The Referendum Thread

[zurich_allan]

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 March 7, 2014 by zurich_allan

[salmonbuddie]

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.......

[Drew]

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 March 7, 2014 by Drew

[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.

[Stuart Dickson]

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

[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

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

[zurich_allan]

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.

[RickMcD]

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.

[saintnextlifetime]

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”.

[linwood buddie]

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.

Edited to add smiley .

Edited March 8, 2014 by linwood buddie

[Drew]

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?

[groucho]

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 .

[Callum Gilhooley]

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 ?

[groucho]

Oaksey how did come too that conclusion .

Because he put to and too twogether ? sorry it's been annoying me too long .

[Vambo57]

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.

... Oh I see! Anyone saying that the electorate's choice is "just nonsense", but your "fair assumption" is fact? Aye-right! Your statement is just nonsense.

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?

Yes it was Hilarious. I rather think you've overeacted there old Chap. No need for the personal abuse.

Any way... which way will you be voting?

[RickMcD]

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

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.

[RickMcD]

Two genuine questions:

1. For how long did you practice?

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

Can either of you two legal beagles tell me why the legislature in Norther Ireland is called the Legislature and not Parliament or Government? I thought it served exactly the same purpose albeit we have our own particular difficulties.

I don't know what either of you do for a living but as a layman if I can chip in I always understood that legislation to govern trade and to some extent economics came under the remit of the WTO. From what ZA has said in the past about his involvement in EU lecturing I imagine this must be an area of expertise for him as the EU trades with the rest of the world. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I can't see how Scottish or British case law would be relevant in any dispute nor can I imagine a sheriff or judge having to decide. With regard to the radiation leak ZA seems to have answered that one.

Carry on,guys. I'm finding it interesting.

ETA I should have said NI Assembly, not Legislature.

Edited March 8, 2014 by RickMcD

[linwood buddie]

Because he put to and too twogether ? sorry it's been annoying me too long .

Wee grammar mistake ,sorry I will wait patiently for my fixed fine from the grammar police to pop into my mailbox. On the plus side im glad you see all this referendum stuff as serious as I do when a simple typing mistake can annoy you

[linwood buddie]

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 .

The Scottish people are now beginning to show contempt for the Scottish government ,look at latest By Elections some show as much as 13% swing away from them .

Edited after slap on the wrist from Officer Bluto.

Edited March 8, 2014 by linwood buddie

[bluto]

The Scottish people are now beginning to show content for the Scottish government ,look at latest By Elections some show as much as 13% swing away from them .

Spelling police, here.

I am not content with your above contribution.

[RickMcD]

Spelling police, here.

I am not content with your above contribution.

I like the police thingy rather than pedant. As you're near London, have you got a big helmet?

[salmonbuddie]

The Scottish people are now beginning to show contempt for the Scottish government ,look at latest By Elections some show as much as 13% swing away from them .

Edited after slap on the wrist from Officer Bluto.

Equally, British people are now beginning to show contempt for the British government, look at the latest polls - some show as much as a 10% swing away from them.

Not edited, I don't need any slaps on the wrist from the grammar polis. Or the punctuation polis, for that matter. If only there was an autocorrect polis......

[linwood buddie]

Equally, British people are now beginning to show contempt for the British government, look at the latest polls - some show as much as a 10% swing away from them.

Not edited, I don't need any slaps on the wrist from the grammar polis. Or the punctuation polis, for that matter. If only there was an autocorrect polis......

I've never voted Tory or Lib Dem in any election , nor have I ever voted SNP , neither of them are my choice .

[bluto]

I like the police thingy rather than pedant. As you're near London, have you got a big helmet?

You and wee Rusty saw me in the gym.

What do you think?

Eta. Er... Naw.

Edited March 8, 2014 by bluto

[RickMcD]

You and wee Rusty saw me in the gym.

What do you think?

Eta. Er... Naw.

Maybe it was an Indian club you had in your hand.