Jump to content

Will Westminster MP's sanction the Vow


Alex MacLeod

Recommended Posts

Many people, who may have voted yes, had their minds made up by the VOW from the three stooges a couple of days before the referendum. Now it would appear that the promises made may not get the backing, or even debate, from the backbench parliamentarians.

 

The following taken from SNP media centre:-

 

Tories at Westminster challenge the 'Vow'
Thu, 20/11/2014 - 18:42

 

In the 'devolution and the union' debate at Westminster today back bench Tories once again showed their true colours on the 'Vow'- the promise made by the three Westminster party leaders in the dying days of the referendum campaign guaranteeing extensive new powers for the Scottish parliament - as they stood up to speak in opposition to the Barnett Formula and to question the validity of the 'Vow' - contesting it as it was not something originated at Westminster.

 

Commenting after the debate Pete Wishart SNP MP said:

 

''Today we saw once again the true colours of the Tory backbenches at Westminster.They remain unhappy and disgruntled with their embattled  party leader for being bounced into the 'Vow'  by Labour's Scottish dinosaurs - as speaker after speaker rose to their feet to make the point that this was something agreed by the Prime Minister but not at Westminster by MPs.They made clear they do not feel bound in any way by the ' Vow' - but made absolutely clear they continue to see the Barnett Formula as their key target - potentially slashing Scotland's budget by £4 billion."

 

I feel so sorry for the many who were duped by blatant lies

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too feel sorry for those duped but, frankly they were very naive believing that Westminster politicians and Unionists of whatever hue would, in reality cede the 'home rule' or federalism that Gordon Brown promised.

 

We had the opportunity to shed the shackles of London rule once and for all and, whether or not those less than politically astute fell for the bribe and I agree that more than enough did to swing the vote, we voted democratically to stay in the Union for now.

 

Ochone !

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the O.P. meant the complete OPPOSITE of what he posted - in typical nationalist, Freudian-ship fashion! :lol:

"Many people, who may have voted yes, had their minds made up by the VOW from the three stooges a couple of days before the referendum"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too feel sorry for those duped but, frankly they were very naive believing that Westminster politicians and Unionists of whatever hue would, in reality cede the 'home rule' or federalism that Gordon Brown promised.

 

We had the opportunity to shed the shackles of London rule once and for all and, whether or not those less than politically astute fell for the bribe and I agree that more than enough did to swing the vote, we voted democratically to stay in the Union for now.

 

Ochone !

 

Not  sure they were all duped, though some certainly were.....the ones who are on FB, regretting it now and getting involved in whatever is going to be happening in the forthcoming elections etc were duped......but those who would, in the fulness of time, like independence.....just not right now...... would have voted NO anyway........they're the ones who would have voted for devo max if it had been on offer as an option.  I think, given the predominance of the devo-max option among voters in polls ahead of the referendum, the YES side did pretty well to persuade, by word of mouth, so many that they didn't really need a belt and braces. :wink:

 

Sure voters are naive..the political parties rely on that naivety (and apathy) in every election. They rely on the voters believing that what they say for public consumption at elections is what they actually mean and what they intend to deliver..because they know that once they are in power, they are there for five years and can't be removed, unless they are daft enough to allow a vote of no confidence and lose it.  That is why Westminster fights against anything which will reduce their Tory/NuLabour "buggins turn" electoral system.like the (admittedly flawed) AVC option, any level of devolution which removes their entitlement to full control over the devolved Parliaments.and why they voted against we punters getting to remove incompetent, paedophile, jailbird, troughing fraudsters of MPs.because they are not fit for any purpose but making Westminster a stinking midden.

 

Hopefully, the Scots, at least, have woken up to the lack of democracy in the UK...and won't lose their newly found political engagement. It is looking promising at the moment, but where we go from here, and how fast, will depend on what ends up coming out of Westminster after the Smith Commission recommendations are made into a bill and have travelled through a system which is unsympathetic to Scottish aspirations.  Interesting times ahead, I suspect. (and hope.....as I've rather enjoyed the past couple of years. :smile:  )

Edited by Oddquine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course.  Those who voted No were really secret Yes voters and were "duped".  Is this because you simply cannot understand that the majority were not persuaded that ripping ourselves out of the union was such a good idea?

 

Fact is, what you were being sold was the opposite to what is being critiqued here.  Remember, the separatists who were peddling their fairy tales are also politicians, and hence by definition lying to you.

 

They are all as bad as each other.

Edited by FoolPhysio
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'May', 'Might', is there a difference. Before Browns intervention the polls suggested 51% Yes. The point is that a lot of people were persuaded by Brown and the three stooges based on promises that will likely not be sanctioned. Whether or not that would have made a differeence to the outcome is irrelevant. It was promises made without the backing of parliament. Without the backing of the people who will ultimately decide what powers are delegated.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course.  Those who voted No were really secret Yes voters and were "duped".  Is this because you simply cannot understand that the majority were not persuaded that ripping ourselves out of the union was such a good idea?

 

Fact is, what you were being sold was the opposite to what is being critiqued here.  Remember, the separatists who were peddling their fairy tales are also politicians, and hence by definition lying to you.

 

They are all as bad as each other.

 

Don't think anyone is saying that.....but it is the case that the majority of Scots would have voted for devo-max, if it had been on offer....and on offer at pretty much any level more than the waste of space Scotland Act 2012, which has still to come on stream. The reason it wasn't on offer was because Westminster didn't want to offer it, knowing we'd vote for it...and they didn't want us having more devolution than they had already allowed us. Intransigent No voters, who use terms like "ripping us out of the union"  and "separatists" were and are the minority, and those who wanted constitutional change at some meaningful level were and are the majority.

 

If the Union was so darn great and was working for us, as well as for Westminster, why would we ever have wanted any devolution in the first instance?  If the union was so desirable, why would we have wanted constitutional change at all?  I am inclined to agree about politicians, but do feel that fairy tales are different from the downright deliberate lies and scaremongering employed by Westminster and Bitter Together. Fairy tales give hope, not fear...and hope is something sadly lacking in the UK under Westminster hegenomy  today with the increasingly right-wing quasi-American agenda being instituted. 

 

The YES side offered the possibility that we Scots could be the change we wanted to see.....the NO side offered threats that, after 300+ years of this much vaunted union, we would be treated much worse by Westminster than they treated the ROI, when they fought for their independence....or any other colony which has acquired independence from the Empire over the years. When that tactic was perceived not to be working as well as they would like...they then offered, at the very last minute, what was little more than a "written on the back of a fag-packet" bribe to the third of the voters who would have liked devo-max on the ballot paper in the first place 

 

The pity is that so many people really believed that this time, for once, Westminster meant what they were promising...and believed they had the power to promise anything at all. You'd have thought we'd have learned the lessons of the past, but it seems we have not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'May', 'Might', is there a difference. Before Browns intervention the polls suggested 51% Yes. The point is that a lot of people were persuaded by Brown and the three stooges based on promises that will likely not be sanctioned. Whether or not that would have made a differeence to the outcome is irrelevant. It was promises made without the backing of parliament. Without the backing of the people who will ultimately decide what powers are delegated.

Not just a 51 % poll but huge momentum in the direction of Yes hence the panicky 'pledge'. As I opined above whilst I believe, for what it's worth that without that pledge there would have been a majority for Yes without much doubt.

 

However, the fact is that the majority voted No, whether misled or not, and that is democracy.

 

I agree with Oddquine beyond any shadow of doubt that had Devo Max been on the ballot paper it would have won the day which is precisely why David Cameron used his retained powers to veto that option. In the end, despite the fact that it will not happen, Devo Max is what Gordon Brown 'pledged' on behalf of the three Unionist parties.

 

Labour will feel the wrath of those who belatedly realise they were lied to at the forthcoming Westminster and Holyrood elections when the Smith Commission recommends a very diluted version and Westminster goes on to water it down still.

 

Even the politically naive have decent medium term memories.

Edited by Kingsmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'May', 'Might', is there a difference. Before Browns intervention the polls suggested 51% Yes. The point is that a lot of people were persuaded by Brown and the three stooges based on promises that will likely not be sanctioned. Whether or not that would have made a differeence to the outcome is irrelevant. It was promises made without the backing of parliament. Without the backing of the people who will ultimately decide what powers are delegated.

Alex, at the risk of sounding like certain other didactic, self-important posters,   :lol:  here's a wee lecture:

'May' is vastly overused by joe public, maybe because it sounds posher.

'Might' is conditional on some other event having happened.

So if you say 'ICT may have won', it means you don't yet know the score.

If you say 'ICT might have won', it means they didn't, but maybe they would have, if they had taken their chances   :wink:

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One really gets the impression that there are many in the Separatist camp who, although they actually want EVERY power to reside in Edinburgh, are still hoping against hope that not much might be delivered as a result of this "vow" over which they are falling over each other to get their knickers in a twist.

Presumably this is because they regard the disgruntlement factor which they hope to generate as far more important than the Scottish people having a sensible and helpful range of powers devolved to them. The "vow" has become their big soapbox because they think it gives them the best opportunity to create resentment, irrespective of what is delivered and when. So the politics of division and disharmony are clearly as alive and well as ever within the SNP.

As for the mainstream parties, they just seem to be firing out this random stream of devolution suggestions simply because the possibility of doing so now exists.

This is rather like a bunch of kids being given a tenner by their dad and being told to go into this sweetie shop run by a really grumpy shopkeeper to buy a whole lot of stuff. There aren't any sweets that they especially want, but they have the cash so they simply go ahead and randomly grab handfuls of this and that (with labels like "Welfare", "Taxation" etc).

Meanwhile the shopkeeper - a new grumpy woman who has taken over from the previous grumpy man and has sacked a couple of the most incompetent male assistants and replaced them by women - is going to girn and whinge irrespective of what the kids buy because she's actually more interested in being grumpy than in selling sweets.

(By the way I haven't been in Dingwall for a while but I'm sure the sign in "Salmond's holiday home" will now be saying "Day #74 and still no new powers!! Fact!" :laugh: )

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

'May', 'Might', is there a difference. Before Browns intervention the polls suggested 51% Yes. The point is that a lot of people were persuaded by Brown and the three stooges based on promises that will likely not be sanctioned. Whether or not that would have made a differeence to the outcome is irrelevant. It was promises made without the backing of parliament. Without the backing of the people who will ultimately decide what powers are delegated.

Alex, at the risk of sounding like certain other didactic, self-important posters,   :lol:  here's a wee lecture:

'May' is vastly overused by joe public, maybe because it sounds posher.

'Might' is conditional on some other event having happened.

So if you say 'ICT may have won', it means you don't yet know the score.

If you say 'ICT might have won', it means they didn't, but maybe they would have, if they had taken their chances   :wink:

 

 

Linguistic pedant   :smile: Petty middle aged curmudgeons of the World unite...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

'May', 'Might', is there a difference. Before Browns intervention the polls suggested 51% Yes. The point is that a lot of people were persuaded by Brown and the three stooges based on promises that will likely not be sanctioned. Whether or not that would have made a differeence to the outcome is irrelevant. It was promises made without the backing of parliament. Without the backing of the people who will ultimately decide what powers are delegated.

Alex, at the risk of sounding like certain other didactic, self-important posters,   :lol:  here's a wee lecture:

'May' is vastly overused by joe public, maybe because it sounds posher.

'Might' is conditional on some other event having happened.

So if you say 'ICT may have won', it means you don't yet know the score.

If you say 'ICT might have won', it means they didn't, but maybe they would have, if they had taken their chances   :wink:

 

Disagree. What if I'm talking to someone and I say 'ICT might have won today. I haven't had a chance to check the results yet.'

 

Anyway, who, way back in the year dot, was it that decided we all had to speak a specific way and that people should be selected to teach us how to speak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rich and Powerful, mun!  Way back when, like.

'Cos speaking it their way meant obeisance, forelock-plucking, loyalty, deference, feigned admiration and respect for, their flag....eh?

 
Meaning the Proletariat and the Great Unwashed didnae understaun a word they said......which is precisely what they wanted in their enclaves of excellence..... Right?     Meaning control with a capital "C", see.

 

All of which I found detestable, deflating, delineating, demanding of a long tongue for boot licking and darned depressing. Which is part of the reason I left Westminster, London and such vagaries of the business class in Scotland and their ilk and boarded my own H.M.S. Mayflower to seek out a new land of promise and fulfillment.

 In a land where money is the great leveler, not hoitytoityness, and if you can do the job and get along with people then you don';t have to worry about getting fired by mean- spirited or deranged  persons since there is always another job just round the corner  that you can expect to get . IF you can prove up front that you are a likely-lad with some acumen.

You see, dearies, people either like you or they dislike you right off the bat and I have met some very interesting people that I liked also and retained their goodwill for long periods of time.In business it's not the instant buck that you value the most but recurring business from reliable customers that pay you timeously. Which in turn pays your recurring bills and allows you to consolidate , improve, buy better equipment, advertise and build.  

 

Oh, and if you are willing to work at anything then your chances of getting on increase exponentially. At which point you don't have to worry overmuch about asking when you might expect to get promoted since if they fire you on the spot then the guy next door will step forward and say to you....''Heh Scar.  I have been watching your situation and I knew that you were either going to quit or get fired so, now it has happened, how about joining me in  buying a business in North Vancouver. Sure,John, why not? I aint got nuffink to lose, buddy, and the settlement that I wrung out of that drunken madman will last me for at least 3 months..... 

And thereby lies a tale, chums, since Uncle Scarlet thereafter built up and stayed in that business for 29 years to retirement....and was much happier to boot since I had got rid of the collar and tie, was my own boss and knew that if I didn't work hard then  I wouldn't eat--just the ticket. :crazy:

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'May', 'Might', is there a difference. Before Browns intervention the polls suggested 51% Yes. The point is that a lot of people were persuaded by Brown and the three stooges based on promises that will likely not be sanctioned. Whether or not that would have made a differeence to the outcome is irrelevant. It was promises made without the backing of parliament. Without the backing of the people who will ultimately decide what powers are delegated.

Alex, at the risk of sounding like certain other didactic, self-important posters, :lol: here's a wee lecture:

'May' is vastly overused by joe public, maybe because it sounds posher.

'Might' is conditional on some other event having happened.

So if you say 'ICT may have won', it means you don't yet know the score.

If you say 'ICT might have won', it means they didn't, but maybe they would have, if they had taken their chances :wink:

Disagree. What if I'm talking to someone and I say 'ICT might have won today. I haven't had a chance to check the results yet.'

Anyway, who, way back in the year dot, was it that decided we all had to speak a specific way and that people should be selected to teach us how to speak?Alex, Alex, Alex. I agree with your overall feeling. Say whatever you want, however you want, and bugger anybody who objects. It's a free country, allegedly.

But language should be precise and nothing to do with class as Pimple implies. I consider myself working class and will proudly use dialect but will not use bad grammar just for the sake of it.

You brought this on yourself by giving Sneckboy an opening, as he took the opposite meaning from what you intended, and If I was on the NO side I would have jumped on it too.

It doesn't make any difference whether you disagree. In the example you quoted, the word 'might' is wrong, although it's extremely common to use it as you did. It's the same as people learning not to say 'I done it'.

Sorry, Peter the Pedant.

Edited by TheMantis
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Alex, Alex, Alex. I agree with your overall feeling. Say whatever you want, however you want, and bugger anybody who objects. It's a free country, allegedly.

But language should be precise and nothing to do with class as Pimple implies. I consider myself working class and will proudly use dialect but will not use bad grammar just for the sake of it.

You brought this on yourself by giving Sneckboy an opening, as he took the opposite meaning from what you intended, and If I was on the NO side I would have jumped on it too.

It doesn't make any difference whether you disagree. In the example you quoted, the word 'might' is wrong, although it's extremely common to use it as you did. It's the same as people learning not to say 'I done it'.

Sorry, Peter the Pedant.

I agree with Mantis :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

More recently signed up members of this forum MAY (present tense) not get that allusion. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

'May', 'Might', is there a difference. Before Browns intervention the polls suggested 51% Yes. The point is that a lot of people were persuaded by Brown and the three stooges based on promises that will likely not be sanctioned. Whether or not that would have made a differeence to the outcome is irrelevant. It was promises made without the backing of parliament. Without the backing of the people who will ultimately decide what powers are delegated.

Alex, at the risk of sounding like certain other didactic, self-important posters, :lol: here's a wee lecture:

'May' is vastly overused by joe public, maybe because it sounds posher.

'Might' is conditional on some other event having happened.

So if you say 'ICT may have won', it means you don't yet know the score.

If you say 'ICT might have won', it means they didn't, but maybe they would have, if they had taken their chances :wink: Disagree. What if I'm talking to someone and I say 'ICT might have won today. I haven't had a chance to check the results yet.'

Anyway, who, way back in the year dot, was it that decided we all had to speak a specific way and that people should be selected to teach us how to speak? Alex, Alex, Alex. I agree with your overall feeling. Say whatever you want, however you want, and bugger anybody who objects. It's a free country, allegedly.

But language should be precise and nothing to do with class as Pimple implies. I consider myself working class and will proudly use dialect but will not use bad grammar just for the sake of it.

You brought this on yourself by giving Sneckboy an opening, as he took the opposite meaning from what you intended, and If I was on the NO side I would have jumped on it too.

It doesn't make any difference whether you disagree. In the example you quoted, the word 'might' is wrong, although it's extremely common to use it as you did. It's the same as people learning not to say 'I done it'.

Sorry, Peter the Pedant.

 

 

I agree with Mantis....More surprisingly, at least to me, I also find myself agreeing with CB.

Edited by Kingsmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I agree with Mantis....More surprisingly, at least to me, I also find myself agreeing with CB.

 

Unfortunately you probasbly won't find yourself agreeing with this though.

 

It has emerged today that the Smith Commission, as "vowed", has agreed on recommendations for more devolution. These, presumably to the dismay of Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall and a few other fellow travellers, are apparently due to be published - three days ahead of timescale - on Thursday.

I would imaginme that the next steps thereafter will be:-

* The Nats, even though they may stop short of stomping out of the Smith Commission in the huff, throw the rattle out of the pram and try to create more disharmony and resentment by claiming that the proposals don't go far enough. (This is a very safe bet even though we don't actually know yet what the proposals are.) and....

* Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall goes totally apoplectic, tears down the fairy lights he has put round his "Day #77 and still no extra powers. Fact." sign in his window and jumps out of said window in protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I agree with Mantis....More surprisingly, at least to me, I also find myself agreeing with CB.

 

Unfortunately you probasbly won't find yourself agreeing with this though.

 

It has emerged today that the Smith Commission, as "vowed", has agreed on recommendations for more devolution. These, presumably to the dismay of Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall and a few other fellow travellers, are apparently due to be published - three days ahead of timescale - on Thursday.

I would imaginme that the next steps thereafter will be:-

* The Nats, even though they may stop short of stomping out of the Smith Commission in the huff, throw the rattle out of the pram and try to create more disharmony and resentment by claiming that the proposals don't go far enough. (This is a very safe bet even though we don't actually know yet what the proposals are.) and....

* Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall goes totally apoplectic, tears down the fairy lights he has put round his "Day #77 and still no extra powers. Fact." sign in his window and jumps out of said window in protest.

 

And what have they agreed to devolve?   Linkie, please.   As near as dammit to Home Rule/DevoMax/Federalism.....as per the VOW?  I betcha it isn't anything remotely like that.

Edited by Oddquine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what have they agreed to devolve?   Linkie, please.   As near as dammit to Home Rule/DevoMax/Federalism.....as per the VOW?  I betcha it isn't anything remotely like that.

 

 

Not announced until Thursday... three days ahead of schedule, as already stated. Your last two sentences merely evoke the shortest of responses - QED.

 

PS - remembering the noise (sic) and claims the SNP made during the Referendum campaign about mega-oil revenues, in the face of plummeting oil prices, I don't seem to hear you complaining too much about that. Strange. :smile:

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy