Jump to content

Lanarkshire_Bud

The Referendum Thread

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

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. .

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by linwood buddie

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Only to an extent though Drew - as you'll also know then - for a huge number of areas there are also accepted legal definitions for a mass of things. In effect for example, that's what the majority of statutes do - often clarify and codify areas of law that were previously either common law or even just common practice. In fact, in the modern era, the trend is to supersede those areas that weren't clear with clear statute. Plenty of areas of law are fixed, or rely in applying various fixed laws in conjunction with a situation that is complex - indeed the majority of the time it is the situation itself that is unclear and not the laws themselves.

The notion of legal accuracy in general should not trouble anyone who works with the law.

Edited by zurich_allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That's where I was coming from, ts.

Rick, the post I was referencing was implying that an independent Scotland would have been solely responsible for bailing out RBS and HBOS. The link I gave demonstrated that this is not the case and that other countries bailed out banks no matter what the label on the tin was. It's another non-issue.

Cue StuD with some long rambling crap culminating in it the entire banking collapse being the fault of Reichsfuhrer Salmond.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only to an extent though Drew - as you'll also know then - for a huge number of areas there are also accepted legal definitions for a mass of things. In effect for example, that's what the majority of statutes do - often clarify and codify areas of law that were previously either common law or even just common practice. In fact, in the modern era, the trend is to supersede those areas that weren't clear with clear statute. Plenty of areas of law are fixed, or rely in applying various fixed laws in conjunction with a situation that is complex - indeed the majority of the time it is the situation itself that is unclear and not the laws themselves.

The notion of legal accuracy in general should not trouble anyone who works with the law.

I could cite dozens upon dozens of legal precedents and examples of case law that are based on accepted interpretations of the law. Moreover, there are numerous findings that have their foundation on what was deemed by a Sheriff or Judge to be the spirit, as opposed to the letter of the legislation. I'm afraid this goes a long way to debunking your notion of legal accuracy.

Believe me, my issue lies more with those who would claim to be an unassailable authority on all things legal, than with the rather spurious notion of legal accuracy per se.

ETA: apologies - that last line sounded like a personal dig at you. That wasn't my intention. It was a more general point, based on my own professional experience.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS

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.

Surely the fact that the Holyrood administration is now known as the Scottish Government as opposed to its previous name (Scottish Executive) makes it legally accurate, at least under common law?

Having said that I dont have an issue with you pointing out legal accuracy as you see them, other than it deflecting from the actual issue that was raised regarding the lack of respect from the westminster administration not informing the Holyrood administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Ah I get it. At first I thought your logic was warped. Why would you want to tell those who would seek to ransack your house that your front door lock doesn't work, the door is open and your not going to be home for a good 10 - 15 hours? Then I got it. An Independent Scotland would be so f**ked financially, so destroyed by it's own government that there would be f**k all left for someone to want to invade for.

Fair enough Oaksoft - you are selling Independence to me well now :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS

Ah I get it. At first I thought your logic was warped. Why would you want to tell those who would seek to ransack your house that your front door lock doesn't work, the door is open and your not going to be home for a good 10 - 15 hours? Then I got it. An Independent Scotland would be so f**ked financially, so destroyed by it's own government that there would be f**k all left for someone to want to invade for.

Fair enough Oaksoft - you are selling Independence to me well now rolleyes.gif

As arguments go, the part in bold could so easily have been written about the UK following the actions of the last 4 westminster governments. Or indeed Scotland following the last few decades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could cite dozens upon dozens of legal precedents and examples of case law that are based on accepted interpretations of the law. Moreover, there are numerous findings that have their foundation on what was deemed by a Sheriff or Judge to be the spirit, as opposed to the letter of the legislation. I'm afraid this goes a long way to debunking your notion of legal accuracy.

Believe me, my issue lies more with those who would claim to be an unassailable authority on all things legal, than with the rather spurious notion of legal accuracy per se.

ETA: apologies - that last line sounded like a personal dig at you. That wasn't my intention. It was a more general point, based on my own professional experience.

I get that Drew, I honestly do get it, but when I'm pointing out things on this thread (or others), it's because it's one of those areas that are indeed pretty certain, or indeed those areas where I've seen inaccurate interpretations of the law given when I know the correct interpretation. I don't comment on all areas of the debate, or even all legal areas relating to it. When I do comment it's because it's something accurate I can contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's where I was coming from, ts.

Rick, the post I was referencing was implying that an independent Scotland would have been solely responsible for bailing out RBS and HBOS. The link I gave demonstrated that this is not the case and that other countries bailed out banks no matter what the label on the tin was. It's another non-issue.

Cue StuD with some long rambling crap culminating in it the entire banking collapse being the fault of Reichsfuhrer Salmond.......

I perhaps didn't make my point very well. What was in that article was history but the press regularly shout it from the heavens as if it was news. Barclays moved into the American market in a massive way in the 90's and the noughties. I don't now remember the millions, but America possibly had more to lose than the UK if Barclays went down the plughole. America was looking after American interests.. Now there's a surprise.

I almost posted the other day when you posted the article by David Pratt from the Sunday Herald. I don't know whether he bumped into an old Dutch couple and where Bosnia is concerned we all know Tito held Yugoslavia together for 35 years. Genocide and ethnic cleansing became bywords for the conflicts which broke out after Tito popped his clogs.

Sudan I do know quite a bit about. I'm involved with a school over here and a few years back a doctor from Sudan had his twin sons registered at our school while he worked at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. He and I shared a bottle of gin one night and he told me a lot about his homeland. Two civil wars since the 50's, roughly 2 million dead at least, slavery still common, ethnic cleansing all over the place, anything up to 2million Nomadic people in the country knocking hells bells out of one another. And I'm only talking about Southern Sudan. There are guerilla groups all over the country causing mayhem. On the night before Pratt published his article the Southern Sudan army turned on itself inside their barracks, apparently something to do with not getting paid. I've no idea about casualties.

Now I don't know a damn thing about Pratt but have to wonder if he's well named. What parallels is he trying to draw between Scotland getting independence and Southern Sudan trying to isolate itself from the rest of Sudan which has similar problems to what is going on in the south? In short, I doubt the veracity of his article. I'm prepared to believe that in his five star hotel at night Scottish Independence might have been discussed by expats and other journalists. Not by Sudanese citizens. It sounds to me like lazy journalism. Quiet day at the office. He is clearly a Yes man which he admits.

I'm back to the point I made about HuffnPuff's article, Salmonbuddie. I'm afraid it's another frantic push to mention absolutely anything which might just advance the Yes cause by a millimetre. Don't let facts get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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”.

You mean no Armageddon ,that has just buggered all the rants of conspiracy and cover ups we have had to endure all day.whistling.gif

Edited to add smiley .

Edited by linwood buddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that Drew, I honestly do get it, but when I'm pointing out things on this thread (or others), it's because it's one of those areas that are indeed pretty certain, or indeed those areas where I've seen inaccurate interpretations of the law given when I know the correct interpretation. I don't comment on all areas of the debate, or even all legal areas relating to it. When I do comment it's because it's something accurate I can contribute.

Two genuine questions:

1. For how long did you practice?

2. How often have you successfully challenged the interpretation of a Sheriff or Judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean no Armageddon ,that has just buggered all the rants of conspiracy and cover ups we have had too endure all day.

Never read anything on here about Armageddon or conspiracy, only read people quite rightly pointing out the disdain and contempt shown to the Scottish government .

Share this post


Link to post
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...