and correcting you.

Sorry.

No, what was I thinking?

These kind of posts have no place here. If you have a problem PM me. Stay on topic.

I think you are being a little bit sensitive.

Your post about the relevance in this matter of the different legal systems in England and Scotland was incorrect. Your subsequent attempt to correct what I had said about the influence from Westminster was also incorrect.

Im sorry if that caused you any undue offense. I am so very very sorry.

This statement shows you don't understand the system. There is a Scottish justice minister who handles Scottish legal matters including this one. There is a British justice minister called Jack Straw. He would have made the decision if it was a decision for the British Government to make. Please explain how this is incorrect.

Follow the link to the article I posted on Drudge.

Do you not understand that there is a difference between saying, as I did, that there are allegations in the press in the UK and elsewhere that Westminster was involved behind the scenes in influencing the decision made

and

that the proper person for the lawful exercise of the discretion is/was the Secretary of Justice for Scotland either under customary Scot law or under a specific piece of legislation?

I have no duty to explain that to you, but you obviously need some help, so have done it.

Im sorry ok?

Im just expressing an opinion. I am truly sorry if that bothers you.

How about you get over it, or study what I have said a little bit more before reacting so petulantly?

lineupguy, the post you quoted way back was a response to Lofter1, not you. I wasn't correcting you in first place.

No, you specifically said that I thought that Macaskill was a British minister. You had read my post incorrectly. You then asked me to explain the discrepancy.

You then launch an assault of pms at me on this very point. Again unecessary and incorrect.

Slow down, settle down, and perhaps before you start debating this point, study constitutional law and politics for 6 years, and learn to accept that sometimes, you can be wrong.

OR keep digging an intellectual hole for yourself.

In short, enough of the HU HA please. And the lashing out in an attempt to correct me. It spells FAIL.

The Drudge Report linked story was breaking news when I posted it and relevant, and now everywhere in the mainstream press.

You say:

It has everything to do with different legal systems because there is a Scottish and British Justice minister.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg

It was not a judicial discretion.

It was a ministerial ie executive discretion.

Ministerial discretions, exercised by a secretary of one nation (as opposed to another) do not arise by reason of differing "legal systems". They arise by reason of executive sovereignty of a nation state and the fact that at the time the decision is made, the secretary was the relevant minister or discretion holder ie office holder in that state.

Keep digging.

If Scotland did not have a separate legal system it would not have a Justice minister. Look at Wales, it has a similar, less powerful devolved parliament. It does not and did not have a separate legal system and hence, no justice minister of its own. The only reason Scotland could make this executive decision is a result of having a separate legal system.