zurich_allan

No, it is legally speaking an executive, it's not bold at all. It doesn't fulfill the criteria normally associated with a Government. And yes, whilst those other issues could be relevant (environment etc.) it's a well established and decided area that when balancing disclosure with competing interests, if national security or defence is one of the areas for consideration then it takes priority. Honestly - and this isn't a dig at you - it's a dig at the whole independence issue. I am personally growing increasingly tired of the 'tit-for-tat' approach, and utter partisanship of both sides of the debate. According to each side, theirs is the best approach (independence or keeping the union) in EVERY SINGLE area. What a load of utter crap. There will be pros and cons in both sides. Yet those involved in the politics, and indeed a great many on here are ether gullible or idiotic (if they truly believe such polarisation in favour or against any one side). I try to bring some legal accuracy to the debate whenever any of those issues come up, regardless of which side it suits, but it seems that (including on here) very few are ever willing to accept that maybe not every area suits their own view. It's quite sad really.

This is a very simple issue - defence is a matter reserved to Westminster. Clearly the leaked issue was linked to this and therefore the Scottish Executive had no legitimate expectation to be alerted to the issue. This is where it becomes a problem when the term 'Government' is used as a brand name. Post-independence we would / will have a real government; until / if that time comes, we have an executive that has been incorrectly labeled as a 'Government'. This issue is a complete no win for those saying that the Executive should have been notified - the law is and always has been VERY clear on this issue.

Sigh - I already clarified the EU position in quite a bit of detail a few pages ago - this statement from Barrosso is nothing new whatsoever - it's the same stance he's maintained throughout and is indeed accurate IF an existing Member State didn't agree to a Treaty change. There absolutely wouldn't be a situation whereby Scotland is one day a Member and the next day not - timescales for exit and re-entry could possibly be organised in such a way that the transition is seemless. On the other hand, if another Member REALLY didn't play ball (hopefully unlikely), and refused to allow us in as an independent State - it would be a 2-3 year transition out of the Union, with a hopefully already suitable entry to the EEA and EFTA, allowing us at least the free trade and movement aspects of Europe, if not the negotiating ones.

Well of course there's Princess Michael of Kent, but then that's not her name, it's her husband's... I remember looking that up when I was younger because it puzzled me - something to do with her parents being sure they were having a boy and had the name chosen and told family and friends, then when she was born they just decided to keep the name!

Like what the old official forum 5's was?

I was just going to say exactly the same thing. With pressure like that, if you get a chance you HAVE to clear it. I don't know what McGregor was thinking, but he cost us that goal.

If the UK voted out, before Scotland had become fully independent, that could be a difficult issue, as I don't know for certain if Scots would be given a vote or not... if we were still part of the UK and had the option to vote, then we would be considered to have left the EU voluntarily, in which case we'd have to re-apply for Membership as a new Member. On the other hand, if we weren't given the vote for such a referendum, I'd imagine it would be because it's been decided or in the process of negotiations with what would happen to an independent Scotland and whether or not we would be negotiating from within the Union. If that's the case, I'd imagine that we might be able to continue to operate within the EU environment until our own decision was reached (or negotiations concluded etc.). Even if Scotland had to leave the EU, there would have to be a separation agreement drawn up between a combination of the EU Commission, EU Parliament and our own Government - and it's likely it would take up to two years for any full separation to occur - so it certainly wouldn't be an instant event. One thing that wouldn't be allowed is a sort of 'swap' - I suppose it the best way of putting it - i.e. UK out and Scotland in their place

This is a decade old, and some of the worst inaccurate and sensationalist journalism pertaining to the EU I've ever seen. I noted more than 20 inaccuracies in the first 10 minutes - that's pretty good going.... But then this has always been the problem with the media in the UK, they literally just don't understand the EU or associated issues.

I don't know why I'm even responding to nonsense like this. rUK is an internal term that we use, a technicality, and the EU (not the fourth reich because it isn't one party politics) would recognise what is left of the UK as the continuing State. And yes - the Treaty of Lisbon DOES allow for voluntary exit of a Member State in a specific clause, but there isn't a clause for involuntary expulsion of an existing State. Nonsense like the above quote helps absolutely nothing and nobody.

No it wouldn't. There would be a proportionate reduction of MEPs in the European Parliament, but there would be no alteration in the membership of what is left of the UK - there isn't even an argument over that I'm afraid.

I think around 50 miles - why so?

I definitely agree with you on this - it very much was done on the quiet - kept very low key. Though it was actually done by the Labour government at the time. I don't think the manner of the alteration of boundaries was very ethical at all, in my opinion.

The wording is difficult here though - it specifically says 'its geographic share of UK oil and gas' - but legally speaking - maritime boundaries are not based on geography, and are very much open for negotiation (and currently a reserved matter for the UK and not Scotland to legislate on), and you can bet your bottom dollar that Westminster would fight tooth and nail for an agreed share of oil and gas, and that Scotland (and I will say absolutely catagorically) will not get the full 100% of that in any post-independence agreement. And yes, it is perfectly legal for RUK to negotiate that, and Scotland legally cannot simply lay claim to it (although I would argue that certainly morally speaking they ought to be able to). A lot of people don't know that maritime boundaries were changed barely a decade ago already, so that as far north as Dundee (I am deadly serious), although when you look out you are initially looking at Scottish water, if you go out to still within visual distance barely a few hundred metres out, you're actually looking at English waters. So no - the article doesn't put an end to the debate I'm afraid - it's just one scenario that is definitely not a certainty.

Tony, just one thing - Scotland has always retained certain aspects of sovereignty, not only post-devolution issues, so what you said is pretty misleading. For example, although still having to remain within the confines of the ECHR, Scotland has always retained the right to legislate for all aspects of the criminal law for itself, and has its own criminal procedures and criminal justice system. Our system in that aspect is hugely different to that in the rest of the UK. That's just one example, but a pretty huge one.

Did someone really say that it would be illegal to give MOD work to Scotland post-independence? If they did, they haven't said the whole story. The reality is a little more complex. To explain - The UK government is entitled to classify MOD work as being public sector, and if it did that, it could legally restrict employment in that area to UK nationals only. The key here though is COULD. They also have complete freedom to allow anyone of any nationality to carry out such work. Under the circumstances, I can't see any way that they would be able to stop current contracts or make such a vast number of employees redundant. Any shift of such consequence would have to take place over 10+ years minimum.

Oh, and why I don't have enough hours in the day to explain - I simply can't discuss in a couple of posts on a thread, what between ordinary and advanced EU lessons takes me a block of 24 three hour classes to teach.

That's fine Oaksoft, you can call it pompous if you like, nonsense like that doesn't bother me. Let me put it this way. I don't comment on every single aspect of the independence debate unlike many people who seem to think that they know everything about every area (now THAT'S pompous and unrealistic). I comment on the ones that I have direct knowledge or experience of, and especially with the EU issue, comment based on facts that I have learned and researched over the 7 years I have been lecturing in EU law and advanced EU law, as well as a number of other linked areas. For several months of the year I am actively involved in this subject area 2-3 days of the week. Likewise, I have no agenda - I foster independent, critical thought in young adults every day of term. Look back at my EU related posts over the past couple of pages where I don't paint a picture heavily one way or the other. I don't know precisely what area of science it is that you are involved in, but I bet if somebody who knows a limited amount about the area, say from reading a few books, maybe a few websites etc. begins to engage you in a debate about issues in your field in which you are educated and experienced, and you know they are dead wrong, you would either correct them, or at the least, roll your eyes once they have left. Armchair experts are so common these days, however I will continue to correct inaccuracies related to MY areas of expertise because it is the right thing to do to enable people to make a correct and balanced choice related to those areas.

That's fine, and that's your opinion. But respectfully, you're very very wrong. I don't have enough hours in the day to explain all of the reasons why. There are indeed downsides and bad points to being part of the EU, however the benefits vastly (not just a little, but massively) outweigh them. There really isn't even a debate to be had about that.

The one year (or whatever the transition period potentially ends up being), would be a vital time for EU negotiation indeed. If the negotiations go smoothly with the existing Member States and they agree to ammend the existing Treaties, then it could potentially be a case of the EU ammendments going through, along with increased Membership of the various EU Institutions' cohorts (and division of MEPs between RUK and Scotland). It could possibly be a seamless transition. Under those circumstances, with the unanimous agreement of all of the current 28 Members, it would be purely internal negotiation. If on the other hand any of the existing Members, for whatever reason (not scaremongering at all - it may not happen, but at the same time we can't second guess how some States might vote with certainty) do not agree to the Treaties being ammended, then Scotland has literally not other option but to seek entry as a new Member State. IF that were the case, it wouldn't be a case of 'you're out' - there would be a transition (which would likely take a maximum of two years) during which time we'd be expected to tie up or alter trade agreements, alter travel and visa requirements etc. if necessary. This would be on the basis that we were leaving the EU for good. However - if we were leaving with the clear intention of rejoining at the quickest possible opportunity, Scotland would immediately be classified as a Candidate country, and the (likely) maximum two year withdrawal period would hopefully coincide with our demonstrating that we meet the Copenhagen Criteria for entry and fulfilling the obligations of the 30 chapters for re-joining. Again, it could be a case of us proving we meet the necessary obligations prior to the withdrawal period finishing, so AGAIN it would be a seemless transition. If as a new potential Member State Scotland demonstrates that it meets all of the necessary criteria, then the rest of the Member States would be in a completely different position than in the previous example where they wouldn't accept the treaty ammendment. Under that scenario, I'm 99.999% certain that we would be brought back in without any controversy whatsoever. The only potential issue would be if as an externally applying country, our economy started going in the wrong direction (I'm not saying that it would, but IF it did) during the transition period, then that could pose MASSIVE issues with fufilling roughly a third of the necessary criteria for re-entry. Under those circumstances, we could have a problem... As I said before, we'd be best all round being at least prepared for these eventualities with everything necessary for potential entry to the EFTA, EEA and every other non-EU trade and movement organisation completed, forms filled out and ready to go on the off chance that any hiccups such as that occur. The one thing we CANNOT (and I'm quite confident we would not) allow to happen is for Scotland to be isolated in an international trade and movement sense, even for a short period of time, that would spell absolute disaster for our economy on a catastrophic scale.

Sigh - I'm going to say it again - many of the other issues I'm not bothered about, and honestly I'm not massively pro or anti one way or the other. However the EU issue is one that you keep misrepresenting Oaksoft. To repeat: It's not a question of being kicked out as such - it's a highly complex situation. On one hand, the Scottish people do currently have EU citizenship, and all of the rights and freedoms that go with it. Scotland is highly entrenched as a part of the EU that would make it impracticable for them to simply be 'kicked out'. This is indeed very very true. However, regardless of being impracticable, it IS a very real possibility - as on a technicality it may be literally impossible for us not to leave the EU, even if only for a short amount of time. As I've explained previously, if Scotland secede from the UK, then in order to remain a member of the EU, this would require the formation of the EU Commission, Council, Court of Justice, Court of Auditors, Parliament etc. to be altered, shifting the percentage power that each of the other existing Member States already hold (weighting of each State's voting power etc.). This indisputably (NEITHER side it disputing it) requires the existing Treaties of the EU to be ammended, which requires unanimous agreement of ALL of the existing 28 Member States. Now this may be straightforward, as all of the existing Members might just say 'yes' to Scotland. If that happens, which is a distinct possibility, then there is no problem. However if even one of the 28 decides, for whatever reason (we cannot and do not have the right to question their motives) decides to not accept the Treaty ammendment then there is literally no other option but to re-apply for Membership as a new State. Now that's not all doom and gloom, it's factual. And to prove it's not all doom and gloom, it may be that transitional arrangements are put in place to ensure that the whole process is simple, and it could take as little as one year for the accession to happen beyond that, so there may be no effect beyond a technical one. On the other hand, it could be found out during the negotiation process that Scotland in fact does not meet one of the chapters that comprise the Copenhagen criteria (because the entry criteria is stricter now than it was when the UK joined, and the criteria is only held against EU Candidate Countries to allow them to join, and NOT against those already in the Union). If that were to happen, the re-entry process could be much trickier and lengthy. Again, that's not all doom and gloom, as Scotland could still potentially join the EEA, EFTA etc. which would in effect protect a large number of the existing EU rights and benefits we currently enjoy, just without a number of the policy decision making rights that we currently have. So either way, it's not the end of the world in the short term, BUT to simply use the term being 'kicked out of the EU' and then to say that in effect you don't believe anybody of intelligence would beleive that, you are VASTLY over simplifying (ironic, given the tone of your post) the issue. I am TELLING you from a position of huge experience and knowledge the ins and outs, as I have explained on this thread in the past, so fine it quite strange that you're still discussing it in the way that you are. And trust me - in spite of your inference - I am an intelligent person.

These are my thoughts too. The whole thing is just tragic, whatever the facts are. I'll be following the case with great interest, and will be interested to see what the full indictment states.

My dad has always come to the odd game with me, but he actually has a season ticket these days (since he can get the over 65's one really cheap!!), sits with me in the West stand. I'll ask him later today when I see him about the other teachers you mentioned, fairly sure he'll know at least Tam McMillan, as my dad plays the Cornet, and still goes back to play with the Port Glasgow High School band for their Christmas concerts every year even though he retired nearly 15 years ago now. Funnily enough, my dad told me that he used to help out with the Camphill football team when he worked there, so if Alastair Macpherson was still there then, he'd no doubt know him too.

Sad news to report. Yes my dad did know Davy Orr, he says that as well as the house in Elderslie he also had a holiday house in Millport and used to go there frequently. My dad worked at Camphill from around 1970 until 1976 / 1977, and said that Davy retired around 1974. He had only retired about six months when he had an operation (prostate related my dad thinks from memory, though said he could be wrong given that it was 40 years so), and died from complications soon after. He said that Davy was a really nice guy, used to do lots of extra curricular stuff (Gilbert and Sullivan etc. with Arthur Brown, the Principle).

Wonder if my dad might know him, dunno exactly when that would have been, but my dad was a chemistry teacher at Camphill in the 70's.

... 's father John. Passed away at the age of 70.