** Official 'new Powers Timetable **

[Maq]

Just so we can keep on the feckers backs...

Anyone heard a motion passed in parliament yet??

[jailender]

Well, as Parliament is in recess, that'll be a no.

[Maq]

Quite!

That's what said they'd do though.

1 down so far

[exile]

The so-called vow refers to the process and timetable but does not say what the powers are - does not even refer to the three individual party proposals.

The so-called vow is on closer inspection, mostly a set of beliefs and assertions about the benefits of the Union. Even the reference to the NHS is simply a statement of fact that the Scottish Govt has final say on spending, but that does not say the budget of funds coming north would be protected.

The timetable is already broken. Even if the Parliament was in recess on 19th - which everyone must have known - the timetable surely demanded recall of Parliament (as it might have been in the event of a Yes vote.)

Who is holding this Government to account over it? Not the official opposition, who are in bed with them, and certainly not the media. Same old, same old...

[scotlad]

You think they'd have known they weren't actually in work that day!

And we preferred to be ruled by this mob.

Edited September 24, 2014 by scotlad

[The Laud]

I noticed gordon brown must have crawled back under the stone he came from.

[exile]

Can anyone explain the 'more powers' in relation to the General Election?

Will the Scotland Bill of Burns Night be a single package that the 3 main westminster parties have in their manifestos?

If so, then the General Election becomes a 'referendum' on 'the vow' - whether Scots want that set of powers or not.

If the package is a meagre mangy affair, - or even one disadvantageous to Scotland - then people would have the chance to reject it by voting for Yes parties.

If the package gives substantial powers with a healthy cashflow, then people south of the border can vote UKIP if they think the big parties are giving too much.

If there is not an agreed single package, then that does not sound like what 'the vow' promised. if the 3 parties fight on their own separate 2014 proposals, then voters in Scotland can still reject all of them by voting for a Yes party.

In the event of a hung parliament, and a Tory-UKIP coalition, presumably the vow would be declared null and void. Just as coalition allowed Clegg to wriggle out of his education pledge.

Edited September 26, 2014 by exile

[Cove_Sheep]

According to something on the radio there was a motion.

Signed only by Dave, Nick, Ed and Broon.

[fishcumnock]

When I have a "motion" I imagine david cameron under it , makes me feel better .

[Maq]

According to something on the radio there was a motion.

Signed only by Dave, Nick, Ed and Broon.

Broon?!? an opposition, back bench 'former politician', what's it got to do with him?

[HIGHTOWER 1314]

Hopefully he isnt at the rovers the morn because he`s a f--king jinx plus it would mean giving him grief for 2 f--k ups instead of 1.

[exile]

According to Alan Trench, Devo Max is off the table and was never on it

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/new-powers-must-be-compatible-with-staying-in-uk-1-3555400

http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/snp-sorry-the-referendum-result-takes-devo-max-off-the-table/

OK, so who said you'd get Devo Max if you voted no? Was it (just) David Dimbleby? (and by implication, Gordon Brown for not correcting him?)

So... either the No side was misleading, or the BBC was (or both) - which is it?

Edited September 28, 2014 by exile

[Parklife]

Didn't Gordon brown say we'd get "as close to federalism as possible"?

[ParisInAKilt]

And home rule was mentioned as well.

The implied more powers are never going to happen. It won't take long before people realise that the change needed won't happen unless Westminster changes their ways.

All the relatively easy powers are devolved already aren't they?

This is why it's important not to stop and let them off the hook.

[exile]

Didn't Gordon brown say we'd get "as close to federalism as possible"?

Just about, yes. As reported in today's SoS:

Brown said:

“The choice is now between irreversible separation, or voting for a stronger Scottish Parliament. We are talking about a big change in the constitution. It’s like home rule in the UK. We would be moving quite close to something near to federalism in a country where 85 per cent of the population is from one nation. Change is in the air and change is coming.”

SoS added:

"His message of vote No for change was hammered home for the rest of the campaign in interviews and from the television studios."

And reports:

"But Labour is likely to resist calls from the SNP for a more “federal” settlement, as promised during the campaign by former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown."

http://www.scotsman.com/mobile/news/uk/smith-commission-labour-and-tories-close-to-deal-1-3555402

[ParisInAKilt]

Just about, yes. As reported in today's SoS:

Brown said:

The choice is now between irreversible separation, or voting for a stronger Scottish Parliament. We are talking about a big change in the constitution. Its like home rule in the UK. We would be moving quite close to something near to federalism in a country where 85 per cent of the population is from one nation. Change is in the air and change is coming.

SoS added:

"His message of vote No for change was hammered home for the rest of the campaign in interviews and from the television studios."

And reports:

"But Labour is likely to resist calls from the SNP for a more federal settlement, as promised during the campaign by former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown."

http://www.scotsman.com/mobile/news/uk/smith-commission-labour-and-tories-close-to-deal-1-3555402

They really did shite themselves

[Hertsscot]

They really did shite themselves

And hopefully will again. There must be absolutely nailed if they renege or water down their promises. I'd be quite happy to donate money to anyone pushing a leaflet through the door to highlight broken promises.

[exile]

And hopefully will again. There must be absolutely nailed if they renege or water down their promises. I'd be quite happy to donate money to anyone pushing a leaflet through the door to highlight broken promises.

The trick bit is, what exactly were the promises? The timetable is clear from the Daily Record (the new official organ of the British state) but the powers themselves were never agreed.

Going by what is being said in the articles in today's Scotland and Sunday - the links above - Alan Trench and the other one about Gordon Brown - it is clear that some (Labour and others) have no intention of honouring what Gordon Brown promised, even though it was Brown's intervention that was supposedly crucial in 'saving the union'.

[a_broxibear]

still worth sending this image to your MP/MSP demanding answers. Peoples voted were swayed because of information being sent out. Imagine the uproar if someone became prime minister because of promising certain policies, then the next day saying Im not doing that anymore - this is pretty much what has happened here.

[ParisInAKilt]

I think what's worse was the media's willingness to promote these new powers and not question why a labour backbencher was the one delivering them. Ridiculous really.

[exile]

Around 4:40 Dimbleby refers to 'home rule' and asserts that the party leaders have backed it.

Around 6:20 the Barnett formula will continue.

This is on national TV (BBC1 16th Sept I think), there surely cannot be quibbling that this was what was being promised.

10:48 Dimbleby points out leaders say they'll honour the principles and values not only before the referendum but after - not only on Thursday, but Friday morning too (laughter all round!)

Edited September 28, 2014 by exile

[exile]

This appears close to the earlier quote:

"We are talking about a big change in the constitution. It’s like home rule in the UK. We would be moving quite close to something near to federalism in a country where 85 per cent of the population is from one nation. Change is in the air and change is coming.”

[exile]

Gordon Brown's Loanhead speech

The first bit is local in-jokes and Scotland still being a nation, and a reference to beating the reigning world champions in 1967 (what about Argentina?)

8:10 is when he finally gets to the proposed powers

Around 9.30: Mentions railways not for profit; and reforming the crown estates commission...

...powers over elections... housing benefit...

Was this list ever written down? Was it agreed to by the Tories?

Edited September 28, 2014 by exile

[Hertsscot]

The trick bit is, what exactly were the promises? The timetable is clear from the Daily Record (the new official organ of the British state) but the powers themselves were never agreed.

Going by what is being said in the articles in today's Scotland and Sunday - the links above - Alan Trench and the other one about Gordon Brown - it is clear that some (Labour and others) have no intention of honouring what Gordon Brown promised, even though it was Brown's intervention that was supposedly crucial in 'saving the union'.

What does Brown do then? Does he just shrug that off or as the 'proud Scot' does he genuinely believe in greater powers and speak out if they are not delivered?

[exile]

What does Brown do then? Does he just shrug that off or as the 'proud Scot' does he genuinely believe in greater powers and speak out if they are not delivered?

He named Miliband and Lamont as if he sees them as part of his plan. But if Cameron went back on it, you could imagine him blaming it all on the Tories?