This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
The fact that only 12 per cent—just over a tenth—of charges brought under the 2012 act related to Rangers v Celtic matches does not reflect the narrative that sectarianism in Scotland is primarily the responsibility of those clubs.
The same applies in respect of services. Under article V, I think, of the general agreement on trade in services, agreements on services need to have “substantial sectoral coverage” in order to be compatible with GATS.
The committee will be aware of the result of the recent Hartley v Northumberland Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust employment tribunal case, which will provide substantial assurance that agenda for change has achieved that aim.As the committee will know, NHS boards started receiving equal pay claims in 2005.
For example, at the sell-out Scotland v Ireland six nations match on 10 March 2007—which I attended—12,000 supporters arrived at the ground in the five minutes before kick-off.
It does not take us to a conclusion. Mr Allen mentioned Brown v Ferguson. The Scottish Law Commission describes one concern about the Brown v Ferguson approach as being that it acts as a straitjacket.
Burges SalmonRockford Trilogy Limited v NCR Limited, the Court of Session case from 2021 of Rockford Trilogy Limited v NCR Limited where the Court of Session found that e-mails sent by the tenant to a landlord were sufficient notice of the desire to terminate the lease.
First, given Lord Wheatley's decision in the case of SC v City of Edinburgh Council last year, we need to reinstate the concept of additional support outside the classroom as intrinsic to the additional support that is required under the bill.
What do you see as being the principal article 8 issues arising in connection with the remedial order, with particular reference to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment in the case of R (on the application of T and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (Appellants)?