
  Given that there hasn't been any acceleration to cause these velocities, [...]


As a side issue, even in Newtonian mechanics, accelerations don't cause velocities. Accelerations are just a measure of how rapidly velocities are changing.

What you're running into here is the fact that general relativity doesn't have any notion of how to measure the motion of object A relative to a distant object B. It is neither true nor false that A and B gain relative velocity due to cosmological expansion. It is neither true nor false that A and B have nonzero accelerations relative to one another. Frames of reference in GR are local, not global. It's valid to say that distant galaxies are moving away from us at some velocity. It's also valid to say that everything is standing still, but the space between us and the distant galaxy is expanding.


  [...] are there still relativistic effects in play? That is, is there time dilation between the two frames?


Kinematic time dilation is well defined in SR, which means that in GR it's only defined locally. Gravitational time dilation is only well defined in GR in the case of a static spacetime, but cosmological spacetimes aren't static. So it is neither true nor false that there is time dilation between us and a distant galaxy. Concretely, you could measure Doppler shifts. If you feel like interpreting these shifts in purely kinematic terms, you can assign a velocity to the distant galaxy relative to us. But this is not mandatory and actually doesn't really work very well, in the sense that the velocity you get is usually several times smaller than the rate at which the proper distance between the galaxies is increasing. (Proper distance is defined as the distance you would measure with a chain of rulers, each at rest relative to the CMB, at a moment in time defined according to a notion of simultaneity defined by cosmological conditions such as the temperature of the CMB.) In particular, there are galaxies that we can observe that are now and always have been receding from us at $v&gt;c$, if you define $v$ as the rate of change of proper distance. The fact that we can observe them tells us that their Doppler shifts are finite and correspond to $v&lt;c$.

Here is a nice popular-level article that explains a lot of this kind of stuff:

Davis and Lineweaver, "Misconceptions about the Big Bang," http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03

It's paywalled, but there are lots of copyright-violating copies floating around on the web.

The following is a presentation of the same material at a higher level:

Davis and Lineweaver, "Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

What are the relativistic effects of expanding spacetime?
I was wondering if I should include my high school details in the resume of my graduate school application ? It's unclear about this bit since we are not actually submitting any proof of high school records during grad school application( they only ask for undergraduate details).
But my high school final examination details are particularly good (better than my undergraduate credentials infact!)
