The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Posted on November 04, 2014 by

Below is a letter from the editor of the Daily Record sent to a Wings reader yesterday (and, we presume, to many others). We thought you might find it interesting.


“Thank you for your email regarding The Vow.

I believe there is a large amount of misinformation surrounding The Vow, specifically the suggestion that it was a creation of the Daily Record.

This is categorically absolute nonsense.

The Daily Record had no involvement at any point in the wording of The Vow. The words were provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form after being written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.

The offices of the three party leaders also provided electronic versions of their signatures – in keeping with standard practice in this electronic age – specifically to be published at the end of The Vow to demonstrate their commitment to delivering their promise of more powers for Scotland.

The leaders further agreed that the Front Page of the Daily Record would be their chosen mechanism for telling Scotland about their joint commitment. Therefore, Page One of the Daily Record on September 16 IS the official document, of which several hundred thousand copies were produced and distributed on that day.

There seems to be a suggestion that, because the three leaders did not jet into Scotland for a secret summit to sign a piece of parchment with a quill, that The Vow is somehow invalidated.

This could not be further from the truth. The three leaders have all subsequently, and on several occasions, publicly endorsed and reaffirmed their commitment to delivering their vow.

Even the leaders of the SNP and associated Yes campaign organisations, accept the validity of The Vow, even if they are naturally sceptical about what extra powers will ultimately be devolved.

One of the most bizarre suggestions about The Vow is that the leaders knew nothing about it until after it was published by the Daily Record.

To believe the Record could do so and that three powerful politicians like the Prime Minister, his Deputy and the Leader of the Opposition would not then disown The Vow the very next morning is naive in the extreme. Getting politicians to stick to promises they have themselves made is difficult enough. To have them stick to a promise they did not make would be impossible.

The fact is that The Vow is doing its job. It is part of the reason why the Smith Commission is sitting and why Westminster politicians have not been able to renege on their promise to deliver more powers to this country, as the nation demanded in the referendum aftermath.

I hope this note explains the true position regarding The Vow.

Murray Foote

We believe Mr Foote, if only because we find it impossible to imagine any journalist with even the tiniest shred of professional pride ever penning anything as insipid, feeble and meaningless as the empty, weasel-worded platitudes of “The Vow”.

(We’ve also never suggested that there was any need for the document to exist in a physically signed form, nor made the bizarre claim that it was produced and published without the knowledge of the party leaders.)

But all the same, the Record seemed rather keener to assert some sort of ownership of the document at the time:

“David Cameron , Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have signed up to a historic joint statement that was demanded by the Daily Record on behalf of the people of Scotland.”

That’s an interestingly-worded line. “Signed up TO” definitely implies that a thing existed independently of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg which they then agreed to. You’d think that if they’d been responsible for writing the document themselves, as the Record now insists, you’d report it by saying something like “have jointly produced a historic statement” or similar, not the more passive form.

The paper’s article does subsequently say “In their own words, they pledge to work together to transfer more powers”, but is then immediately followed by a repetition of the implication that the Daily Record is responsible for The Vow’s existence:

“The unprecedented agreement was signed after the Record demanded that the leaders clearly explain what they are offering so the Scottish people can decide if it is a better alternative to independence.”

(All emphases in this post are ours.) So we find it revealing that the Record is now adopting the line that “it was nothing to do with us, guv” and putting some very public distance between itself and a document that seems destined for infamy. It remains unclear who contacted who and actually instigated the writing and publishing of “The Vow” on the Record’s front page, or where the final email to Mr Foote was sent from.

In so far as it says anything at all, “The Vow” is unlikely to be broken in any technical sense. You can’t “break” a statement as woolly as “We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen.”

But we suspect that what is finally delivered by way of new powers will fall a very great distance short of what the Scottish public were led to infer by the Daily Record when it decided to make its front page a vehicle for massively hyping up an empty rehash of the three parties’ existing months-old devolution proposals, and trumpeted “NOW VOTERS CAN MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE” as if something dramatic and new had been revealed that day for which the paper was owed the credit.

And when that day comes, we wouldn’t want to be in the Record’s shoes either.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 04 11 14 09:41

    Disavowed - Speymouth

  2. 05 11 14 08:10

    Disavowed | Politics Scotland |

  3. 18 10 18 18:00

    The Information Deficit & the Truth Gap – Digiteach Alba

184 to “Disavowed”

  1. cath says:

    I love the way The Vow is capitalised.

  2. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    So, the VOW was requested by the DR which some “wee boys in suits” drew up and the DR then drew up and created.

    Dodgy VOW, sexed up in DR reportage, editorials and comments by other sections of the MSM, especially the BBC, all designed to deceive the voting public.

    Electoral fraud anybody, or would it be “Uttering” in Scots law?

  3. The Daily Record was responsible for duping the Scottish people when they printed this meaningless ‘document’ on their front pages just days before the vote . When the sun sets on the Smith Commission and the Scots see the lack of any real new powers hopefully it will also set on the Daily Record.

  4. Graeme Doig says:


    The establishment (WM, BBC and other msn) continue to con and deceive the people of Scotland with their lies and double speak. They have been doing this since they, people and lies and double speak existed.
    The difference now is that they have you, and others like you, (proper journalists) holding them to account by exposing the semantics, word play and down right lies they use to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of us plebs.

  5. desimond says:

    Getting politicians to stick to promises they have themselves made is difficult enough

    Hoisted by their own petard!

  6. Doug Daniel says:

    So when Miliband’s folk tried to wash their hands of it by saying there was no official document and that it was something the Record had “mocked up”, they were specifically referring to the Record creating the only physical manifestation of The Vow™, rather than to the content of it.

    That means there’s still an email trail somewhere showing agreement between the Three Amigos as to what the wording should be. It also doesn’t clear up who specifically said “hey, let’s create a thing called The Vow™ to promise Scottish voters whatever they want as long as they just vote No.”

    Who instigated the whole thing? Who decided that the Record was a suitable spokesperson for the UK Government and Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition? Who decided to call it The Vow™?

    And to how many of these questions is the answer in fact “Gordon Brown, Saviour of the Union™”?

  7. I smell shite .i have requested on several occasions the drop in sales of your paper since the19thsept ,why will you not print that or is the truth going to hurt

  8. Shuggy says:

    “The words were provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form after being written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.”

    What? Surely, first you discuss, then you agree, then you set down what you have agreed.

    “The offices of the three party leaders also provided electronic versions of their signatures … to demonstrate their commitment to delivering their promise of more powers for Scotland.”

    The signatures were provided to demonstrate their commitment? This is fluff. Signatures are usually given to identify ownership. This sounds more like signing someone else’s petition to demonstrate support.

    “There seems to be a suggestion that, because the three leaders did not jet into Scotland for a secret summit to sign a piece of parchment with a quill, that The Vow is somehow invalidated.”

    Exaggeration is no defence. People have a right to question the provenance of the agreement. The briefing paper in the House of Commons clearly refers to a document. An e-mail from Ed Miliband’s office says there was no such thing.

    The DR letter is badly written and appears rushed – panicky, even. I smell fear.

  9. Tam Jardine says:

    So it wisnae the Daily Record, Ed Miliband’s office and according to Ming Campbell there was no vow.

    No wonder everyone is walking away. The record are up to their neck in this grand deception.

    Keep at them Flower of Scotland – let’s get to the bottom of this.

    I got a response back from the EC saying that the ‘vow’:

    “was not promised on behalf of the UK government, but on behalf of the leaders of the three registered campaigners the Conservative Party, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The ‘vow’ therefore is a part of their referendum campaign and does not contravene the purdah period.”

    Interesting distinction between the PM, Deputy PM and the UK Government. Maybe in the future they could wear different hats depending on when they speak for their parties and when they speak for the UK.

  10. Michael Duvic says:

    Everyone does realise that all of this is complete bullshit, right? Time wasting.

  11. AnneDon says:

    To be fair to the Daily Record, newspapers often claim ownership of campaigns/ideas, and present any action by politicians as being a response to “their” demands.

    You could read this as being in that same tradition. If you wanted to be charitable. 🙂

  12. gillie says:

    The vow is an albatross around the Daily Record’s neck. They should publish all the emails, because either they are lying or Ed Miliband’s is lying. David Cameron and Nick Clegg should also come clean.

    Let us draft the vow and get all three leaders to sign it. Surely they would be no objection to that.

  13. Robert Kerr says:


    This distinction and differentiation by the EC is at a level of adolescent student politics.

    In the vernacular it is “smart arse talk”.

    I think the gemmes not yet a boogie.

    More popcorn please!

  14. Murray McCallum says:

    The hollow, pompous bullshit of “The Vow” does smack of Gordon Brown. The Record seem to have been an eager contributor to the ultimate creation and mass publication of this piece of crap.

  15. Fairliered says:

    Is there anyone with legal knowledge on this site who would care to comment?

  16. Kenny says:

    Mr. Foote has to to explain how the creation of The Vow was instigated. If it was at the DR’s insistence as they claim, he should be willing to realise at least his side of the correspondence and inform the public who was contacted when and with what request.

    Then the party leaders should be asked what their response was to Mr. Foote and how they came to agree the wording, the timing and so on.

    And then the Electoral Commission should explain how it determines a difference between Tory and Lib Dem party campaigning and UK Government policy. Let’s not forget that fighting against independence was in the Queen’s Speech. It WAS official policy of HMG to prevent Scottish independence, not merely a series of party positions. How was the distinction made?

  17. Brian Powell says:

    I wonder if there is a category in law that would allow a class action to be taken against the Daily Record. Any lawyers?

    Or at the European Courts on Human Rights.

  18. Suzanne says:

    What the DR can’t cling to is the suggestion that they got No 10 on the blower and “demanded” that the three leaders produce some kind of guarantee to the people of Scotland that certain pledges would be made if they wanted to keep the union intact. Even though that’s the impression the DR wanted to give its readers. “It woz da Sun wot wun it” kind of thing.

    What astonishes me is that rather than drawing up a press release and making a statement, as would befit the occasion, the three stooges decided that The Vow, in the face of an historic, life-changing vote, could be stuck on the front page of a daily rag while they got on with the more important business of stuffing their fat faces with breakfast, or perhaps it was champers round at Dave’s after (or even before)they’d all had a go at messing around with the wording.

    The whole episode is tacky.

  19. Albaman says:

    Eh, who exactly witnessed each leader actually signe the Vow “document “, surely for it to mean any thing there had to be a witness, or two for each person.

  20. Brenda says:

    The Editor must publish the email trail leading up to The Vow. As there is no other paper trail, then the public (and future historians) are entitled to see this.

  21. Barbara Watson says:

    Three big boys did it and ran away. Aye right then Mr Foot. We believe ya.

  22. gillie says:

    “The vow has nothing to do with me mate”, that is the response we are getting.

    We should draft a copy of the vow and get David Caneron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, and even Murray Foote to sign it in person.

    That way they ALL become responsible for the vow.

  23. No no no...Yes says:

    The Daily Record is like Johann Lamont, it is in freefall mode.I posted at the weekend that the paper was being offered for free with any purchase at the Perth High Street branch of RS McColl.

    The DR tactics might be an attempt to artificially shore up numbers, but keeping them from exposure to easily fooled readers was worth buying a packet of mints.

  24. Barontorc says:

    Cameron, Clegg and Miliband should be forced to comment on this from the DR.

  25. farrochie says:

    Alert readers,

    I’m now waiting 6 weeks for an answer from my Lib Dem MP.

    These were my questions, dated 22nd September.

    1. As the vow is a party rather than government document, can you advise me where the original is held and where to obtain a true copy.

    2. Can you advise me of the circumstances of the signing? Who drafted the vow? Precisely where and when was it signed?

    In a follow up note, I referred to:_

    Item 2.3, page 6 refers: “On Tuesday 16 September the leaders of the UK political parties issued a joint signed statement of undertakings,… “The Vow””.

    It is this “joint signed statement” that is the subject of my enquiry.

    On 23rd October, I received a holding reply: “…now contacted Nick Clegg’s office to chase up his response and he will be in contact with you as soon as soon we have received this.”

    I will, of course, report to you the eventual results of this correspondence.

    Gerry has done a great job through Tom Clarke’s office. I’d urge all to contact their MPs with your own simple question. It’s astounding that such a joint party document was never transmitted to all MPs; nor, it seems, did a single one of them request it, or question it’s provenance.

  26. Albaman says:

    Am I correct that the Westminster mob declared before the campaign proper, that it would NOT be held to “purda”, but that the Scottish government would?, seems to me that maybe why there was not an outcry when the “vow” materialised.

  27. Free Scotland says:

    Kenyon Wright could hardly have hoped his words would be more widely circulated on the web.

    Kenyon Wright:
    We must vote Yes for our children.

  28. Bronwen says:

    All those involved are duplicitous deceivers.

  29. farrochie says:

    “The leaders further agreed that the Front Page of the Daily Record would be their chosen mechanism for telling Scotland about their joint commitment. Therefore, Page One of the Daily Record on September 16 IS the official document, of which several hundred thousand copies were produced and distributed on that day.”

    This must rank as one of most bizarre actions ever devised and undertaken by politicians.

  30. Ken500 says:

    Murray Foote is a stupid, calculating, malicious liar. Puts he put his foot in it, so more people will be sanctioned and die. He will reap what he sows. Good riddance. Murray Foote is now the story. Get lost egotistical liar. It just makes people even more angry.

  31. ecruden says:

    @shuggy hear hear

  32. manandboy says:

    If there was a campaign
    ‘To reduce the Daily Record to rubble’
    I’d join it and happily donate.
    But that’s just payback isn’t it.

    I feel so powerless against the criminals in suits (it’s the perfect camouflage) I could be persuaded to join in direct action, which we ‘British’ don’t really do of course, which is why stoicism was probably invented even though it was well in advance of our current need of it.

    Google describes stoicism as the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.
    It’s that last bit which I’m on the very edge of abandoning completely – till we get Indy.
    If I had a button on my keyboard to blow up an empty BBC & DR, I’d press it – accidentally of course.
    A few more of those buttons would come in handy.

    Rubble, anyone?

  33. Aspen says:

    How are Nicola’s meetings going. Is she mentioning “The Vow”?

  34. Robert Louis says:

    The point is, in the past, papers like the record would do things like this, and the cosy unionist centred ‘scottishy’ media would never question it. Perhaps the editors of Scotland’s supposed ‘news’papers might like to take note, it is not just politicians feet which are being held to the fire, it is also the self serving duplicitous ‘scottishy’ media.

    As regards the ‘vow’, all we need do is cite Walter Scott, ‘oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive’.

    I am enjoying watching ALL of them squirm. Not before time.

  35. schrodingers cat says:

    gillie says:

    The vow is full of abiguous havers which commits to nothing

    if you wish, email murphy a copy of the vow and ask him to sign or endorse it, since it commits him to nothing except vague promises, im sure he would, at no cost to himself

    then again, i saw andrew neil saying there was no vow and that it was made up by the editor of the dr

    something has got them spooked over this, what is being forgotton here is that there was also a time table promised and that has been broken.

    is it not better election fodder for us to just say that the bbc,dr and the unionist politicians lied to scotland and that the whole thing is just a fraud?

    not really sure what is going on here
    did someone say ming campbell is now saying it was a fraud?, i seem to remember him saying the day after in an interview that the vow was as concrete as was possible and woe betide anyone who reneges on it, they will pay a heavy penalty.

    libdems and tories are toast in scotland anyway, reneging on the vow wont win or lose tham votes in scotland anyway, but it will damage slab, the only people in scotland who will benefit are the snp?

    im not clear whats going on, but the threat of legal action has got the dr spooked

  36. Mealer says:

    What’s the Labour Party membership in Scotland?
    What’s the Record sales figure for Scotland?

  37. Macandroid says:

    @ Tam

    “was not promised on behalf of the UK government, but on behalf of the leaders of the three registered campaigners”

    The EC somehow forgetting that the Vow could only be delivered by the Westminster Gov, of whom, Cameron was the spokesperson, as he never said he was only speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party.

  38. Clootie says:

    The Daily Record delivered the lie in order to influence the voting intent of it’s readers.

    The 3 Party Leaders do not have any direct link to the story and therefore have full denial.

    The Daily Record can produce evidence. They claim that the electronic signatures were sent to them by email. It would be surprising if they were given open access to the signatures so I would expect a covering email stating when and in what article it could be used.

    The DR could produce those emails now and prove that the controlling minds were Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.

  39. Ken500 says:

    Implement the Leveson verdict in Scotland. It will give slight redress for the people in Scotland. Get them cleaned, cleared out. MSM are a bunch of crooks. They want ‘freedom of speech’ for themselves but want to censor everyone else.

  40. Anthony Angus says:

    Will the top brass at the Record start to tumble next? Murray Foote should lead by example and resign first. The truth is nearly out now, and they might hope to minimize the negative effect on their readership if he goes before being pushed. I’d look forward to the BBCs reporting on the reasons why.

  41. Ken500 says:

    The Labour dominated EC says the ‘VOW’ did not break Purdah. Purdah was totally broken by Westminster and the MSM The Referendum agreement was broken incessantly. It was a fraud. Nothing should have been reported from 6 weeks before the Referendum by the MSM. There should have a total shut down.

    The people in Scotland were defrauded out of Independence. They are defrauded by Westminister incessantly. The majority are even more angry. Secrecy and lies.

  42. Ananurhing says:

    Bugger the Panda makes reference to the legal term “Uttering”, a crime under Scots Law.

    “Scotland does have a common law crime of fraud, committed when someone achieves a practical result by a false pretence. Scotland also has a separate crime of ‘uttering,’ which is where some article – usually a document – is passed off as genuine towards the prejudice of another person.”

    Someone at the Daily Wretched is shitting themselves methinks.

  43. Suzanne says:

    @Farrochie – and we know why the draft Vow was never passed on to all MPs, because their response, shrieked en masse from Westminster to Holyrood, was that it was Not On. Which meant that it WAS a rushed job done in blind panic. They were up against the wall with only the cutlery and the plates to throw at us.

  44. Ken500 says:

    Make a complaint to the Police and charge Foote with fraud. Aye right. All in it together.

  45. Grouse Beater says:

    Conspiracies and the Daily Record

    History teaches us conspiracies exist, the murder of Thomas Beckett one infamous example. The assassination of Lincoln is another. Guy Fawkes another. The attempted assassination of Hitler yet another.

    And let’s not forget Gordon Brown’s midnight panic calls to the other party leaders – confirmed by Ming Campbell, suggesting ways to undermine the newly elected SNP government and derail a democratic election.

    There are many, many more conspiracies include financiers destabalising a country’s economy in order to achieve regime change and policy implementation by outside forces for their own interests and profit – see USA-South Korea.

    ‘Realists,’ for that’s what the scoffers like to call themselves, call the rest of us who believe in conspiracies, delusional.

    They are egregously wrong in thinking none exist, but right in another sense.

    Not all conspiracies begin with a plan, a blueprint that conspiring confederates follow to the letter, and over a period of time. Some conspiracies are spontaneous events. They tend to begin with a notion generally held, that coalesces into action taken by a number of people.

    The nobles who slayed Beckett on the pulpit discussed the idea only the night before as a group.

    In the same way, I am as certain as I can be that the editor of the Daily Record, alarmed at the poll showing the Yes vote ahead, or annoyed the No camp refused to state new powers exactly, first suggested to the three leaders they could use his front page to state their case if they could agree to a wording, and that they should sign it to give it authenticity.

    After all, somebody had to choose the Record. It’s unlikely it came from the three leaders simultaneously, or via a lowly secretary. Any editor worth his salt would challenge a secretary’s word and demand verification from those involved.

    How much the editor assisted in the wording of the discredited ‘vow’ is another matter.

    He would have to propose alteration, emendation, and a maximum of words at the very least in order to fit on his own title – ‘The Vow’ – and all the other garbage that pretendy newspaper sticks on its face to sell non-news and tell people what to think. What he could not get, and would not had he asked, were exact powers detailed, hence the ‘vow’ was presented as meaningless waffle.

    However the concoction came about there is no doubt, therefore, that the editor of the Daily Record was complicit in hoodwinking the people of Scotland.

  46. farrochie says:

    As regards those signatures, just google Cameron, Miliband & Clegg signature. You can easily get images identical to those in the Record.

  47. ClanDonald says:

    The Daily Record should publish these emails if we are to believe the vow was created by the three main parties.

    But even then, the main problem for Murray Foote is that the people of Scotland already know that, no matter who wrote it, the vow is a pile of pants. We only need to look at the Tory, LibDem and Labour submissions to the Smith Commission last month to know that they have no intention of transferring significant new powers to Scotland.

    And if the Daily Record is so confident that the vow will be delivered why did they urge their readers to sign “Gordon Brown’s” petition demanding that David Cameron stick to the vow?

  48. Ken500 says:

    Murray Foote thought he could put up sales by lying. The opposite has happened. Murray Foote’s greed, at the expense of others, has become the story. Bad judgement. What’s new. What’s news?

  49. Luigi says:

    Which meant that it WAS a rushed job done in blind panic.

    Indeed, which is why they have not managed to cover all their tracks. Keep the pressure on, Wingers!

  50. gillie says:

    Q. So who will take ownership of and responsibility for the vow?

    A. NO ONE.

    The vow is like a shite floating in a public swimming pool.

    Somebody did it, everybody is avoiding it, but no one will own up.

  51. heedtracker says:

    A lot of Foote’s unionist chums say The Vow’s a con but mind how big our old frauds in Pacific Quay went with it

    also hitting hard with these kind of frighteners from another UKOK Foote style con artist.

  52. caz-m says:

    The Daily Record is now a toxic brand. The mere mention of the name “Daily Record” sends a surge of anger right through me.

    It was not just the “VOW” that the Record has form on. Their political editor David Clegg was on our screens and on our radio’s nearly every day of the week for two years leading up to 18th September. Aided by BBC Scotland and STV.

    He was invited into studios to strike fear in to the undecided. He was to come across as the soft spoken Northern Irishman who worked for everybody’s favourite paper.

    But underneath, he was a bitter ultra-unionist, who would distort the truth so much, that people like pensioners thought they had no other option but to vote NO.

    The Daily Record was one of the main pillars of Project Fear.

    When I see someone reading the Daily Record now, I have this overwhelming desire to rip it out of their hands and tear it to pieces.

    The Daily Record and David Clegg are finished in Scotland.

    My advice to Clegg would be, if a job offer comes along that is outside Scotland, them I would go for it mate.

    Because people like you are not welcome in a forward looking Scotland.

    The Daily Record
    BBC Scotland
    Scottish Labour

    You three organisations were instrumental in “Project Fear” and you three shall pay the price for that.

  53. Tam Jardine says:


    And then the Electoral Commission should explain how it determines a difference between Tory and Lib Dem party campaigning and UK Government policy. 

    The fact they were speaking for the next UK government was rammed home at every opportunity as 1 of the 3 men would be the next PM.

  54. gillie says:

    “It’s the Vow wot dun it”

    That will be the Epitaph for the Daily Record.

  55. One_Scot says:

    Too much smoke and mirrors.

    The fact that the Daily Record has had to go to all this length to try and explain a situation which raises more questions than answers, should tell everyone everything they need to know about where the DR fits into this whole fraudulent affair.

    They will never be forgiven by the Scottish public for the part they played in cheating Scotland out of her Independence.

    May their heads forever hang in shame.

  56. Christian Schmidt says:

    Keynon Wright has got a point, but the best thing about that DR edition is the free milk

  57. BornOptimist says:

    As an expat, originally from Edinburgh, I’d never read the Record for decades, not even on-line, as numerous other papers cover the same issues. Recently, however, I discovered it was no more than a ‘Scottish’ version of the Daily Mail, the only newspaper, so my wife tells me, that I swore at when offered a free trial offer over the phone. The more polite version of my answer when she told me who the cold call was from, and what was on offer, was “You must be bloody joking”. I can therefore understand only too well why a)the Record was once very popular (a newspaper padded out with lots of celeb pictures and dreary tittle tattle for the unthinking masses) and b) why the paper is now receiving lots of stick for printing The Vow. If it is Scottish then I am from Samoa. The Record now joins my list of papers never to purchase (though, if on-line viewing remains free I’ll look at it occasionally to discover their ‘take’ on Scottish and UK politics but refrain from purchasing anything they advertise.)

    I doubt however if the paper will ever close. It seems apparent that people who own loss making newspapers prefer to hold on to them in preference to retaining control over profit making TV stations. This seems to say something about the power of daily doses of attitude forming editorials and news selection (bias ?) to influence readers and indicates the need for an independent/independence oriented print media to complement on-line social media and the likes of Wings, Bella Caledonia, etc.

  58. Ken500 says:

    Is Davie Clegg a mason? Foote as solomon. Whose’s to go Davie Clegg or Torquil. Or the lot of them. Talking themselves out of a job. Out of touch and time. Bigotry never works. Bigotry is out of date. Old fashioned. An inability to move with the times. Secrecy and lies.

  59. Molly says:

    The Daily Record published a front page giving the impression they were quoting directly from the three party leaders. “The Scottish Parliament is permanent” is either a direct quote and agreement ( by the leaders) or it’s a falsehood , misleading the public.

    The public seeing this information ( about the SP being permanent) would be perfectly entitled to assume this picture of ‘ the vow’ was based on an original agreement ( there must be more, they wouldn’t just by pass Westminster to enshrine the SP as permanent) or it’s a falsehood, misleading the public.

    Any document which gives the impression of Parliament being involved must be open to scrutiny (whether it is in a parliament or a newspaper )otherwise it belittles the people who participated in the agreed system only to find the rules were changed and any unsubstantiated claim could be made.

    The question for the Daily Record is , which is it?

  60. MochaChoca says:

    I think this is a case of pishing into the wind.

    The who, where and when of the wording is irrelevant as none of the three actual ‘signatories’ has attempted to distance themselves from the ‘document’.

    The email of the wording most likely came from Better Together or the office of Gordon Brown, but while it would be mildly interesting to know, it doesn’t doesn’t actually matter.

    The only mileage to be gained here is in holding to account the Daily Record for presenting something utterly meaningless as something of great importance.

  61. Nana Smith says:

    I recall this tweet from Faisal Islam. Wonder why he hasn’t enlarged on what he knows. Has someone got his foote on Faisal’s throat.

    Faisal Islam @faisalislam · Oct 23

    …in policy terms Better Together a sort of Grand Coalition..the vow. Tory ministers were swapping extraordinary emails with Lab grandees..

  62. Ken500 says:

    Gordon Brown had newspaper editors on redial. Giving them instructions.

    They are terrified of 10 Downing Street. Secrecy and lies.

  63. Training Day says:

    “The fact is that The Vow is doing its job. It is part of the reason why the Smith Commission is sitting and why Westminster politicians have not been able to renege on their promise to deliver more powers to this country.”

    In what sense have Westminster politicians ‘not been able to renege’ on promises to deliver more powers? By sitting around a table in a pointless talking shop designed to hoodwink the gullible, and being bound by not one single recommendation of the Smith Commission? In that sense?

    The Record is being given away free with other purchases all over Scotland. I was offered one in two different locations on Saturday.

    Your time’s up, Mr Foote.

  64. Devorgilla says:

    I would like to see the correspondence between the Record and the three party leaders agreeing to the final published statement.

  65. gerry parker says:

    @ Tam.
    Good luck on getting the Electoral Commission to do anything.
    On following up a complaint that he had made a few weeks ago, by compadre was told they hadn’t done anything about it, and he was asked:-

    “Isn’t it time you just moved on”

    Given these new findings, I think it’s time for the letter writing group to be sending some more letters to MP’s.

  66. Brian Powell says:

    All this is because ‘they’ thought after the No vote the SNP and Yes would collapse completely, and ‘they’ would never be called on to explain what ‘they’ did.

  67. gerry parker says:

    @ Tam, Good luck with getting the Electoral Comission to do anything.
    On following up a complaint he had made a few weeks ago, my compadre was advised they had not done anything about it and asked:-
    “Is it not about time you moved on?”

    I feel some more letters to my MP coming on.

  68. One_Scot says:

    The more guff the DR produces to try and convince everyone of their innocence, the more you realise that they are basically full of crap, and they are up to their neck in it.

    A five year old could see that they are trying to cover their tracks.

    You can almost see them pressing the email delete button furiously.

  69. Valerie says:

    As the Rev. has said, they trumpeted it, careful and appropriate choice of words….

  70. Ken500 says:

    The right wing Press (all) are in cahoots with Westminster, against the public interest. Cooked politicians, Media and Police all in it together to line their pockets. Against the public interest.

  71. Haggis Hunter says:

    It should be turned over to the fraud squad.
    Who will ofcourse get a threatening phone call from London, along with a media blackout, then British justice will have followed the usual route.
    I have seen it in action before, when Lord Hanson, land owner in Glenesk evicted all the tennant farmers, had sheep dogs poisoned, Eagles poisoned, and London sorts it all out, along with the media black out.
    What a great democracy.

  72. gillie says:

    Devorgilla says: I would like to see the correspondence between the Record and the three party leaders agreeing to the final published statement.

    In writing this letter Murray Foote had a golden opportunity to do so, but strangely did not.

    This vow was something that Daily Record initially demanded but now is trying very hard to distance its self from. The emails, if they exist, would clear up any confusion. The sooner the Daily Record does so the better, otherwise we will all conclude that Murray Foote is a proven liar.

  73. gerry parker says:

    Addicted Record readers should tear out the sport pages, give the shop owner a wee private donation, and have the rest of the paper returned as “unsold”

    Never bought the rag myself, so can’t do anything to accelerate its demise.

  74. Molly says:

    It’s not a case of we’d like to see , we’re entitled to see the email correspondence.

    This impacts on all the public , yet we don’t even know who put this together ? The newspaper or the parties?

    If an elected party intends to introduce something which would have a major impact on the public , they have to garner support . The public can see who voted for it or against it.

    The Daily Record published a ‘ vow’ which could have a major impact on the way we are governed( new powers) yet the public have no idea , who initiated it, what terms were agreed , who agreed , was it just the three leaders or ‘just a mock up ‘ by the Daily Record?

  75. Brian Powell says:

    The Scottish law on fraud, called ‘uttering’ sounds useful to make the DR accountable.

  76. gillie says:

    The only way the Daily Record is too survive this storm is to sack Murray Foote.

    He has to go, because he has become the story.

  77. Grouse Beater says:

    Isn’t it time you just moved on”

    That old cliche has its downside.

    As an MP you are guilty of massive expenses fraud!
    Yes, but isn’t it time we moved on?

    Bombing innocents in Hiroshima was a heinous crime.
    Maybe, but isn’t it time we moved on?

    Devote this entire year commemorating the First World War.
    Yes, but isn’t it time we moved on?

  78. gillie says:

    Sir Menzies Campbell: “There was no collective ‘vow’ as such, but an agreement on the need for change”.

    Murray Foote is really in hot water now.

  79. Grouse Beater says:

    Don’t forget how the rancid ‘Vow’ was presented – as if the Magna Carta written on parchment.

  80. desimond says:


    I agree. Im not really sure this is worth any effort. We KNOW they are ALL C***S. We know they all lie and we know they lied repeatedly through the referendum.

    Are we expecting a retraction of the Vow? I doubt anyone expects anything like that. Are we expecting the No voters to cry out “Gadzooks Ive been duped?”. Are we expecting any outcome really bar a few knickers twisted on here?

    regards accountability, are we expecting a “respectable” newspaper like the “impartial” Guardian to take up this cause? Not a chance after their own part in referendum.

    While some are tub thumping about this, Voldermort and his Dark Arts honchos continue to work their way to the Labour leadership in scotland. Thats the only issue in town now.

  81. One_Scot says:

    I am sure there is a saying, that sums up the problem the Daily Record now has, along the lines of –

    ‘Better to keep your mouth closed and let people think your are full of shit, rather than open it and remove all doubt’.

  82. Mick says:

    Just like their SLab puppeteers squirming fir their jobs.

  83. HandandShrimp says:

    I have always found the Record to be an inaccurate and poorly written newspaper and consequently have not bought it for many years.

    I have seen nothing to change my mind on the matter.

    Miliband’s office was rather vague and pushed the ball into the Record’s court when asked about the vow. Perhaps we should ask Clegg to see what his take on it is.

  84. Grizzle McPuss says:

    So here we have a situation whereby anyone with a modicum of intelligence can decipher that this is all nothing but a carnival show. This VOW, cooked up somewhere between the Better Together team and the DR, the sole purpose of giving the ‘soft voters’ one last nudge in the direction of the status quo.

    The question that niggles me is…

    Given that the DR is a commercial entity requiring sales to keep it alive, and that it is most probably feeling a ‘hit’ in those sales since the referendum because of all the VOW outcry; why on earth continue this futile stance of making out that they were merely an innocent conduit?

    Their hands are filthy.

    Have they no comprehension as to how this unfolding debacle gives them all the appearance of second rate stooges to a broken WM political agenda?

    Why don’t they act with some journalistic integrity (no, really) and if anything, some awareness of their own market position, and go with the emerging flow, ie start to offer some honest journalism in respect to what is happening around them as opposed to the agenda of others?

    Commentary is acceptable, propaganda is destructive.

    Remaining as a blinkered mouthpiece to the Unionist cause at this time of public mood, whereby the opinion poll indications are showing otherwise in current GE2015 voter intent, is surely not the most sensible course of action at this time?

    One can only be left with the thought that the DR is managed by complete and utter morons, who think like City Bankers in so far that taking the casino-style ‘long bet’ will eventually pay off…but we know how that has often turned out.

    If the polls are indicating, as they are, in the direction of pro-indy / anti-Unionist parties, in spite of MSM support, does the DR not appreciate this factor? To champion against this tide of public opinion is sheer crass stupidity.

    It’s entertaining if truth be told.

    I don’t personally read the DR, but you cannot deny its historical (but apparently decreasing) popularity with a high proportion of the Scottish populace.

    It therefore staggers me that these alleged professional DR journalists and their management, along with their friends at the Scottish Branch of the BBC and some of the other Scottish based MSM, feel that in this age of mass communication format, that they can continue in this pre-WWW attitude of attempting to con an apparently simpleton electorate.

    Long gone is the case of a conversation restricted to merely ‘just over the garden fence’, or to a couple of friends over a pint. As we all know; one sentence sent out into the ether can reach thousands +…and on…

    Perhaps Mr Foote et al should open their eyes to the media revolution going on around them and ask if it’s worth continuing in the direction that they seem stuck.

    As a simple footnote to the DR editor (no pun intended): cut the bullshit and just be honest.

  85. Molly says:

    If the Daily Record / three leaders are not held to account now, what do you think is going to happen two days before the GE? Or the next time?

  86. Brian Powell says:

    Further to the use of the Scottish law of ‘uttering’ to bring the DR to account, it could be uses against Cameron, Milliband and Clegg, as they let the printed ‘document’ on the front page of the DR stand, and made no attempt to clarify or refute at the time.

  87. Stoker says:

    Good response Stu.

    And just for the record

  88. Dcanmore says:

    The Daily Record is backtracking fast simply because their circulation has nosedived since The Vow. They wish The Vow would disappear from people’s consciousness because the right result was achieved, just as they wish the independence movement would disappear too, feet to the fire and all that.

    The Scottish edition of the Telegraph is hanging on by a thread as the deal is you buy the paper and get a free bottle of water, however it is not working too well so vendors are giving away the Scottish Daily Telegraph with every bottle of water purchased! Now they are trying to giveaway the Daily Record and the DR will use freebies to keep up their print run thus disguise their circulation figures ala The Scotsman.

    Print journalism is dying in Scotland helped by their own obstination and failing to comprehend the fast changes in Scottish society over the past 10 years thus being ever more reliant on a dwindling core readership for each title.

  89. Swami Backverandah says:

    Just a few thoughts echoing what some others have said.
    It is a very good strategy to keep requesting clarification from the Daily Record, as the more statements they release, the more inconsistencies appear.
    For example, in this latest one: “Therefore, Page One of the Daily Record on September 16 IS the official document,…”;
    compared to the Government briefing paper Clause 2.3 that has been referred to:
    “2.3 UK party leaders’ “vow”
    On Tuesday 16 September the leaders of the UK political parties issued a joint signed statement of undertakings, which was published in the Daily Record, under the headline, “The Vow”. The statement included:…”
    Now the DR in their statement mention that “The words were provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form after being written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.”
    So was this (or these) email(emails) the joint signed statement of undertakings mentioned in the briefing paper?
    Furthermore, the briefing Paper implies that a joint statement was “issued” and then published.
    So how do wordings “provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form after being written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.”, constitute a joint statement issued. If they do, the emails constitute the “official record”, as they only constitute an official record in DR terms under the title of “the Vow”, was the choice of the newspaper, not the party leaders. If the leaders agreed to call it a Vow, this should be on record.

    If therefore these email statement don’t constitute a “joint statement of undertakings issued” the briefing paper needs correcting.
    This might seem a minor point, but a correction to the Briefing Paper would have a substantial impact as a demonstration of how the public was misled.

  90. Barontorc says:

    The Editor of the DR has given an explanation as to how the VOW was delivered to him. He said it came by e-mail:-

    ‘… The Daily Record had no involvement at any point in the wording of The Vow. The words were provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form after being written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.

    The offices of the three party leaders also provided electronic versions of their signatures – in keeping with standard practice in this electronic age – specifically to be published at the end of The Vow to demonstrate their commitment to delivering their promise of more powers for Scotland.

    The leaders further agreed that the Front Page of the Daily Record would be their chosen mechanism for telling Scotland about their joint commitment. Therefore, Page One of the Daily Record on September 16 IS the official document, of which several hundred thousand copies were produced and distributed on that day….’

    What are we to take from that, other than that he published it ‘in good faith’.

    (A) So, did it come from the three separate offices of Tory, Lib-Dem and Labour, in three emails?

    (B) Or, did it come as one email and if so from what source? If so, was that source doing so on behalf of the three leaders and their respective parties and where was their authority to do so?

    It strikes me as an act that was approved by the three who approved their endorsement by copy of their signatures.

    If it was not approved formally as above, there is at the very least a case of misrepresentation going by the reply received from Labour/Miliband’s office, via Tom Clark MP, which laid all responsibility at the door of the DR, which amounted to a form of electoral fraud.

    THe DR’s culpability being further stressed by the reply from Ming Campbell MP, of the LIb-Dems, who implies that there was no formal agreement to the whole context of the VOW, merely an acknowledgement that things had to change. So why was it endorsed with the signatures of the three leaders? Did Ming Campbell understand and was he party to the process of the VOW to make such an informed statement?

    The buck stops somewhere and if it needs an action to be crowdsourced we will bring it about.

  91. galamcennalath says:

    They … BT, leading politicians, MSM, BBC Daily Record, vested interests, who knows …. were determined to undermine democracy by deceit, misinformation and scaremongering. The Vow was the final, and I think most effective, trick. Collectively in worked, they duped just enough people to get their No.

    However, everyone on the No side has and will pay a high price for what they did. It’s not just the 45% Yes voters who are agrieved, but those No voters in the middle who genuinely believed the late stage offers and promises, who will begin to get angry.

    The Dail Record are now distancing themselves, blaming the big boys who they can see running away.

    What the Unionists have done is made sure the next referendum will be a resounding Yes win. They’ve done their lying, played their dirty games … their box of nasty tricks is now open for everyone to see.

  92. Swami Backverandah says:

    Not sure if my previous post has appeared yet, but here are a couple of further thoughts:
    If, in relation to 2.3 the leaders did not actually ‘issue’ a signed joint statement of undertakings, it is likely that what is being referred to is a series of email wordings from the campaign office that has been concocted by “a person” who at this point remains unnamed, which was then run past the party leaders (or not) for their agreement, and the electronic signatures mocked-in for publication in the DR.
    This could in no way be considered the “issue of a signed joint statement of undertakings of the leaders”. If it can, where is its precedent?
    Over on another blog, a reputable journalistic source suggested that questions should be directed to the party leaders concerning this above point.

  93. Hamish says:

    Let us not denigrate the word “Vow”

    We know its meaning (from Collins online)


    a solemn or earnest pledge or promise binding the person making it to perform a specified act or behave in a certain way

    a solemn promise made to a deity or saint, by which the promiser pledges himself to some future act, course of action, or way of life

    Let’s denigrate those that have abused the term.

  94. msean says:

    Never seen that Smith Commission coming though lol. Didn’t we just know that a Lord would get the gig. Nobody ever mentioned that happening,and I don’t think many NO voters would have settled for an unelected peer to be left with Scotlands Parliamenary future in his hands within hours of the result.

    I think they were so desperate to claw back the indyref they were on the verge of losing that, anything was grabbed at with the consequencies being dealt with later. Someone must have cooked it up in concert with broadcasters who gave unmetered airtime,someone has access to the broadcasters time like for instance,the way the votenoborders effort got sudden exposure.

  95. heedtracker says:

    Red tories puzzled blue tories. Proud Scot but in action
    On Crash Gordon

    “Credited by many as the “saviour of the Union”, having eloquently made the 11th hour promise of significantly more power to Scotland, it appears that his intervention is causing some trouble for his own party.

    Brown’s on-the-hoof policy proposals to Scotland pre-referendum were not only a surprise to the Prime Minister – who was not informed of Brown’s plan beforehand – but were also ahead of what the Labour was saying at the time.”

    So who signed Foote’s The Vow then? Lets see these electronic signatures you monumentally historic fraudster?

  96. Geoff Huijer says:

    Desimond at 10.41.

    Well said.

  97. Molly says:

    One of the other problems for the Record is Lewis McDonald Labour chief whip stood up ( in good faith I reckon) and used the vow to make the point about ‘ a small percentage but still a percentage who were persuaded by the vow’ ( I paraphrase).

    It’s one thing to talk about the vow in the public sphere another in Parliament. By giving the impression this was an official document and a Parliamentarian quoting from it in a parliamentary meeting makes it an official record.

  98. desimond says:


    Held to account? The Record is hardly being hauled up in front of the beaks or being forced to close here. The Electoral Commission have been shown to be a total sham and no-one has any faith whatsover in them anymore. Purdah in the Dictionary is now a word meaning “Hee-haw”

    I appreciate the sense of duplicity and anger but i think this is a dead end street which will only end with us saying “See, lot of shyte so it was” and no one else noticing.

    If Faisal Islam publishes his “dynamite” Unionist Conspiring emails, well that could be the smoking gun but as yet, I fear this ire will all go unnoticed.

  99. Fiona says:

    The wording of the “vow” promises precisely nothing. But the impression left is far from that, as is easily seen; and is confirmed by the reaction of Mr Chope and others, who immediately repudiated it in the HoC. MP’s did not repudiate the proposals which were made before the “vow”, and so we must conclude that they, too, were led to believe that something was on offer which went further than those original proposals. (Or they were part of the game to imply that much more was being offered than was actually the case – but that is probably a conspiracy too far)

    In the event the original proposals are what has been submitted to the Smith Commission. It is not surprising that the carefully content free “vow” is now being characterised as a restatement of those three original proposals. But then we cannot escape the lie which is contained in the notion that they had an “agreed” programme; clearly they do not, since the submissions to Smith are different.

    The idea that these politicians are now forced not to renege on their original proposals, by the DR’s action. is laughable, yet that is what we are asked to believe. Those proposals were years in the making and are pretty much cost free for unionists though some of them are detrimental to Scotland. So why would they renege?

    Mr Foote says “The words were provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form”. According to his letter “Page One of the Daily Record on September 16 IS the official document,” but if there was an e-mail which included the wording then the front page of the DR cannot be the official document: It can only be a report of the official document, which remains the e-mail. Not that suprising given the DR is supposed to be a newspaper, and is supposed to check its sources and “stand up” its story.

    So let us see that e-mail, with its source identified, and the correspondence which led up to it.

    And let us have an explanation as to why the DR, after “demanding” specific proposals for further powers, pretended that the “demand” had been met. Why was the front page not honest in reporting that the DR had “demanded” specific proposals beyond those already spelled out, but the Westminster parties had refused to do it? For that is what happened

  100. JPFife says:

    @ Tam

    “was not promised on behalf of the UK government, but on behalf of the leaders of the three registered campaigners”

    Ah but were they? Surely the leaders of the three registered campaigners would’ve been Lamont, Roofy and Wee Willie Wanky?

  101. Orlando Quarmby says:

    The Editor of the Record states:

    “The words were provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form after being written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.”

    But the absolutely vital part he leaves out is WHO ‘provivded’ the text of ‘the Vow’ to the Record ‘by email.’

    Why have none of the rest of the media investigated how ‘the Vow’ came to be – who contacted who between the Record and the offices of the party leaders, and whose office sent the text of ‘the Vow’ to the Record?

    Similarlly, whay has there been no investigation in the media as to the circumstances of Gordon Brown being put forward as a spokesperson for Better Together, and his claimed ‘authority’ to assure voters that a No vote would bring ‘a modern form of Home Rule’ and ‘federalism’? None of the three Westminster leaders disowned him, or denied that he was speaking on their behalf. So who did Brown have talks with before he mouthed off in his speeches designed to head off a last minute surge to Yes? The media is entirely silent on these key questions of how Better Together pulled off its slight of hand, where voters were led to believe that much was being promised and guaranteed when in fact nothing was.

  102. hetty says:

    The reason this paper is given away for free is because it is propaganda, there to lie to the masses.
    Maybe they are having to recycle tons now so they are worried, not about profits, but about people seeing through the lies, bye bye DR. No doubt it will emerge from the shite in another form with another name though.

  103. Swami Backverandah says:

    “There seems to be a suggestion that, because the three leaders did not jet into Scotland for a secret summit to sign a piece of parchment with a quill, that The Vow is somehow invalidated.”
    A laughable attempt at diversion, and they know it.
    The point in question isn’t whether they met, it’s
    who constructed the statements?;
    when were the statements made? Do they constitute anything other than a concoction of previous statements made weeks and even months prior to Sept 16?;
    who sent the email?;
    were the leaders consulted on choice of headline?;
    who made the statement to the authors of Clause 2.3 of the Parliamentary Briefing Paper, or did the authors insert it only after having seen the DR front page?;

    Do the leaders of the parties consider that the publication of a series of emailed statements, most likely nothing other than reiteration of statements made some length prior to September 16, with electronic signatures appended, constitutes the “issue of a signed joint statement of undertakings” presented in the Parliamentary Briefing Paper as if it were a document signed by the party leaders, to be an accurate representation of their involvement in the matter?

  104. MochaChoca says:

    The best we can hope for is that anyone who was influenced by ‘the vow’ will see that what they were lead to believe it promised was never even proposed.

    Whether these people blame the Daily Record, or the three party leaders is neither here nor there. The important part is that they know they were duped and that they won’t allow themselves to be again.

  105. Brian Powell says:

    I know we bring up crowd funding regularly to deal with issues, yet on this issue of the Vow, it would useful if a legal researcher were to be funded to look into background info.

    For example, to look into how quickly do Cameron, Clegg and Milliband put out statements to distance themselves from issues they don’t want to be associated with.

    This would be important in connecting these three to the DR’s Vow, they didn’t refute what was written and only now are saying it wasn’t a real document or statement.

    Again the law of ‘uttering’ might apply to the DR and the ‘three amigos’ association with it.

  106. Dan Huil says:

    Sooner the better that the Daily Record is consigned to history. Its lies and anti-Scottish attitude are beyond redemption.

  107. Tam Jardine says:


    Ah but were they? Surely the leaders of the three registered campaigners would’ve been Lamont, Roofy and Wee Willie Wanky?

    No- I checked the Electoral Comission website. Con @unionist, Liberal Democrats and of course there is no such thing as Scottish Labour.

    It was the UK parties, not the Scottish branches that were registered.

  108. Free Scotland says:

    Holding Westminster’s feet to the fire?

    Alternative version: Holding Murray Foote to the fire. (Bonfire night tomorrow.)

  109. Molly says:

    I agree , I agree , I also sat through the Electoral Commissions ‘talk’ on a gold standard Referendum only to watch as due to being unable to answer concerns , a presentation by two folk people became a presentation of five.

    They were made aware ( very clearly ) that people had concerns about postal voting, the role of the national newspapers and the BBC .

    The thing is, they will publish their paper on the Referendum , day will still turn to night and as far as the three amigos, the Daily Record and the EC are concerned things will carry on as normal – except things have changed and if nothing else we need to hold them to account.

    I don’t expect the rules to be changed, I just expect the rules to be adhered to. After all I never made the rules , they did.

  110. ronnie anderson says:

    Well done to all of you who are persueing the origins of the VOW . The Three Amigo’s are situated in London, Daily Record eg Murray Foote in Glasgow.

    Has anyone thought of contacting the Mirror Group PLC owners of the DR. I would have thought it more than likely,that London direction & involement.

    Where we have definitive proof of fraud ect. I would be fully supportive of any class action . More power to your keyboards.

  111. caz-m says:


    You should do a post about the Daily Record every day, because the more we highlight the lies this piece of shit prints, the closer they come to closure.

    And not a tear will be shed for any journalist who loses their job at the Record, you are all complicit in the deception of the Scottish people.

    A win for workers who do a lot of overtime, the Employment Tribunal has just ruled that holiday pay should be included in all overtime hours worked. Will cost UK employers billions.

  112. Stoker says:

    gerry parker says:
    4 November, 2014 at 10:34 am
    Addicted Record readers should tear out the sport pages, give the shop owner a wee private donation, and have the rest of the paper returned as “unsold”

    Never bought the rag myself, so can’t do anything to accelerate its demise.

    AH HA, but oh yes you can Gerry, and you’re already doing it,
    well, sort of.

    Demonise it at every opportunity and in every way possible.

    I don’t get your ‘tearing out sports pages’ part?

    Its sports coverage, football in particular, is as corrupt and bias as its politics.

    There was no other rag more instrumental in helping to save THE most corrupt club in the whole of Scottish football history. They pulled out every stop possible to cover up the truth when the establishments club was caught with its knickers around its ankles shafting the tax-man. Sevco lives on thanks to The Rectum

    Its full of sh!t and needs to be put out of circulation, ASAP.


  113. CameronB Brodie says:

    “We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen.”

    Still sounds like Ingsoc to me (English Socialism).

    Prof. Danny Dorling calls for more to be done to narrow the inequalities in wealth in Britain today

    His talk outlined how geography is increasingly important for revealing inequalities – over the last third of a century, inequalities in health and wealth have been rising and rising fastest in the last 5 years. The last period in recent history when we enjoyed relative equality was back in the 1970s – the time when Danny himself was living and schooled in Oxford.

  114. ronnie anderson says:

    Bbc news just caught a quik glimpse of a new designed postage stamp for Christmas ( 1 of 5 ) £1.47 stamp.I wonder if thats a Return to the North Pole.

  115. Roberto Esquierdo says:

    Definition of the verb sign is. When YOU sign a document YOU write your name on it usually at the end or a space provided

  116. Lollysmum says:

    Yes the DR is panicking. Uttering is applicable & DR actually carried out the offence with ‘intent to decieve’ the Scottish electorate. It may have been suggested & wording agreed by the three amigos but DR atually produced & published the document & confirmed their actions in the same edition to their readers. ‘Hoist be their own petard’ as the saying goes. In other words ‘Guilty as charged m’lud’

    It’s called ‘arms length deniability’ & govt uses it everywhere now. Selling off public services has another benefit besides lining pockets. It gives govt/councils etc the opportunity to say ‘nothing to do with us we don’t provide those services anymore’ & ‘we are not responsible-take it up with the providers’ ergo no accountability for anything that goes wrong anywhere in UK anymore.

    Nice work if you can get it-money for old rope & we’re the suckers that pay for it.

  117. Gerry Robertson says:

    If as DR asserts they were not involved in the wording of the Vow is not odd that all three parties chose just the DR to publish it! I would have thought that they would have wished the widest distribution possible!

  118. Quinie frae Angus says:

    If Stu feels he has enough to bring about an “uttering” law suit against the Daily Record, and wishes to raise a Wings crowd-funder to do so, then I’m in!

  119. Grouse Beater says:

    Desimon: I appreciate the sense of duplicity and anger but i think this is a dead end which will only end with us saying “See, lot of shyte so it was” and no one else noticed

    The ‘Vow’ has now become common currency, a fact, yet the pledge is a falsehood.

    How much it influenced the No vote is conjecture. But those who voted No should understand the Vow is a fraud. The Record editor needs to be challenged. And we’ve a duty to ensure truth reaches history books.

    Getting to the truth assists No voters to see how the establishment keeps us ignorant of truth. Yes, we should concentrate on arguing for another vote, however…

    I am sure we are all capable of multi-tasking.

  120. Helena Brown says:

    Don’t care who constructed the Vow, the referendum should have been called off because it broke the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement I would have thought.
    This is the reason we need to have foreign intervention for any other Referendum held here in the future, we cannot trust our so called masters one tiny bit.

  121. Well this is the contempt that the Scum in WM hold the electorate. The red tories you will note have the majority of the expenses cheats coming back.

  122. gerry parker says:

    @ Ronnie.

    I believe Silvertay also got a reply from the MP which consisted of a copy of the front page of the record.

    I’ll see if he followed it up.
    We are going to keep pressure on these charlatans so I’m up for any crowd funding too.

  123. gerry parker says:

    @ Stoker,
    Pardon my ignorance about football. Just heard that people bought it for the sports coverage.

    I was a Hill watching Rovers fan for a couple of months in the ’80s, that about sums up my knowledge of the sport.

  124. Quinie frae Angus says:

    @ Grousebeater

    I agree totally. We must keep on at this.

    One of the (few) benefits of having lost the Indy Ref this time around, is that it gives us the chance to thoroughly nail and analyse ALL of the reasons we lost. And work on each and every one of these, cleverly and strategically, in order to minimise the chances of repeating the same result time.

    It is vitally important that next time around, we are able to articulate and emphasise exactly HOW the media are lying to us and hoodwinking us. Pointing back to the fraudulent “Vow” (which Wings will have exposed) is one such element of the proof that we will need.

    Just because we don’t think enough people are listening at this precise moment, is not a reason to slacken off the pressure. NO voters must be made to see how (some of them, at least) were duped. We may never change the mindsets of the “I’m all right, Jack” No voters. But those who still clung to the hope and the faith that the 3 Amigos were sincere, and the Daily Record a reliable tribune, must be disabused of these notions!

  125. Albaman says:

    David Clegg’s, the political editor of the herald ( always lower case!).also must have been in on the “Vow” deal, actually very poignant the name Clegg’s, it’s a wee beastie that suck blood, in this case he D Clegg sucked the life-blood out of Scotland!.@

  126. Baheid says:

    Someone mentioned a free DR with any purchase earlier.

    Just been into a RS Mcoll in Aberdeen, offered free lego toy if you buy DM.

    Tick to tock to the lot of them.

  127. heedtracker says:

    The big worry behind all the UKOK freak outs like The Vow or even Daily Record’s “let us prey for No” headline is why they did it? All polling showed No winning didn’t they? Not one single poll ever showed a YES win for years, Ruth Davidson stated publicly on BBC tv that they had counted “sampled” postal votes showing a comfortable No win and yet somehow the shysters lost it completely, 48 hours earlier.

    No one even wrote The Vow apparently. It just materialised on the front page of Foote’s paper by magic. In unionist world, they only shysted a tiny percentage of their vote anyway, the BBC is going to bury it and ofcourse they made the queen purr.

  128. scotspine says:

    Afternoon all,

    Here is the response from the BBC regards query about Laura Bicker’s comments about Murphy;


    Thank you for your contact regarding the 6.30pm edition of Reporting Scotland broadcast on 30th October 2014. Your comments were passed to the Editor of Reporting Scotland, who has asked that we forward his response as follows:

    “Thank you for getting in touch about Laura Bicker’s live reporting from outside the Labour Party dinner taking place at the Central Hotel in Glasgow.

    There was a lot of noise and activity nearby and during Laura’s “live”, she described Jim Murphy MP as “our new candidate”. Laura didn’t mean to say “our” new candidate, rather she meant to say “a new candidate” or “their new candidate”, but amidst the noise of the nearby campaigners and the busy environment, she unfortunately used the wrong expression to describe Mr Murphy. Please be assured that this was nothing more than a slip-up during Laura’s live report and in no way reflects either Laura or the BBC’s political views. Furthermore, her mistake was pointed out to her by production staff to ensure there would be no repetition in later broadcasts that evening.

    At the BBC, we are determined to be impartial and fair in our coverage and to bring a range of views to our audiences. Please be assured that bias plays no part in our reporting. We place the highest value on accuracy and impartiality within our own journalism and rigorous editorial standards are applied across all of our output.

    Thank you, once again, for taking the time to contact us.”

    Thanks again for getting in touch.

    Kind Regards

    Make of it what you will folks……………

  129. INDEPENDENT says:

    I think the Electoral Commission is just a toothless fop.
    Controlled by Wasteminster like all the other, (MSM, Think Tank, OFFS, Quangoes), lackeys.

    Had a wee look at their rules and if the DR is saying they were asked to publish The VOW.
    Would the following not be needed to prove compliance with the EC regs.

    What is an imprint?
    An imprint is added to campaign material to show who is
    responsible for its production. It helps to ensure that there is
    transparency about who is campaigning at a referendum.
    What do you need to include?
    On printed material such as leaflets and posters, you must
    include the name and address of:
    ? the printer
    ? the promoter
    ? If the promoter is acting on behalf of a group or
    organisation, you must also include the group or
    organisation’s name and address.
    The promoter is the person who has authorised the material to
    be printed. If you are registered with the Commission as a
    referendum campaigner, this will be the person notified to them
    as the ‘responsible person’, or someone authorised by them to
    incur spending.
    You can use either home or office addresses.
    If you are putting an advert in a newspaper, your advert does
    not need to include the printer’s details.
    Example of an imprint
    A standard imprint should look like this:
    Printed by T Collins Printing Ltd, 22 Thornfields Avenue,

    Promoted by J Smith on behalf of the Campaign
    Group, both of 110 High Street, Airdrie.
    We regulate
    compliance with
    imprints at
    However, we will not
    usually consider
    taking enforcement
    action where it is
    clear from the
    document who is
    responsible for its

    Any legal eagles out there who can use it as a way of opening a crack in the dam.

  130. Indy is Coming says:

    ‘Peace for our time’

    Sound familiar and look where that led us!

  131. Grouse Beater says:

    BBC Apologist: Laura didn’t mean to say “our” new candidate

    Oh, yes she did!

    A classic Freudian slip.

    And not the first to betray allegiance.

  132. ronnie anderson says:

    @ gerry parker 1st & foremost Gerry I owe you my sincere appologies,altho a private disagreement I have more than enough time to reflect, I was in the wrong.

  133. Fred says:

    Today’s Herald has a front page article by Gardham, a somewhat uncharacteristic puff for Gordon Wilson’s new book pointing out the SNP’s & YES campaign’s shortcomings at the referendum. I met Wilson many years ago, he was probably the most uncharismatic politician I’ve came across.
    The plaudits from Gardham could be construed as Wilson outside the tent pishin in.
    Won’t be buying the book to find out!

  134. Macart says:

    Moving from car crash to train wreck for ‘Scotland’s Champion’.

    From ‘they demanded’ and ‘on behalf of the people of Scotland’, to nothing to do with us guv honest.

    Strange though, I don’t recall asking the Record to represent me constitutionally in any way shape or form. I’m fairly certain we have representatives for those jobs we already put in place.

    So on that other point, just who asked the DR to intervene on our behalf?

  135. ronnie anderson says:

    Further to gerry’s tearing out sports pages of the DR anyone buying a newspaper pick up the DR read the front page,put it back pick the newspaper you wanted in the 1st place & tell the newsagent Dr is Shite.

  136. Scotspine says:

    Of course she meant it Grouse. She got carried away with her true feelings in the heat of the moment.

  137. Stoker says:

    gerry parker says:
    4 November, 2014 at 11:51 am
    @ Stoker,
    Pardon my ignorance about football.

    You know, sometimes they say ignorance is bliss.
    Stay blissful, Gerry, stay blissful. Trust me.

    I’m well aware of the case because i like the odd bit of sport, mainly Athletics, Boxing, Swimming, Snooker etc, but not so much team sports such as football.

    And anything which stinks of establishment corruption always gets my attention.

  138. ronnie anderson says:

    @Fred there was much speculation (will he wont he ) with Hendry McLeash now we know & guess who’s his newest bestest pal Gordon Wilson.

  139. Mac an sealgair says:

    If the three main parties involved in the VOW had produced such a document, wouldnt the logical means to deliver this promise not be the Better Together camp themselves. If such a joint promise ever existed beyond the DR offices, surely Alistair Darling appearing on every MSM news channel and every front page in the land waving a jointly signed document would have given it more validity and the desired impact than that silly mocked up parchment that appeared in the DR.

    Murray Foote trying to deny his involvement in the production of this worthless promise speaks volumes about his faith in anything worthwhile coming from it and their plummeting sales obviously tell him that we the people know this too and where the blame for it sits. Desperate man in a panic.

  140. Para Handy says:

    Would it not be the case that the emails between the Record and the party leaders could be obtained using an FOI request?

  141. ronnie anderson says:

    The Queen no that wan that purrrs, wrote a song Under Pressure
    so keep it up lads n lasses. Cmon noo we must hiv some Legal Beagles amoungh’st our wide array of Talented Wingers.

  142. gorbalito says:

    DR’s Big Foote’s prints are clearly in this mired Vow.
    He is typical of those who ignore their responsibility to their readers, to tell the truth and protect the public from the unscrupulous powers that rule our lives. It is sad MSM journalists no longer have integrity. The people are vulnerable because of their duplicitous behaviour.

  143. ronnie anderson says:

    I hope that this event gets plenty support, its the 1st group to start so sort of alliance, there will be others that will come together & keep the grassroots movement together.

  144. Stoker says:

    @ scotspine @ 12.01pm.

    First of all, well done for pursuing the matter and gaining a response, albeit a predictably weak one. Nevertheless, i tip my hat to you for pursuing this matter.
    We need many more like you.

    Secondly, i don’t know if it would be worth your while pursuing this further with Ofcom? Or maybe even pursuing it further within the complaints process of the BBC, pointing out their obvious lies, re bias etc, and the lenahyena blog. Telling them that you’re not satisfied with BBC Scotland’s predictable response etc.

    Either way, i think you’ve managed to achieve something by letting these scumbags know that they’re not getting away with this anymore and their every move is now being monitored.

    Whatever you decide to do, well done once again and thanks for pursuing that issue – we all need to keep on top of this crap.

    A very big well done also to FoS and all the others pursuing these matters.

  145. Tam Jardine says:

    ronnie anderson 

    I’m no legal eagle but the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Lawyers for Yes should be on this helping Stu. I will send him my response from the Electoral Comission and I suggest we all keep digging until we get a result.

    On the threads we now have a dedicated team of Wingers trying to get at the truth. Thanks to all for the efforts.

    The record should know we won’t let them get away with it.

  146. seanair says:

    Although Gordon Wilson must be given his due for keeping the SNP flag flying many years ago, he has degenerated into a back row critic of AS and all SNP policies that he doesn’t like, particularly if they do not fit in with the Bible. He has become an asset to many outwith the SNP for that reason, the term “yesterday’s man” fitting him nicely.
    I cannot think of any other book I’m less likely to read than one by GW telling us where it all went wrong.

  147. Stewart Dredge says:

    Surely, if the Record had been successful in demanding that “the leaders clearly explain what they (were) offering” we would not require The Smith Commission now.The Record allowed Scotland to be “Homed” all over again.

  148. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Tam Jardine Electorial Commission is one of my gripes long since, but as long as they’re under the control of Westminster gov, they will follow whatever line they,re told,but tammy doff to all Wingers in seeking the truth on our behalf.

  149. gavin lessells says:

    Would be interesting if the EC appeared in Perth next week. A few questions to answer no doubt.

  150. Marie clark says:

    Mr Foote, methinks thou dost protest too much.If I was being called out as a liar( and that is what’s happening) I would move heaven and earth to clear my good name. You’re wriggling about on a hook now, squirming this way and that, every explanation more convoluted than the last. If you’re that upset about it, publish the emails that you claim to have received and clear it up once and for all.

    Stop fannying about. Your trouble dear boy is you played pass the parcel with the unionists and you’ve been left holding the parcel. I would publish in a minute to protect my good name and reputation, but then as I am neither a churnalist or a snake like politician, I actually have a name to protect.

  151. ronnie anderson says:

    Lawyers for Yes if contacted might be persueded to write a letter ( Pro Bono ) we can only ask.

  152. Although digital signatures are legally binding they are covered by a great deal of security and legislation , for it to be legally binding you cannot just fax someone a copy of your signature.

    A digital signature and the system of using the digital signature shall:
    1) enable unique identification of the person in whose name the signature is given;
    2) enable determination of the time at which the signature is given;
    3) link the digital signature to data in such a manner that any subsequent change of the data or the meaning thereof is detectable.

    If both the signatories and the DR followed due procedure it should be easy to follow the timeline of the VOW and if not it is not legally binding on the signatories.

  153. Fred says:

    Ceart Seanair, hence the interest of Magnus Gardham.

  154. gerry parker says:

    @ Ronnie,
    Thanks Ronnie, faults on both sides but it’s water under the bridge. We’re all wingers and all on the same side.

    Good idea on the newsagents, i’m always telling the wee convenience store in the whifflet that they shouldn’t be contaminating their shop with lying rags from London.

    Chip, chip chip away at them.
    Hope to make it along to the next “do” unfortunately work is rather busy just now.

  155. Jeanie Deans says:

    Mr Foote, there’s a simple way to prove what you’re saying. Publish the emails that passed between the Record and the politicians’ offices. If some negotiations took place orally, let’s hear the recordings.

  156. Billy Thomson says:

    The part of the vow you highlight about the sharing of resources, almost sounds like their laughing at us. It reads like we promise to take your oil and gas and share it with England.

    I couldn’t give a parrots fart about the Daily Record front page, We’re filing for Gordon Browns Home Rule vow, the one Mrs Lamont could be seen applauding behind Brown. The one endorsed by Cameron and even got a thumbs up from Ian Duncan Smith. The same Brown who advised David Cameron on his “kick the effing Tories” speech

  157. SquareHaggis says:

    I don’t suppose a petition would do any good but it if enough people feel strongly about holding a foote or two to the fire, who knows?

  158. Billy Grier says:

    DR has a long history of misleading and outright lying. Now we see that their so called political journalists are the same standard as their sports writers. Just churning out the stuff Mr Foote spews out in the office. Keep working to put the liarsand the red tories out of business and let the honest employees print the real story. Indy is coming

  159. Paul A says:

    The DR is nothing but a populists comic. How the hell can they be taken seriously is beyond me. Campaign for 2 years to stay part of the UK. Then moan and greet because the UK are screwing Scotland. Under hypocrisy in the dictionary it says, Daily Record!

  160. Gary says:

    Implausible deniability?

  161. SquareHaggis says:

    I’m looking forward to the next DR free Lego© mini figure series.

    I’m so hoping it’s the Batman/Marvel series.

    Monday; The Joker
    Tueasday; The Riddler
    Wednesday; Harlequin, etc

    Finishing off with ROBBIN’

  162. Andy-B says:

    The power of this website shouldn’t be underestimated, and Murray Foote now realise’s that, he just has to glance across to the Scotsman, to see one possible future for the Daily Record.

    I and many others still hold the Record partially accountable,for the “VOW” and responsibilities, come with consequences, as the Record,is now finding out.

  163. Capella says:

    Here’s the link to the House of Commons briefing paper- apologies if this has already been posted.
    “2.3 UK party leaders’ “vow”
    On Tuesday 16 September the leaders of the UK political parties issued a joint signed statement of undertakings, which was published in the Daily Record, under the headline, “The Vow”. “

    So the official record says there is a joint signed statement. The politicians say there isn’t. The Daily Record says there is and they demanded it. Who to believe, the HoC record or the Daily Record or the pols? None of the above. Difficult.

  164. Mike Heinemeier says:

    Printing the so called vow was grossly irresponsible and unprofessional by the DR. The Referendum procedure of Purdah forbids any change to the issue in question. It was clearly misleading and open to misrepresentation and denial following the vote. This is precisely what is happening. The DR danced to the Westminster fiddle and tried to play the hero to the Scottish people. We’re not that easily fooled and this rag is paying the price for interfering in our democratic process.

  165. Jacquie Macdonald says:

    On behalf of the people of Scotland !! When did the Daily Record contact me , my family and my many many friends to gauge our thoughts regarding our country? NEVER ! I and my family and friends will never again purchase this paper or any others who gave a biased opinion of these last months. You can never call yourself Scotlands paper!!!

  166. SquareHaggis says:

    Of course the DR already had the signatures as they were used prior on the pledge, presumably they had permission to reuse?

  167. Mark Coburn says:


    Is there any way we can produce something we can put through people’s doors? Think they’d want to know about this.


  168. Paula Rose says:

    @ Mark Coburn – What, like a newspaper?

  169. Jon says:

    Hopefully the daily record will go down with the Labour Party …….sink record sink

  170. Gary45% says:

    Don’t be supprised if the “official vow document” if it exists? shredded with a headline in the Daily Turd “oops sorry”
    The Westminster expenses have just been shredded,and thats the end of that according to the powers at be, but they have no idea what the backlash will be from the Scottish electorate if the promises don’t appear.( even the red zombies might wake up)
    The BBC should be called the Labour Broadcasting Corporation.
    Who will leave the Red Turds this weekend, then the next e.t.c they can then give free advertising every day to the Red Turdies.

  171. Gary45% says:

    Just had another thought, Headline in the front of the Daily Garbage about 10 days before the election next year. “The Tories to blame for reneging on vow”. hoping the zombies fall for their lies again.
    Then Silliband and his pals will drum up some garbage to make them look like ” the good old boys that they are”!!! and try and sway the vote again.
    We won’t get fooled again.

  172. T222Deracha says:

    The SNP could have been more vocal on the breaking of purdah as it breached the Edinburgh Agreement. They appear to be content to be lectured by various members from the Bitter Together mob about accepting the result of the referendum. I feel a bit disappointed at their reaction.

  173. Husker says:

    In the book 1984, the job of the main protagonist was to rewrite past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line.

    People think of 1984 as a piece of fiction but as you can see with the steady revisionism of ‘The Vow’, the book is anything but that.

  174. sean says:

    I’ve often thought it over the months of reading your site but I’ve gotta say, Im glad you are on our side…. you truly are a thistle in the backside of of all we stand agin.I truly like how you roll.

  175. Barontorc says:

    There has to be legal consequences for publishing the ‘VOW’ with both the published text applicable to the three political UK leaders and the publishing of their signatures to endorse such text.

    The Daily Record is in the frame. They can finger the source of the e-mail(s) specific to the ‘approved’ text and assure the validity of the signatures.

    The buck is stopping at the DR door. Time they chased it onwards to the source.

  176. wannabescot says:

    I’ve just now read about this Scots Law of “Uttering”. It seems to me that the others on this WOS website that are advocating legal action are correct. The DR must be held accountable for its part in this deception.

  177. highseastim says:

    Obviously and hopefully, the DR’s sales must be plummeting !!

  178. MarkAustin says:

    There is another legal issue that occurred to me (I’ve been an Agent at many elections, although not recently).

    It concerns the status of the costs of the “Vow” Daily Record in terms of election expenses for the Better Together campaign.

    I’m not a lawyer, and, as I said, it’s been a while since I was involved in this sort of thing, but it seems to me that there are a number of possibilities:

    1: That the Vow had an existance independant of the Daily Record, that they found out about it, and put it in the paper as news. In this case, they are in the clear: they were doing their job reporting on the issue (there’s nothing that says they have to be netural).

    2: That the Vow was cooked up by the three amigoes, and the Daily Record simply cleared it’s front page to print it. This, for the letter reproduced above seems to be the editor’s line. In this case, I’d say there is at least an arguable case that they were publishing it on behalf of the Better Together campaign, and the cost of it is a legitimate electoral expense.

    3: That the Daily Record cooked up the whole thing, and simply asked the three amigoes to endorse it. This seems to be their position. Again, in this case it’s arguable that the Daily Record entered the campaign with the partisan aim of supporting the Better Together campaign, which would again make this an election expense and, even worse, one not endorsed by the Agent.

    I just wonder what opnion a lawyer would have of this?

    I’m not sure about the rules concerning election expenses for the referendum, but I’d be staggered if there was not a legal limit, and the cost of the Daily Record, or even just it’s front page might well take them over that limit, which is a criminal expense.


  179. DervalDam says:

    Would it be worth writing to the Daily Record’s major advertisers pointing them to this page and suggesting they ask questions about circulation figures and trends since the publication of the Vow, including how many papers are actually being purchased as opposed to given away as those that are being purchased are more likely to be read. They might want to review their advertising strategy in the light of these figures if, as we suspect, the papers being purchased figures are dropping significantly, the company might also want to ask how the DR will be reassuring their current readership about their role then and coming clean now to protect current circulation and how they will increase them to pre Vow figures. Advertisers might also want to think about undertaking a risk assessment on the possibility that any growing movement to call the Daily Record to account might result in their firms increasingly being seen to be associated with the DR and the Vow that could easily tarnish their image and may even result in a boycott of their products. Just a thought?

  180. Stoker says:

    DervalDam @ 4.22pm,

    In short, Yes.

    I have seen someone suggest it before but couldn’t say whether or not anyone took up the idea.

    Good luck and all the best if you do.

    btw, If your serious about it maybe you should see Gerry Parker on here about doing it through the letter writing group.

  181. DervalDam says:


    Thanks for that… I was probably hoping someone else would take up the torch, but seem to have posted on an outdated thread. I am a Mother of four and struggle to find enough time to give as much as I would like to be part of an organised group. Lunchtimes and just post bed times is as much as I can do and keeping up to date is hard. How do I get in touch with Gerry…. strike that… will investigate that tomorrow lunchtime. ty for responding.

  182. Stoker says:


    On second thoughts, re Gerry writing group etc.

    Scrub that, its not a writing group as such.

    The link Gerry provides is for people to write to their MP’s etc.

    Sorry about that.

    Perhaps its for the best, with you being a mother of 4, you’ll
    be lucky to have any time for sleeping never mind taking up a
    campaign against the DR and their advertisers.

  183. Kevboy says:

    None of this explanation from the DR makes any difference to me. As far as I am concerned they are guilty of deceiving the Scottish People with their gutter journalism, it’s that simple really. Who said or done what is of no interest to me. The DR has always been and will always be a rag.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top