beyond our ken Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) No, it is legally speaking an executive, it's not bold at all. I highlighted some of your post in bold It doesn't fulfill the criteria normally associated with a Government. Then please refer me to the place where these criteria are set down. When you write "associated" it's quite a weak term. the point is that the majority of people who live here, who work for the government and serve in it consider it as a level of government, applying our own criteria, which i am willing to guess are just as valid as any other. 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. It's not about what the MOD were compelled to do, it is about what would have been healthy, respectful and possible. In any case, as someone affected by MOD actions just now I can vouch that they are liable to confer their own interpretation on any agreement or duty as they see fit 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). well maybe you should have a lie down, that massive legal brain must be a huge drain on the rest of your body. This part is very disresectful to those debating the pointson here. Just because you are being questioned doesnt mean we are trying to undermine or discredit your point. Only a very few take a dogmatic view of things and even those that express such a view don't really buy all of it-they are working to the party line, so to speak. the rest of us are trying to think our way through to a decision. If you dont like the debate so far then i haveto say, you are not doing a lot to advance with this kind of rant. the very fact that Bluto liked your post shows that it was pompous and superior). i had legal lecturers in my course at Paisley/WOS and i am glad that they didnt have your attitude (not that they were that great anyway) 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. you put you own interpretation in there, just shows how widespread opinion and interpretation are in the legal world. It pains me to say I am with Drew on this one. It's quite sad really. Boo-Hoo Edited March 8, 2014 by beyond our ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 There was a very small (and I mean very) amount of radioactivity discovered in the cooling water system. This has been investigated and believed to be a microscopic crack in one of the fuel plate cladding. Against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s measurement scale for nuclear-related events that issue is classed as ‘level 0’, described as “below scale – no safety significance”. I appreciate that but it's not the point. The leak could be because of poor maintenance and only luck caused it to be minor. Sorry bud, nuclear power is far too dangerous to be covered up like this. There are no circumstances where accidents should be muffled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) 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. Legal accuracy? I always thought law was about interpretation and argument to varying degrees. A whole highly lucractive industry has been borne out of this. It's one of the main criticisms of the legal business - they'll find ways to re-interpret and argue every minor point if they can make money out of it. These things even have their own name - legal loopholes. If there's a Holy Grail of unquestionable legal accuracy out there then it's a rare beast indeed. Finding that Holy Grail is a challenge right uip there with finding a legal expert who isn't by nature and profession an argumentative bastard . Edited March 8, 2014 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 It pains me to say I am with Drew on this one. Whit did ah dae? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Not a strop at all, but I'm out. Not posting on this thread again for the time being. If you look back at the few posts I've made, I've not been biased, I've used my own knowledge and experience to try and clarify some misinterpretations, or clarify with detail when people have asked, but I'm not one for childish nonsense and name calling from posters like BOK above. When people grow up and can discuss things like adults, I might contribute again, but until then, I have better things in my life to do with my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Not a strop at all, but I'm out. Not posting on this thread again for the time being. If you look back at the few posts I've made, I've not been biased, I've used my own knowledge and experience to try and clarify some misinterpretations, or clarify with detail when people have asked, but I'm not one for childish nonsense and name calling from posters like BOK above. When people grow up and can discuss things like adults, I might contribute again, but until then, I have better things in my life to do with my time. In fairness, saying something like this is likely to provoke a reaction: indeed a great many on here are ether gullible or idiotic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Not a strop at all, but I'm out. Not posting on this thread again for the time being. If you look back at the few posts I've made, I've not been biased, I've used my own knowledge and experience to try and clarify some misinterpretations, or clarify with detail when people have asked, but I'm not one for childish nonsense and name calling from posters like BOK above. When people grow up and can discuss things like adults, I might contribute again, but until then, I have better things in my life to do with my time. I think that's a pity. I've enjoyed your posts and found them informative. You haven't said one word that was derogatory to the Yes campaign but you made one chronic mistake. You stayed neutral and you've seen how the land lies. If you ain't for 'em, you're agin 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) I think that's a pity. I've enjoyed your posts and found them informative. You haven't said one word that was derogatory to the Yes campaign but you made one chronic mistake. You stayed neutral and you've seen how the land lies. If you ain't for 'em, you're agin 'em. Is the comment I quoted above not derogatory? Edited March 8, 2014 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Is the comment I quoted above not derogatory? Which one do you mean? If you mean za's one starting 'This isn't a strop', then it wasn't derogatory to the Yes campaign which was what I said. It certainly hit back a bit at BOK but he had been clearly rude to a guy that has never said a word out of turn on this forum that I know of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Which one do you mean? If you mean za's one starting 'This isn't a strop', then it wasn't derogatory to the Yes campaign which was what I said. It certainly hit back a bit at BOK but he had been clearly rude to a guy that has never said a word out of turn on this forum that I know of. No. ZA said this: indeed a great many on here are ether gullible or idiotic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 No. ZA said this: indeed a great many on here are ether gullible or idiotic Oh, that bit! Unbiased. He said there were tits on both sides and that's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) No. ZA said this: indeed a great many on here are ether gullible or idiotic Nope - only back to defend myself and put this out of context quote in the correct context, not to continue any debate. I said that anybody who truly believed that every single potential issue pertaining to either remaining in the union or independence was positive for the side they have chosen to take, and that their own side had no negatives or areas that they wouldn't potentially be worse in then they they are either gullible or idiotic. Which I stand by, because if any person were to try and claim the total superiority of one or other eventuality then they are one of the two. This is the picture I have painted from day one on both this forum and in any other discussion I have had on the matter. Drew - I'm pretty disappointed that yourself, someone who I've respected on these boards and the official forum would knowingly (or inadvertantly) take a quote like the one you have used CLEARLY out of context as you have. There's a HUGE difference between what I actually said and how you have portrayed it. Poor show. Edited March 8, 2014 by zurich_allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Oh, that bit! Unbiased. He said there were tits on both sides and that's true. Exactly Rick - this was not difficult to understand. Not so much tits, but those who choose to see their own side, whichever it is, as the utter superiority with no potential area of weakness. It's just a childish viewpoint to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Nope - only back to defend myself and put this out of context quote in the correct context, not to continue any debate. I said that anybody who truly believed that every single potential issue pertaining to either remaining in the union or independence was positive for the side they have chosen to take, and that their own side had no negatives or areas that they wouldn't potentially be worse in then they they are either gullible or idiotic. Which I stand by, because if any person were to try and claim the total superiority of one or other eventuality then they are one of the two. This is the picture I have painted from day one on both this forum and in any other discussion I have had on the matter. Drew - I'm pretty disappointed that yourself, someone who I've respected on these boards and the official forum would knowingly (or inadvertantly) take a quote like the one you have used CLEARLY out of context as you have. There's a HUGE difference between what I actually said and how you have portrayed it. Poor show. Sorry mate, but if you make a statement like that, regardless of the context, you leave people to draw their own conclusions. You refer to 'a great many on here....'. Unless you specify who you are referring to (and, for me at least 'a great many' would pertain to more than 3 or 4 posters), , are you genuinely surprised that people will pick you up on it? Its a pretty condescending thing to say, and to direct at many people who post their (however outlandish at times) views on here. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure that it is easy to explain away by referring to context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 I'm not in any sense backing up Dicko's argument but your retort in regard to the part you have highlighted is another example of the ridiculous hyperbole that the Yes campaign regularly uses. Ridiculous hyperbole? So Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron's governments improved Scotland? They didn't decimate communities and industries? They didn't increase poverty and deprivation? They didn't lie regarding oil during the last referendum thingy in the 70's? They didnt tell us to vote no last time with the promise of more devolution, then nothing for 20 years? OK, silly me ...BTW I thought you were leaving this thread about a week or a dozen posts ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 were havin to "re-tube" a nuclear sub at a cost of £120 million this week. i will re-post this on whatever f**kin post i feel appropriate. How many hospitals / roads/ schools/ pensioners/disabled/ disadvantaged/museums/ etc/etc could that have helped ? None in a separate Scotland as it's UK money that will pay for the maintenance. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Ridiculous hyperbole? So Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron's governments improved Scotland? They didn't decimate communities and industries? They didn't increase poverty and deprivation? They didn't lie regarding oil during the last referendum thingy in the 70's? They didnt tell us to vote no last time with the promise of more devolution, then nothing for 20 years? OK, silly me ...BTW I thought you were leaving this thread about a week or a dozen posts ago I know I said that but I reserve the right to respond to the smell of shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/memo-to-danny-alexander-the-very-things-that-make-london-rich-make-us-poor.23633041 Good article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Oh, that bit! Unbiased. He said there were tits on both sides and that's true. I know I said that but I reserve the right to respond to the smell of shite. I've barely posted on here for the last few days and you're still coming out with this overly aggressive abuse of anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint. You've now picked another target and I've only selected two posts. At what point do you start accepting some personal responsibility that you MIGHT be the common factor here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Simpson Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Nope - only back to defend myself and put this out of context quote in the correct context, not to continue any debate. I said that anybody who truly believed that every single potential issue pertaining to either remaining in the union or independence was positive for the side they have chosen to take, and that their own side had no negatives or areas that they wouldn't potentially be worse in then they they are either gullible or idiotic. Which I stand by, because if any person were to try and claim the total superiority of one or other eventuality then they are one of the two. This is the picture I have painted from day one on both this forum and in any other discussion I have had on the matter. Drew - I'm pretty disappointed that yourself, someone who I've respected on these boards and the official forum would knowingly (or inadvertantly) take a quote like the one you have used CLEARLY out of context as you have. There's a HUGE difference between what I actually said and how you have portrayed it. Poor show. You shouldn't walk away from the topic/forum though. Regardless of others opinions, the hardest argument to make is that of the balanced constructive and concerned neutral. I'm not saying that is your position personally, but you say that these are the points you are trying to make. I completely agree with you that one action doesn't come with simply positives and no risk and sadly perhaps this type of argument is tainting the whole debate and not just the one on this forum. As I've said in my opening posts on the topic the following day we all have to get up and go to work with those who voted differently, often for the first time given the variety of opinion within political persuasions. I know in my family there is a difference of opinion both my immediate and less immediate family. I suppose the crux of the argument comes down to your individual perception of the risk taking that step into the unknown. My opinion is that as Scots we for far too long have moaned and groaned about successive Westminster Governments but are simply too scared to rock the boat as the status quo isn't that bad...and rather than take responsibility for ourselves we are happy to remain quietly discontented. I honestly see this as an opportunity to better ourselves, to take control of issues that affect every day life in Scotland and make a change. I see this as far away from an anti-English vote as could possibly be the case and would actively argue that the North of England faces very similar problems, but unlike Scotland didn't want to take that forward with more regionalised Government. More recently I would also argue this as an anti-right wing argument also with UKIP being involved in a Debate about the EU and slowly finding it's way into British politics with the exception of Scotland. With such thinly veiled xenophobia I would prefer no place for them and no influence over a modern Scotland (which a No vote could easily give them with a potential upcoming referendum on EU membership). I accept the potential irony in arguing for what could be seen as parochialism but it is very much in an all inclusive manner with all living here having an equally valid perspective and right to vote. However there is risk. There are multiple questions of what will happen with change...I fear that the referendum comes too soon for a Yes, but it at least has made people start to think about the issues of local problems being sorted out in a different fashion. Hopefully though the No campaign will provide further devolution, but there is no guarantee, and no agreed or specific plan B. I'm not a lawyer or a politician. I haven't a clue about the legalities of each of the arguments. I read your posts with interest. I would argue so do the majority who can be bothered. As is often said to me this forum is no place for reasoned and sensible debate, but it is if you choose so. You just have to develop a thicker skin and choose your moments to make comments relevant to you or to poke fun when the protagonists occasionally slip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) i've decided i'll get a house in england and keep my house here in scotland, and not bother voting, then after the vote just live in the one that suits best financially and rent the other one out - in case it is needed in future years. I wonder if it would be possible to have residency in each country - by saying the house in england is my main residence and the house in scotland is my family home/wifes main residence Edited March 9, 2014 by buddiecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Ridiculous hyperbole? So Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron's governments improved Scotland? They didn't decimate communities and industries? They didn't increase poverty and deprivation? They didn't lie regarding oil during the last referendum thingy in the 70's? They didnt tell us to vote no last time with the promise of more devolution, then nothing for 20 years? OK, silly me ...BTW I thought you were leaving this thread about a week or a dozen posts ago Are you wanting to go there? Seriously? If it wasn't for Gordon Brown using the vast majority of the UK defence budget on two aircraft carriers to be built at Rosyth you could have added that yard to the list - and while the order has proved to be a woefully inefficient order in terms of defence, we have to remember that an Independent Scotland would decimate defence spending relying on us all running around with spears to handle any threat to our borders. Under Thatcher we may well have seen the closure of Ravenscraig but we also saw US firms heavily investing in Scottish manufacture with plenty of highly skilled technology based jobs in Scotland. Compare that with Salmonds record of encouraging RBS to gamble all to buy ABN Amro, and his proud boasts that he's brought Amazon, one of the worst employers in the UK with wages barely above Minimum Wage, to Scotland with his tax free deals and the Westminster Politicians look far more pro Scottish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 i've decided i'll get a house in england and keep my house here in scotland, and not bother voting, then after the vote just live in the one that suits best financially and rent the other one out - in case it is needed in future years. I wonder if it would be possible to have residency in each country - by saying the house in england is my main residence and the house in scotland is my family home/wifes main residence I'm not sure why you would think you'd need the Scottish house. Just sell that one and buy two houses in England. The property prices in England post referendum will remain reasonably stable and you'll get a good yield on the one you rent out thanks to the never ending stream of Scottish refugee's looking to flee Natsi tyranny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Thanks FTOF for the excellent article by Iain Macwhirter in the Herald. Love this quote from him ... 'Being lectured on public responsibility by banks is like being lectured on childcare by paedophiles'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 I'm not sure why you would think you'd need the Scottish house. Just sell that one and buy two houses in England. The property prices in England post referendum will remain reasonably stable and you'll get a good yield on the one you rent out thanks to the never ending stream of Scottish refugee's looking to flee Natsi tyranny. If the Tories and UKip get their way, foreign immigrants making their way into what's left of the UK will probably be a thing of the past. They'll be turned away at the border control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.