Jump to content

The Referendum Thread


Lanarkshire_Bud

Scottish Independence Referendum  

286 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26475169

News of a leak from a test nuclear submarine engine at Dounreay.

Scottish Veterans Minister Keith Brown said it was unacceptable the Scottish government had not been told until now.

As a result of the radioactive discovery at the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment at Dounreay, the nuclear submarine HMS Vanguard is to be refuelled with a new nuclear core at a cost of £120m.

The MoD has said that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) and the defence nuclear inspectorate had been kept informed since the summer of 2012.

But Mr Brown said Sepa had been asked "not to make this information more widely known for security reasons".

He added: "It is totally unacceptable that for almost two years the UK government failed to notify Scottish Ministers on such an important issue.

"The Ministry of Defence, who are responsible for the regulation of operations and safety at Vulcan, informed Sepa of this situation in the summer of 2012 and requested that they were not to make this information more widely known for security reasons.

"Sepa's role is to highlight potential for adverse wider environmental impact and I can reassure the public that they have not identified any, but will continue to closely monitor the situation.

"UK Defence Minister Philip Dunne eventually notified (Scottish Environment Secretary) Richard Lochhead of the situation shortly in advance of the UK government's parliamentary statement today.

"There is no excuse for UK Ministers not picking up the phone and alerting us to this situation two years ago and I have today written to Philip Hammond seeking an early meeting to ensure such disrespect is never shown again."

Does anyone want to continue to be governed by a London government which did not release the information to SEPA till 6 months after the leak was discovered and then told SEPA to keep it under its hat for "security reasons"?

don't see how that is the fault of the London government, the MoD told Sepa not to make it public, and I can see why, it would be around the time of the Fushima plant disaster and they would have been mass public out cry and fall out, its the duty of the MoD to keep some things away from the public eye regardless if we like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


don't see how that is the fault of the London government, the MoD told Sepa not to make it public, and I can see why, it would be around the time of the Fushima plant disaster and they would have been mass public out cry and fall out, its the duty of the MoD to keep some things away from the public eye regardless if we like it or not.

Don't the government run the MoD?

Totally unacceptable that it has been concealed from the government and never mind the public, for 2 years.

Edited by FTOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't the government run the MoD?

Totally unacceptable that it has been concealed from the government and never mind the public, for 2 years.

Well considering everyone was running about scared thinking fushima was the next Chernobyl, the last thing the MoD wants is mass hysteria caused by going by that link provided , a tiny leak that was well under control and being monitored, hell even the Scottish government would have kept it under wraps, and as said there was no risk to the public so why is it such a big deal that it was kept hidden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

They kept it hidden from the Scottish Government. Another example of the distain and contempt that they have for us, our country and our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do feel sorry for the poor people of the US having to bail out an English bank.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4895234

Surely we can finally put this particular myth to bed instead of constantly going round in circles.

The Huffington Post? Why not. So America bails out a British bank that had massive exposure to America Remember it bought Lehmans. You decry any comment from UK politicians who say No, but you think the Huffington Post is infallible? Grasping at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

The Huffington Post? Why not. So America bails out a British bank that had massive exposure to America Remember it bought Lehmans. You decry any comment from UK politicians who say No, but you think the Huffington Post is infallible? Grasping at straws.

Its not about infallibility Rick. Its about debunking myths.

Irish banks were given money by UK Gov. UK banks were given money by US Gov. Yet No politicians tell us that Scottish banks would need to be bailed out by Scottish Government alone if we were independent.

Compliant BBC and mainstream media don't question this.

Oh, and are you still here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They kept it hidden from the Scottish Government. Another example of the distain and contempt that they have for us, our country and our government.

I would bet my house that it wasn't kept secret from the whole Scottish Government, just those that are irrelevant. I see no way whatsoever that it is an example or proof of disdain or contempt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

I would bet my house that it wasn't kept secret from the whole Scottish Government, just those that are irrelevant. I see no way whatsoever that it is an example or proof of disdain or contempt

You'll need to expand on that one for me SNLT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well , old kipper , I think this is certainly one occasion , where I would have to agree with you. .

Edited by saintnextlifetime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll need to expand on that one for me SNLT

Sorry TS , I probably went a bit far there . It is just that , I feel that if we chase this issue too much we end up looking like we have a "chip on the shoulder" up here. .

Don't get me wrong , I'm not in favour of nuclear power at all . One of the things that I agree with Sting on , politically. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies. I should never have brought Eck into this - he didnae do anything. I think it was big boy who then ran away.... ohmy.png

I simply thought puerile jokes and comments could be made about any personality however remotely involved with the process/discussion, not just Cameron, daft Tory MPs, Texans and Dixon.

Didnae know there were rules and exclusions. sad.png

My rebuke was feck all to do with you using 'Eck'.

You were inferring that a Yes vote meant that the next First Minister of Scotland would be 'Eck'. Stop scaremongering and misleading folk! That is not the case. That would be a decision taken by the Scottish electorate (not you I believe?), at the first General Election AFTER the Yes vote.

Could easily be Joanna ...gawd help us!

Edited by Vambo57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rebuke was feck all to do with you using 'Eck'.

You were inferring that a Yes vote meant that the next First Minister of Scotland would be 'Eck'. Stop scaremongering and misleading folk! That is not the case. That would be a decision taken by the Scottish electorate (not you I believe?), at the first General Election AFTER the Yes vote.

Could easily be Joanna ...gawd help us!

I think its a fair assumption to make that Salmond will be the First Minister for at least 2 terms (possibly more) if there is a Yes vote. saying anything else is just nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rebuke was feck all to do with you using 'Eck'.

You were inferring that a Yes vote meant that the next First Minister of Scotland would be 'Eck'. Stop scaremongering and misleading folk! That is not the case. That would be a decision taken by the Scottish electorate (not you I believe?), at the first General Election AFTER the Yes vote.

Could easily be Joanna ...gawd help us!

Don't think the SNP would win an election if the Yes vote was too win , either way I'm voting no ,and its not because of Wee Alex or the SNP ,my main concern is whoever wins the election would manage too deliver all the promises of the current Scottish Government who just happen too be SNP have made if the YES camp do win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The bit in bold, surely an executive would be a group of appointees rather than an elected group. if a council is considered local government then the properly named Scottish Government surely fill the criteria of regional or national government.

I'm afraid you are being a bit selective here in labelling it a defence issue. This could also be construed as an environmental issue or as a potential health issue. it also has potential crossover into other areas. as such the radiocative contamination should most certainly have been communicated to the SG, by SEPA if by no-one else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

I think its a fair assumption to make that Salmond will be the First Minister for at least 2 terms (possibly more) if there is a Yes vote. saying anything else is just nonsense.

dunno about that - I could see him having a "churchill" election defeat

Edited by TPAFKATS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't see how that is the fault of the London government, the MoD told Sepa not to make it public, and I can see why, it would be around the time of the Fushima plant disaster and they would have been mass public out cry and fall out, its the duty of the MoD to keep some things away from the public eye regardless if we like it or not.

It was kept private for "security reasons" .

This has nothing to do with public safety or mass hysteria and everything to do with wanting to maintain the image to the outside world that we had a functioning nuclear submarine when in actual fact we didn't.

Our international status was considered more important than public health.

Sorry but I don't find it acceptable to cover this up at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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.

This is a reason for voting against the system which allows this appalling state of affairs and putting a cross next to Yes in September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think the SNP would win an election if the Yes vote was too win , either way I'm voting no ,and its not because of Wee Alex or the SNP ,my main concern is whoever wins the election would manage too deliver all the promises of the current Scottish Government who just happen too be SNP have made if the YES camp do win.

You are voting No because you think the SNP will win the next general election if you vote Yes?

You hate the SNP so much you'd rather have the Tories run us with no electoral mandate?

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bit in bold, surely an executive would be a group of appointees rather than an elected group. if a council is considered local government then the properly named Scottish Government surely fill the criteria of regional or national government.

I'm afraid you are being a bit selective here in labelling it a defence issue. This could also be construed as an environmental issue or as a potential health issue. it also has potential crossover into other areas. as such the radiocative contamination should most certainly have been communicated to the SG, by SEPA if by no-one else.

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.

Edited by zurich_allan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Hmm....

This notion of legal accuracy troubles me somewhat.

In my line of work, I'm involved in interpreting the law - pretty much on a day-to-day basis. This isn't merely an academic interpretation, but a direct practice implementation of various pieces of legislation - criminal and civil.

As you'll be aware, case law and precedent abound in the legal system, and informs its evolution. As such, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the legal system consists only of absolutes. Of course it doesn't. Therefore, I would immediately challenge any assertion that a specific interpretation of any piece of legislation is accurate as such.

I mean no disrespect, but I'm talking from a position of some considerable knowledge and experience myself on this subject. Laws are often flexible and fluid in nature. I am currently involved in a court action that involves a creative and possibly unprecedented approach. We're effectively testing the flexibility of the legislation. That is what the judicial system exists for, as much as for anything else.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rebuke was feck all to do with you using 'Eck'.

You were inferring that a Yes vote meant that the next First Minister of Scotland would be 'Eck'. Stop scaremongering and misleading folk! That is not the case. That would be a decision taken by the Scottish electorate (not you I believe?), at the first General Election AFTER the Yes vote.

Could easily be Joanna ...gawd help us!

Disappointed in you, vambo...

I hadn't understood it was intended as a rebuke.

As it is, you say, you can go f**k yourself. :)

It was a throwaway joke about whatever Eck is PREMIER of an Independent place. IF...

And if you couldn't see that or wilfully won't see that cos you want to over-react and cower under this bully and fear-mongering shite, then I don't gaf.

I hope this helps? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...