ShedTA Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 see excerpt below from Wings re the vow - assuming its real : Real) email correspondence forwarded by an alert reader: From: HARTY, SamSent: 21 October 2014 16:58To: MILIBAND, EdSubject: Official Copy of Vow Dear Ed Mr Clarke has a constituent who would like a formal copy of the Vow that was made prior to the Scottish Referendum. Is it possible for your office to provide Tom with a copy for his constituent? Thanking you in anticipation of your co-operation. Regards Sam On behalf of TOM CLARKE MP And here’s the response: From: WILLIAMS, Angie Sent: 28 October 2014 11:19 To: HARTY, Sam Subject: RE: Official Copy of Vow Hi Sam, There is no official document, it was something that the Daily Record mocked up. My best suggestion would be to send them the attached. We won’t be producing anything more official. Hope this helps. Angie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Well, duh Of course the Record made it up. There was no actual shared vow. And what does that vow actually say? Not a great deal. Morons bought it though. The Daily Record are responsible for fooling Scots into voting No on the premise that they might get more powers. The Labour Party are also responsible though for going along with it. Didn't hear them say anything about "oh thats just something a newspaper mocked up" at the time? the BBC reported it as gospel, obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weekevie04 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 You have to otherwise you'd greet. A nation of Lemmings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If their signatures are on that, surely it's fraud? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekfaejapan Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If their signatures are on that, surely it's fraud? That was my first thought too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Should also be asking the Daily Record what it is they meant by "Three Leaders Sign Promise To Scotland". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Did anykunt actually believe this shit was worth anything? If so they are a fecking mongo. Edit to change m0r0n to mongo as the Mods think "m0r0n" is more offensive, clearly. Edited October 28, 2014 by Parklife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Did anykunt actually believe this shit was worth anything? If so they are a fecking mongo. Edit to change m0r0n to mongo as the Mods think "m0r0n" is more offensive, clearly. Nope, but exposing and publicising the bull$hit helps undermine the press and the parties for the scumbags that they are. It's not a question of people being mongos/mor0ns/m0r0ns - it's about eating away and whatever misplaced trust some people still have for the establishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 Did anykunt actually believe this shit was worth anything? If so they are a fecking mongo. Edit to change m0r0n to mongo as the Mods think "m0r0n" is more offensive, clearly. No parklife but I think to actually have written confirmation from one of the parties involved that it was bollox, raises potential questions about electoral fraud. not that we thought they would ever keep the vow but the fact it was peddled as a real document by many to decieve many which was obvioulsy completely false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jailender Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It was the Record who published it, not the 3 amigos, so can't see how they could be held culpable for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 It was the Record who published it, not the 3 amigos, so can't see how they could be held culpable for it. with their signatures on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jailender Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Do we know they actually signed it, or did the Record just cut and paste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Do we know they actually signed it, or did the Record just cut and paste? Guarantee they signed nothing at all but were happy for the DR to take any rap in the future..not sure who is the more dense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 1. The top right paragraph on the page implies that the leaders have signed it. Even if this is just authorising an electronic scan, rather than actual unique ink signature on paper (though in a 300 year crisis, you might think a real vow would merit it). There can be no doubt they must be assumed to be 'signatories' to the front page text. 2. The top right paragraph also says the test is 'in their own words'. This could still leave room that someone else drafted them before they added their signatures. But in combination it implies the document is as if written and signed by them - as if on scotland-watermarked parchment - and then scanned and printed. 3. The main text refers to extended powers but nowhere does it say what those powers are. If it means the three parties' separate devo proposals, then these clearly were not and are not agreed. If it refers to Brown's pronouncements, this could mean anything up to 'home rule... short of federalism'. 4. The main text implies the existence of (a) an agreed process, (b ) an agreed timetable. Presumably, the process and timescale can be tracked down to Brown's pronouncements endorsed by Cameron. 5. It also refers to 'principles and values'. This might might just be referring to the statements on the page itself, like sharing equitably etc. Or maybe on the earlier sentence, which sounds like a circular argument. It's not clear what they mean by honouring those 'before and after the referendum'. Could it mean a different kind of honouring, before and after? Or does it just mean they just believe in staying together for the sake of it, before and after? 6. The statement about the continuing Barnett formula and the NHS budget need more clarification. If Cameron, Miliband and Clegg signed this, it surely must mean something specific here. Even if a Record journalist drafted the text, they must have authorised it. This either means something significant, or is logically flawed, or misleading, or something else. If it is logically correct and means something, then Miliband or any of the three parties must be able to spell out what it means. If it just means that ultimately Holyrood can spend money it holds from whatever source, on any devolved power then that is not saying much. They need to confirm if that is the case. Or else, if it means proper protection of both Barnett and NHS in some way, then they must be able to tell us their agreed line on it, otherwise the Vow will be shown to be an empty promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It says in the top right they signed a historic agreement... so did they or did they not? Did the three of them instead perhaps all allow (through their joint silence) the Daily Retch to print utter lies with their signatures all printed at the bottom just days before the referendum in order to cheat the vote to No? What do you ing think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 The It says in the top right they signed a historic agreement... so did they or did they not? Did the three of them instead perhaps all allow (through their joint silence) the Daily Retch to print utter lies with their signatures all printed at the bottom just days before the referendum in order to cheat the vote to No? What do you ing think? The "email" by "Angie" (if true) implies the format was mocked up by the Record, but implies the message was genuine, because she's implying the front page is all there is of the Vow to be used to send to the constituent. It implies Miliband must stand by the process and timetable (presumably Brown's) and that the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and Barnett formula will continue, and the NHS will be protected.... etc. So, whatever 'extended powers' are agreed, it must include an order to make the Scottish Parliament permanent? That might need a little Westminster legislation...? Maybe that is the historic agreement? Blair: power devolved is power retained Dewar: There shall be a Scottish Parliament The Vow: The Scottish Parliament is permanent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I would still dispute the legal merits of this. I hope the guy at Wings is taking it further. 'Scotland's phuqqing champion'. Good God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bzzzz Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 You have to otherwise you'd greet. A nation of Lemmings. Fkin idiots more like, since when have any 'Scottish' unionist MPs been worthy of anyones trust ffs!? Ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The Guardian catches up... 'The Vow' and the Daily Record - creative journalism or political spin? http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/31/daily-record-scottish-independence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 The Guardian catches up... 'The Vow' and the Daily Record - creative journalism or political spin? http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/31/daily-record-scottish-independence It is the most outrageous interference in a democratic referendum imaginable other than outright vote rigging. The Daily Rogue and Gordon Brown especially are beneath contempt. Modern day rogues. I wonder who drafted the vow, who came up with the idea of vow-bombing the referendum... 7 days before the vote. To cheat it. We do not even know but I suspect someone in Labour knowing they could get the DR to splash on the front page at exactly the time needed. They are all truly disgusting. I really hope the Record goes under but the damage is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 It is impossible for the government to break 'the vow' - if you read it, nothing is promised. Just some woolly words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 More fool the idiots who fell for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Tbh I don't think The Vow changed the referendum result, but it certainly has given the SNP loads of ammunition in the aftermath. So it may have backfired on Labour/The Record... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Tbh I don't think The Vow changed the referendum result, but it certainly has given the SNP loads of ammunition in the aftermath. So it may have backfired on Labour/The Record... I agree fully with that. Possibly the odd simpleton took it in, but it certainly never won it for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 My memory of events were the first poll giving a lead for Yes came out, people could sense the momentum and the leaders of the three main parties were visibly shitting themselves, including the Queen. But hey ho you talk yourself into thinking it made no difference and you would have lost no matter if it makes your wallowing more enjoyable. Mibbes aye mibbes naw, we will never know one way or the other because what was done is done. Amazed at how passive and accepting of all of this some folk are. Are we so used to getting walked over we do not notice it any more. So little outrage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.