saintnextlifetime Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) 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 March 6, 2014 by FTOF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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"? Aye, me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) 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 March 6, 2014 by saintnextlifetime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Aye, me! Aye , but you have always favoured local government , bluto. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) My apologies. I should never have brought Eck into this - he didnae do anything. I think it was big boy who then ran away.... 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. 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 March 7, 2014 by Vambo57 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbar_bud Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) 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 March 7, 2014 by TPAFKATS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) 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. Oaksey how did come to that conclusion . Edited March 8, 2014 by linwood buddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) 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 March 7, 2014 by zurich_allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 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. 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 March 7, 2014 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 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? 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.