Scottish independence referendum deal agreed.

[Biohazard]

I doubt anything would help many areas of Glasgow, they are so far down the pan through their own choosing (but I'm sure Biohazard will blame Westminster for forcing them to crime, drugs and poor health standards) that a relocation of government institutions isn't going to help them. It'll probably only take away money from the area into to afford the transition.

Your pejorative terms give your bias away, so much for your concern and empathy for your fellow citizens. Not all poor people are a synonym for crime drugs and poor health although I realise why a Scots Tory would be so off kilter as to even know what the floor is from the ceiling. Sociopathic. Every single Scots Tory I listen bleat on about the self indulgent poor that's all I can think of.

There have always been poor communities in Scotland and every other nation on earth, and while there is an element of chance, choice and other influences.. politics quite clearly plays its part. And did so. But it's not like a Tory to try and tear at the societal fabric now is it..

 

[Biohazard]

And destroyed many of the formerly beautiful views in Scotland It's quite a sad sight seeing the beautiful scenery blighted by hundreds of these awful things as you meander up the M74 these days

Horrible things. Nuclear power is more efficient and cheaper

I quite like them in some places, not so much in others. I see it as good for Scotland, and there are enough views with nothing at all in sight let alone turbines for me to be happy.

Efficiency and technology shall progress, these things like economies and the environment change and so will our energy habits.

 

[Biohazard]

You and I both know it doesn't work like that. You can't easily completely change somebodies job role, if somebody is a trained XYZ you can't turn round and say one day 'Sorry, you are now going to do something totally different' instead. Especially as they are not even currently employed by an organisation that has anything to do with windfarms anyway!

My father in law worked at Faslane, and in the RN for most of his life. He's done everything from making sails, fighting in the Falklands to dentistry, bomb disposal and diving and fishery protection duties, firing weapons of all sizes, strange ass jungle missions, underwater repairs on nuclear powered subs, working in training and then also recruitment and shed loads of adminstration type stuff... and a lot more I've probably forgotten about. Oh, apparently RN divers are used by commercial Nuclear power plants to clean some stuff out or something. Mother dear went nuts when she heard about this.

Myself as a civil servant of more than a decades service, have been tasked to an increadible variety of things also.

I don't think you actually understand what service life is like, or the fact that what I want or my father wanted or what 600 Faslane military personal want is actually a worthless concept in terms of operational delivery, lawful management instruction (which arguably nuclear weapons fall foul of upon any notion of launch) and the will of Parliament.

Is it any different when my old man's last boat was de-commisioned? He didn't want a shore based role, but guess what?

Land ah-hoi!!

I've no idea what you do (and it's not really relevant so I'll use examples) but if your boss said 'I know you are a server admin Biohazard but actually from tommorrow you are going to be a postman' you wouldn't nod and say 'ok', you'd fight it or move somewhere else where you can continue to be a server admin.

Why would orders given to people who work on nuclear military hardware involve working on a civilian wind farm?

Stop being facetious. You know exactly what has been meant, you aren't a stupid man so come now..

Yes, one day I was handed a letter which said 'Your operational unit has been closed. You will now be put into a looking-for-a-job pool where you can sit and wait until you can find a job or we force 'manage' you into one. K thnx by!'.

Who am I going to complain to about lawful management instruction?

Yes, exactly. Therefore should parliament remove the role, then those people would have to be tasked to something else.

No one has suggested picking up groups of people and moving them across whole sectors, this is vacuous nonsense dreamt up by a political opposition completely lacking ability and ambition.

 

[Bear]

By not being apart of something Scotland loathes and has never consented to?

Civic Scotland strongly rejects them and has done for decades. The several hundred workers could be re-deployed doing something moral.

Or should the opinion of millions of others be rejected so a few can continue to work on a specific technology?

Great and something I dont neccessarily disagree with but I said how does it make the peoples who work on the Trident subs lives better, not everyone elses.

Morality doesnt even come into it, they service a boat, not firing missiles that kill millions of people, not that has happened anyway.

 

[RDM]

He didn't lie.

He certainly misled though.

He only lied if you accepted the quote as verbatim from the Labour MSP..

The '...' obstructed twenty seven words from the transcript of Salmond's statement in the TV interview that is now bizarrely out of everything under scrutiny.

Having watched the actual interview rather than relying on anything from Labour it really does seem that Salmond intentionally obfuscated the legal advice he had or had not received.

Whilst par for the course for a politician it isn't really something we should get behind.

 

[Biohazard]

Great and something I dont neccessarily disagree with but I said how does it make the peoples who work on the Trident subs lives better, not everyone elses.

Morality doesnt even come into it, they service a boat, not firing missiles that kill millions of people, not that has happened anyway.

Again, who cares?

It's not like civil servants and the armed forces normally come with a great deal of contention with regards to how they regard their own position.

Quite simply, if they still have a job in service in another role or an alternative job what is it exactly you are bemoaning here?

And yes, morallity quite clearly comes into play.

 

[Biohazard]

He certainly misled though.

He said general debate, that isn't misleading.

Westminster clearly is though going by the above.

Having watched the actual interview rather than relying on anything from Labour it really does seem that Salmond intentionally obfuscated the legal advice he had or had not received.

Whilst par for the course for a politician it isn't really something we should get behind.

He was continually interrupted, as often the case, and the line of questioning was making several inferrals. Twenty seven words were ommitted so that Labour could accuse him of lying. That's the bottom of the matter.

He said he had legal advice in terms of the debate, that isn't lying. Neither is upholding the principles of minsterial confidentiality of advice which I outlined in a post to Castiel earlier.

 

[RDM]

He said he had legal advice in terms of the debate, that isn't lying. Neither is upholding the principles of minsterial confidentiality of advice which I outlined in a post to Castiel earlier.

No, he didn't lie, but neither was he clear about what he was saying. It would have been no bother at all for him to state that had not sought advice specific to the subject of Europe, which is what the line of questioning was. It very much does look that the omission was intentional.

I know you are not a big fan of the BBC but Andrew Neil is actually quite a good political interviewer, much more so than Nick Robinson or the frankly awful Paxman.

 

[Biohazard]

No, he didn't lie, but neither was he clear about what he was saying. It would have been no bother at all for him to state that had not sought advice specific to the subject of Europe, which is what the line of questioning was. It very much does look that the omission was intentional.

I know you are not a big fan of the BBC but Andrew Neil is actually quite a good political interviewer, much more so than Nick Robinson or the frankly awful Paxman.

But he had, in terms of the debate, why is this so hard to grasp?

He was more than clear, presenters doing their best to conflate issues is neither here nor there.

In any event Alex Salmond has been vindicated on the SG's stance;

Boost for Scottish Government as Lord Advocate vindicates EU legal advice stance

The Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, Scotland's senior law officer, has backed the Scottish Government over the issue of legal advice relating to the EU membership of a future independent Scotland.

In a letter to Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, Mr Mulholland explained that it was sensible and prudent of the Scottish Government not to seek specific legal advice before the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement with the UK Government.

The agreement, signed on October 15 by First Minster Alex Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron, granted a Section 30 Order to the Scottish Parliament giving it the legal power to hold a binding referendum. Any change in the constitutional relationship between Holyrood and Westminster is a reserved power held by the Westminster Parliament, however the agreement ensures that the result of the referendum is binding.

Mr Mulholland said that the deal also set out the conditions for seeking legal advice on Scotland's EU membership. Until these conditions were defined, the Scottish Government could have been charged with wasting public funds if it had formally requested legal advice on the basis of an uncertain legal situation.

The Scottish Government made a formal request to the Lord Advocate to seek legal advice on 23 October, prompting a deluge of criticism from the anti-independence parties and media commentators who have repeatedly questioned the need for the delay.

There have been angry claims from opposition parties that Mr Salmond led many to believe that advice had in fact been sought when it was not the case and that the First Minister should have clarified the situation sooner.

In his letter, Mr Mulholland noted that the convention which says that Government ministers must keep legal advice confidential has been in place since 1865. The convention has been consistently adhered to by UK Governments, and since the introduction of devolution, also by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments.

Mr Mulholland wrote: "It's for ministers to judge the appropriate point to seek specific legal advice from law officers.

"Law officers should be consulted in good time before the Government is committed to significant decisions involving legal consideration.

"The Deputy First Minister has explained to Parliament that the Edinburgh agreement, in laying out an agreed route to independence, provided the basis upon which specific legal advice could be sought.

"Up until that point it was possible that the referendum could be the subject of court proceedings with all the uncertainty that that entails.

"It was possible that the court would rule that this Parliament did not have the power to hold a referendum, in which case the issue would be academic.

"Following the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement, there will be a lawful referendum so that uncertainty has been removed."

The Lord Advocate's intervention followed demands from Scottish Labour for an emergency statement to parliament setting out what advice he gave Mr Salmond and when.

Speaking on October 26th, Labour MSP Patricia Ferguson said: “We have seen a number of contradictory statements from Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon this week, and they have failed to give a credible explanation for the chain of events surrounding this crisis.

“We would like to afford the Lord Advocate an opportunity to make a statement or give evidence as a way of restoring confidence in this process. He should have nothing to hide and it is time he stepped up.”

However, despite the senior law officer's clarification, Labour have now responded by attacking Mr Mulholland's integrity. Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald, the party's spokesman on justice, reacted angrily to Mr Mulholland's statement that the Scottish Government had behaved correctly on the issue and claimed that Scotland's top law officer had been "politically compromised by Alex Salmond".

On October 30, former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish also backed the Scottish Government on the matter, saying that Government ministers had not been misleading in their actions and declarations on the topic of Scottish EU membership.

In recent weeks pro-Union politicians and journalists have maintained that the Scottish Government was misleading the public, a claim that has received wide airing in the Scottish media, including the BBC. Last night's Reporting Scotland saw Labour accusations against Mr Salmond repeated by BBC Scotland political editor Brian Taylor, but no mention was made of the Lord Advocate's clarification statement which had been released that afternoon.

Former Labour First Minister also supports the SG's position.

Westminster won't even let us know their position, other than repeating the same matra that doesn't make any sense regarding their apparent pre-framework solid legal opinion.

They don't want us to have that information for some reason.

 

[Tefal]

so three european commission has said Scotland will not get automatic entry. what's this mean for them then? if they leave they're either out of the eu or if they apply they'll be forced to take on the euro won't they?

 

[yonderblue]

No letter has been sent by the European commission, BBC Radio 4 phoned European Commission this morning and they stated no letter has been sent. When Scotland is indepedent again then the rest of the UK would have to apply which would suit Cameron and his unionist pals as they want out anyway.

 

[RDM]

When Scotland is indepedent again then the rest of the UK would have to apply which would suit Cameron and his unionist pals as they want out anyway.

Seems unlikely as the EU would be saying goodbye to a rather large contributor.

 

[ubersonic]

Lol, turns out Salmond was dead wrong on the EU status as most of us suspected, talk about being pwned ^^

Scotland would have to apply to the EU and lose the UK's opt-out from the euro if voters back separation in the forthcoming referendum, the European Commission has confirmed.

In a significant blow to Alex Salmond, the commission has written to a Lords committee rejecting his claim that Scotland would automatically inherit the UK's membership.

Existing treaties will "cease to apply", the letter confirmed, meaning Scotland would have to try and negotiate its own opt-out from the single currency and the Schengen free movement agreement. It would also lose the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher.

The commission also confirmed the remainder of the UK would remain within the EU as the successor state, contradicting Mr Salmond's claim that it would have the same status as a separate Scotland.

 

[StriderX]

Lol, turns out Salmond was dead wrong on the EU status as most of us suspected, talk about being pwned ^^

Perhaps if the commission bothered to enlighten people earlier, it wouldn't have had to gone on this long.

Then again they do have bigger issues, like the thought of a collapse of the EU, now that is something that I would enjoy.

 

[Biohazard]

so three european commission has said Scotland will not get automatic entry. what's this mean for them then? if they leave they're either out of the eu or if they apply they'll be forced to take on the euro won't they?

Lol, turns out Salmond was dead wrong on the EU status as most of us suspected, talk about being pwned ^^

There is no letter.

Couldn't have happened at a better time either with Leveson & the Edinburgh Agreement in terms of press bias.

 

[elmuzzy66.]

José Manuel Durão Barroso has commented today that Scotland would be out and would need to apply to join the eu in the event of an idependant scotland.

 

[pingwing]

José Manuel Durão Barroso has commented today that Sctoland would be out and would need to apply to join the eu in the event of an idependant sctoland.

Good.

 

[Biohazard]

José Manuel Durão Barroso has commented today that Scotland would be out and would need to apply to join the eu in the event of an idependant scotland.

If he has, that would be in his personal capacity as a politician it is not the EC's considered or official take.

Neither does this make sense even if Scotland was not a successor state like rUK, because it wouldn't happen overnight Scotland would remain in the UK until it had achieved independent framework.

This whole issue is boring the boobies off me now, the press need to get a grip and stop fabricating stuff.

That goes for Lord Faulkes as well, you fat lazy drunkard.

 

[Windle]

There is no letter.

Couldn't have happened at a better time either with Leveson & the Edinburgh Agreement in terms of press bias.

I guess we'll find out soon...

"The European Commission has yet to confirm the details of the letter, which is due to be sent to the House of Lords economic affairs sub committee."

 

[Biohazard]

I guess we'll find out soon...

"The European Commission has yet to confirm the details of the letter, which is due to be sent to the House of Lords economic affairs sub committee."

I'm afraid that is also a Scotsman (Johnstone Press) fabrication. They may have rushed to quickly cover their tracks from this morning - we have copies - but there has been no reply yet.. so they can't have a copy of the letter, "which is due" to be sent. A letter will be, but they aren't talking about that as it hasn't been drafted yet.

The BBC, and others, are all working from the Scotsman's lies from this morning, and their poor attempts to cover their journalistic diarrhea;

However a spokesman for Mr Barroso described the claims made in the article as “incorrect” and insisted no decision had yet been made on how to respond to the committee’s request to the EC President for a statement on an independent Scotland’s EU status.

Responding to a question from Newsnet Scotland, the spokesman said: "President Barroso has been invited to contribute to the House of Lords inquiry on the economic implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence. The President has not yet replied.

"The Commission position is well known and set out in the series of responses given to European parliamentary questions. The Commission has been very clear that we do not comment on specific situations but can only give a view in general".

He added: "So to be clear – no reply has been decided or sent by the President yet so the Scotsman story is incorrect."

However, I hate to correct you and all these newspaper editors, but I suspect we aren't going to find out soon.

Holyrood is confident of its own position, Westminster isn't going to disclose its own legal advice or ask the EU to release it's view. Holyrood is unlikely to, although I've yet to see the shape of their dilligence, means that the EU is overall likely to speak in general terms.

All this fanatical hot dribble about smoking gun letters and a massive hole in the 'seperatist cause' is well absolute make believe by a no campaign with nothing positive to say.