Langley baston has just beaten me to it, but I nevertheless feel the need to express my bewilderment at this thread.
It is quite clear that the person starting the thread knew the answer to the question they posed, and the reason for that answer. We might well all agree that it is inappropriate for the Procurator Fiscal not to treat armed services personnel as employed, but that is the way it has been for some time, and certainly is not a stance they developed exclusively in relation to Glen Ogle.
It would be idle for me to speculate why they nevertheless chose to ask the question, and to head it up in a way to draw attention to an accident rather than the underlying jurisdictional point, but what has followed in the thread was both inevitable and entirely foreseeable. Some might say they wanted all of this aired for some ulterior purpose. I just hope it doesn't involve the fourth estate.
I suspect in common with many forum readers, I knew nothing about Glen Ogle; now I only wish I knew nothing about it.