The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Victory’s missing fathers

Posted on November 05, 2014 by

Disappointingly, we haven’t received a reply from Daily Record editor Murray Foote to our email yesterday inquiring into the provenance of “The Vow”.


However, an alert reader who wrote to him yesterday did. You can read it below.

“Thanks for your email. The sequence of events was as follows:

On Sunday September 7, numerous politicians from the main No campaign parties appeared on TV political/news programmes and told the nation that they had agreed a “timetable” to deliver more devolved powers to Holyrood in the event of a No vote in the referendum.

The message came across to viewers as, at best, confused and, at worst, shambolic.

The following day (Monday, September 8) the Daily Record carried a front page “Record View” opinion article that was critical of this development and of the three party leaders. I include a link to that article below.


Over the subsequent few days it became clear that our readers were both confused by talk of a timetable and sceptical that the timetable could be taken as a guarantee of additional devolved powers for Holyrood. The Daily Record shared that scepticism.

To clarify any misconception about what the unionist parties were proposing the Daily Record requested that the three leaders provide a clear, concise and signed joint promise, in their own words, that would serve as a binding guarantee to the people of Scotland that there would be further devolved powers in the event of a No vote.

We believed this clarification was essential to help our readers decide whether to accept or reject the pro-union offer as they saw fit on September 18.

Over the weekend of September 13/14 I received an email with the words of the agreed vow that had been ‘signed off’ by the three leaders. The offices of the three leaders then, independently of each other, emailed electronic copies of their signatures to be published along with the words.

As the Daily Record stated, Gordon Brown was involved in brokering this arrangement with the three party leaders.

The Vow, as you know, was then published on our front page on Tuesday, September 16. The original intention was to publish the day before but the dreadful news over that weekend of the horrific murder of David Haines took precedent.

I firmly believe that The Vow is one of the key reasons why the Smith Commission is currently sitting and why more powers will undoubtedly be devolved to Holyrood. Had the three leaders not designed and jointly signed The Vow, one or all would have found it easier to renege on the promise of more devolved powers. However, the experience of Nick Clegg after he infamously broke a pledge on tuition fees will have been a salutary lesson that they dare not do so.

I will not be releasing email correspondence as, to do so, would breach confidence.

I trust this answers your questions.

Murray Foote

It’s quite a strange response. For a start, it’s a bit worrying that the Record’s editor doesn’t think his readers can grasp the concept of a timetable. It’s also concerning that Mr Foote believes the incoherent waffle of “The Vow” constitutes a “binding guarantee” of anything.

For a start, as Tory MP Christopher Chope pointed out in Parliament last month:

“The leader of the Conservative party has made two pledges on devolution. The first was made on 10 September, and that vow was made without the authority or agreement of Parliament. I highlighted that in Parliament, and it was also highlighted by Nicola Sturgeon in the yes campaign.

She argued that the vow was dependent on parliamentary approval, which could not be guaranteed – in one of her speeches she even referred to me as being a reason for that – and therefore nobody should be relying on it.

If what the Conservative leader said then was a vow, it certainly cannot be relied upon by the Scottish nationalists because they opposed it and ridiculed it at the time.” (Col.222)

(Our emphases.)

We note with a degree of passing interest Mr Chope’s dating of The Vow at 10 September, six days before the Record published it and 3-4 days before Murray Foote says he received it. (The second “pledge” he refers to was made by David Cameron on 19 September, and so can’t be the one published in the Record on the 16th.)

This week another reader also forwarded us an email from Lib Dem MP Sir Menzies Campbell, author of the party’s own devolution proposals:

“Each of the parties that did not support Independence had their own view as to how devolution could be improved. But there was no collective ‘vow’ as such, but an agreement on the need for change.”

A vague agreement in principle on the need for some sort of unspecified change, made without the authority of Parliament, is – it should go without saying – a very long way indeed from a binding guarantee to the people of Scotland. Particularly when Mr Chope went on to tell the Commons that any further devolution to Scotland was “dependent on change being delivered in the rest of the United Kingdom”, specifically in the context of “English votes for English laws”.

The Daily Record clearly realised that very quickly, as it issued a panicky demand on a giant billboard demanding that David Cameron uphold his “binding guarantee” – a weird thing to do, since if something is both binding and a guarantee there can by definition be no possibility of NOT upholding it.


We still don’t know who actually wrote “The Vow”, nor under whose authority it was sent to the Daily Record. One would imagine that such a “truly historic” document – a binding guarantee that the newspaper clearly regarded as sufficient clarification of the precise nature of what Scots were voting No for, and as “one of the key reasons” that the Smith Commission is sitting at all – would have people clamouring for the credit. After all, the No camp won the referendum, didn’t it?

“Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” – John F. Kennedy

Yet nobody seems to want their name on it. MPs of all parties have disassociated themselves from it with indecent haste. The Record says it had no involvement at any point” with its wording and refuses to say whether it instigated it.

Cynical readers could be forgiven for arriving at the conclusion that everyone involved thinks the outcome of the Smith Commission is going to leave the people of Scotland rather angry, and that they’re putting as much distance between it and themselves as possible in advance. But for the Daily Record, that’s a rather more difficult job. For good or ill, the paper and “The Vow” are bound together for eternity.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 05 11 14 12:01

    Victory’s missing fathers | FreeScotland

  2. 05 11 14 13:08

    Victory's missing fathers | Politics Scotland |...

  3. 05 11 14 13:40

    Victory’s missing fathers - Speymouth

  4. 23 11 14 16:32

    The Man Who Bought The Union Some Time | A Wilderness of Peace

  5. 30 11 14 18:01

    Where Are Your Heroes Now? | A Wilderness of Peace

  6. 15 03 15 14:13

    The Devo Files: Iain McKenzie | A Wilderness of Peace

128 to “Victory’s missing fathers”

  1. Seasick Dave says:

    Release the squirrels!

  2. Lollysmum says:

    Excellent follow up Stu. Any feet warming up yet besides Foote’s of course LOL 🙂

  3. Callum says:

    the interesting thing about the editors response is that he is making it absolutely clear that the Daily Record played no part other than communicating the vow (a gratuitous unilateral promise if you will).

    I can only think this is to deflect a future damages case on the DR itself if it turns out that vow is reneged on.

    RevStu makes the point that the vow is woolly and poorly written. Well, in contract law the emphasis is more on the spirit of acceptance and agreement (which clearly happened when Scotland voted No) rather than the actual wording of the promise. probably an impossible legal action to pursue, but enough to make an editor of a regional paper uncomfortable.

  4. naebd says:

    Alternative image caption (first image): Duncan Hothersall – The Early Years.

  5. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Lollysmum –

    It’s not his feet he should be worrying about.

    Who was it sang that line, er, ‘Chestnuts roasting by an open fire…’

  6. Murray McCallum says:

    Murray Foote: “Had the three leaders not designed and jointly signed The Vow, one or all would have found it easier to renege on the promise of more devolved powers.”

    Alternatively, the Daily Record should not have intervened in the referendum in this opaque way and Scotland could have all powers in its own hands.

    If the current state of affairs is deemed to be a success (i.e. people not reneging on promises) in the eyes of Murray Foote, I would hate to see what constitutes failure.

  7. McHaggis says:

    Labour didn’t write it.
    The Tories didn’t write it.
    The libdems didn’t write it.
    The Daily record denies writing it.

    So WHO THE FUCK worded the Vow?
    The DR is digging a deeper and deeper hole here. Simple question to them is – “who, EXACTLY provided the first draft of the vow wording and who suggested amendments to it ultimately culminating in the finalised signed off version”?

  8. This has all the hallmarks of Gordon Brown and his arrogant ego.

  9. So what was Nick Clegg’s “experience”? Still deputy PM last I heard. Proof that politicians can break any promise they want and can’t be held to account until the next time they face the electorate, sometimes years away.

  10. Callum says:


    it doesn’t matter who wrote it. It matters who *agreed* it. the editor of the DR confirms that the wording was agreed (“signed off”) by the 3 party leaders.

  11. naebd says:

    “We believed this clarification was essential to help our readers decide whether to accept or reject the pro-union offer as they saw fit on September 18.”


    “We believed this bollocks was essential to help our readers vote No on September 18.”

  12. John says:

    2 questions that have been asked yet he refused to answer:

    “To clarify any misconception about what the unionist parties were proposing the Daily Record requested< that the three leaders" – Who specifically did you send a request too??

    "I received an email with the words of the agreed vow that had been ‘signed off’ by the three leaders" – Who specifically did you receive this email from??

  13. bawheid says:

    Keep up the good work Rev.

  14. Brian Powell says:

    Maybe Jim Murray, in his role of listening and connecting with the Scottish People, will provide a definitive answer to this question.

  15. Brian Powell says:

    Murphy, not Murray!

  16. One_Scot says:

    In short, if it were not for the Daily Record and their ‘Vow’, Scotland would now be a real country.

    History will show that the Daily Record will never be forgiven by the people of Scotland for the part they played in Scotland’s downfall.

    May they rot in hell.

  17. Pam McMahon says:

    You say “we don’t know who actually wrote the Vow” but we don’t actually know what the Vow comprises, or what it actually said. What new powers were the 3 party leaders stating to the Daily Record readership and the Scottish electorate that they would devolve?
    Surely, Mr Foote, as the editor of something purporting to be “Scotlands Champion” you would not print a front page about something you hadn’t even clamped eyes on? Snigger.

  18. David says:

    The way sales of the daily rag are going, the vow might actually ‘live’ longer than the paper!

  19. One_Scot says:

    I don’t know much about tabloid newspaper marketing, but if I where looking to increase sales in the Scottish Sun, and kill off the competition at the same time, I would come out for Independence.

    Heck, I don’t even read newspapers, and I would still buy it.

  20. Alan McHarg says:

    To offer something, in the form of a signed contract, that is not within your power to give is surely fraud and a criminal offence.

  21. Juteman says:

    The Daily Record must go, and the folk responsible for the vow, at the DR and politicians, should be hounded out of Scotland, and back to their beloved England / UK.

  22. heedtracker says:

    So Dailly Reocrd editor’s not publishing The Vow emails from Cameron, Clegg, and Milliband because of confidentiality. Sure he can’t. Just ask them honest editor Foote. Crash Gordon promised devo max at least with a federal UK, if we voted no and we trusted him. Lol…

  23. schrodingers cat says:

    seems odd that foote repliesto emails when, it was ming and andrew neil and the labour rep who said their was no vow, (cobbled together?)
    why doesnt he print something asking them to retract this claim?

    wings only ever asked for clarification?

    if the politicians are trying to distance themselves from the VOW, we should take the opportunity to ask them if they believe the VOW is Genuine, will the continue to support it etc, just so that their words are on record (=’.’=)

  24. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

    It’s become a vow of silence.

  25. schrodingers cat says:

    if any politician or tv presenter now claims there was no vow and that it was cooked up by the DR
    they are effectively accussing the DR of fraud and the 3 “stooges” of elecroral fraud for not denying it straight away

  26. Breastplate says:

    @seasick Dave, I heard what you’ve written in the voice of Montgomery Burns.
    I’m still laughing.
    There is a rumour that the HoC has bog roll with The Vow printed on it.

  27. K1 says:

    The right foote doesn’t know what it’s left foote is doing. Keep pushing the door Stu, nearly there; Release the email correspondence Mr Foote, you are in serious and dangerous territory if you do not consider it a ‘breach of confidence’ with the people of Scotland first and foremost, if you continue to protect your reputation in the face of the obvious lie of the ‘VOW’. Your paper was in no position to authoritatively guarantee any of the terms outlined in the ‘VOW’. It was clear even at the time of publication that; “that vow was made without the authority and agreement of parliament”. An honest publication would have revealed this indisputable fact to its readers Mr Foote. Then it could be suggested that readers’ were slightly more informed in their decision.

    As it stands, you sold the people of Scotland a lie, and are now merely back peddling to protect yourself. Release the emails Mr Foote. The game is up.

  28. Andrew Coulson says:

    Must have been Gordon Brown (or one of his people: does he still have ‘people’?) who emailed the final form of words, surely? Though much of the wording — ‘The Vow’ itself, eg — sounds more like a tabloid journalist than a son of the manse and saviour of the world.

  29. Thomas William Dunlop says:

    One Vow to rule them all, One vow to find them,
    One vow to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

  30. Roland Smith says:

    Perhaps Mr McTernan wrote the vow.

  31. Sydthesnake says:

    Salt Ire
    nearly swallowed my boiled sweet whole, LMAO

  32. Chic McGregor says:

    Purdah is a period, usually of 28 days, immediately prior to an election or referendum where no new substantive promises or pronouncements are allowed to be made by Government ministers.

    It is a kind of pre-cooling off period rather than a post one. Without it, things like postal voting become a nonsense.

    That principle has been violated in the referendum.

    Personally, I would prefer to see a statutory post cooling off period where voters can go back and change their vote.

    It is very strange that if you buy a new telly or fridge or whatever, and it does not perform as promised, you can force them to take it back and cancel the deal, and if they have lied the retailer can be prosecuted.

    But, presumably, democracy, justice and our very future, is not important enough to merit that.

    IMV the referendum result is null and void at least by any moral measure.

  33. Pam McMahon says:

    K1 – don’t think is a left Foote in the Daily Record anymore. Umpteen right feet for them to fall arse over tits over, though. Sadly, most of their readership seem unable to recognise a Tory newspaper anymore.

  34. Grizzle McPuss says:

    Slightly O/T…but media related.

    @Ian Brotherhood

    Good news, ‘Scottish Independence Live Events’ has completed funding. They raised their £4,000.00.

  35. desimond says:

    I’ve uncovered who wrote it:

  36. Joseph Mullaney says:

    ‘The Vow’ was nothing but a cheap stunt aimed at cheating the Scottish people out of independence. Hopefully that will never be forgotten.

  37. Derek says:

    “it became clear that our readers were both confused by talk of a timetable”

    So now we know what the Daily Record’s readership is too!

  38. Dcanmore says:

    ‘The Vow’ was clearly instigated by the Daily Record and brokered through Gordon Brown. The 51/49 poll for YES shook Westminster to the core and the DR came up with a plan but needed a political heavyweight to see it through. As for the wording, it smells of Gordon Brown.

    The DR gave Gordo massive amount of publicity in the weeks leading up to the referendum but people in Scotland were taking onboard about the privatisation of the NHS in England which Broon belatedly rebuffed as an SNP lie. The panic button wasn’t pushed, it was hit with a sledgehammer and so the DR made an intervention and presented the idea to Broon to make it happen.

    That’s why The Vow is so vague, because it’s deniable and can mean anything to anyone, it was a perfect vehicle for the three leaders to put their names to. While Westminster rides off into the sun with EVEL and Broon destined for the Lords, the Daily Record is left with a steaming pile of keech on their hands. For Murray Foote the price of his loyalty to the union is a massive headache to the DR’s circulation figures.

  39. P G McLaughlin says:

    Salt Ire

    Absolutely no need for that comment.

  40. Colindependent says:

    It must be tough being the editor in a branch newspaper!

  41. velofello says:

    Mr Foote should guard safely the referred e-mails, he may need them.

  42. One_Scot says:

    I suppose with hindsight, reasoned analysis and taking all things into account, there is an argument or school of thought, that a narrow Yes victory on Sept 18th would have had less of a mandate moving forward, than a F’ing whoopass landside next time.

    Just a thought.

  43. manandboy says:

    John McTernan has been strangely quiet on the subject of the VOW. As master tactician and strategist for the No campaign, it is simply impossible that McTernan does not know the whole story.

  44. faolie says:

    Yet Angie Williams, replying from Ed Miliband’s office says:

    There is no official document, it was something that the Daily Record mocked up. My best suggestion would be to send them the attached [copy of DR front page]. We won’t be producing anything more official.

    Somebody wrote the f**king thing. Suspect the DR originated it, passed it by Gordon for tweaking, who then sent it for approval by the three amigos’ offices before the DR was given permission to publish.

    There’s an email trail somewhere.

  45. Witch Queen says:

    I was going to send the three amigos and Foote a new spade each but they seem to be managing a mighty big hole without my gift. You really couldn’t make this up. These people have no shame and Brown should rot in Hell.

  46. ClanDonald says:

    It doesn’t matter that the vow isn’t legally binding or if it would never stand up in court. What matters is that it led voters to genuinely believe that devo max was on its way (some still believe this will be delivered according to the polls btw).

    Once significant new powers fail to materialise it won’t result in a court case, it will result in a wipe out of the unionist parties at the ballot box and a continued campaign against the Record. No amount of pleading by Murray Foote will change this.

    Voters won’t care about the legal technicalities of the argument when they know for certain that they’ve still been conned. In fact, the fact that the vow has been very carefully constructed so as not to be legally binding just adds to the sense of betrayal.

    And the Daily Record trying to pretend it wasn’t campaigning for a no vote just confirms to us what a devious bunch of lie-merchants they are. If it’s not the case then where’s the yes campaign front page vow-equivalent during referendum week Mr Foote?

  47. Clootie says:

    I’m getting dizzy!

    In summary it appears “some people” got together and produced an “agreed statment with some other people” that was kept secret in order to be a Daily Record “exclusive”

    a) Who represented each party and what authority were they given.
    b) Did they hold meetings or just fire emails back and forward
    c) Who signed off for each party on the agreed final wording.
    d) Why was the Daily Record granted such an exclusive story and all other media outlets denied such access?
    e) Does Murray Foote think my head buttons up the back?

  48. gillie says:

    “I will not be releasing email correspondence as, to do so, would breach confidence.” – Murray Foote, Editor

    Well that confirms the Vow is bogus, Foote’s version of events a pack of lies.

    Vowgate now has legs, arms and wings.

  49. Foote’s words


    On Sunday September 7, numerous politicians from the main No campaign parties appeared on TV political/news programmes and told the nation that they had agreed a “timetable” to deliver more devolved powers to Holyrood in the event of a No vote in the referendum.

    The message came across to viewers as, at best, confused and, at worst, shambolic.



    At that point even a modicum of investigative journalism, questioning the three leaders properly and reporting it would have showed the VOW for what it was a complete lie.

    The Daily Record has just proved they played a major part in that lie.

    Lets make them pay for that lie.

  50. manandboy says:

    Apologies to Roland Smith for my comment – the pitfalls of not reading all the comments.
    However the point still stands even with duplication – why nothing from John McTernan? He IS the man in the know.

  51. crazycat says:

    @ One_Scot

    I agree: I was discussing this with someone a couple of weeks ago and he suggested that a narrow victory for Yes would have encouraged the Westminster negotiators to be as unhelpful as possible, and then insist on a further referendum on whatever limited offering had been agreed. A defeat then would have really killed independence off for the long-term.

    So I’m trying to restrain my impatience; working towards a good outcome in 2015 and 2016 will keep me busy.

  52. Mark Russell says:

    Brown wrote the vow; it’s his style, no one else’s. The only question is on whose authority did he act?

  53. wingman 2020 says:


    A book of killer blows.

  54. gillie says:

    This Vow must have been authored by Downing Street or by Tory HQ.

    That make’s it a Tory promise.

    No wonder the Daily Record won’t release the emails.

  55. Grouse Beater says:

    Seasick Dave: Release the squirrels!

    Spontaneous satire. Cheered me up, no end! Thanks.

    What a piece of dog crap is the Record’s integrity.

  56. msean says:

    Probably some kind of votenoborders, cairn building Sir Humphry types to blame here,the kind of people that pull the strands together when the message is garbled. Never to be found until the mysterious knighthoods are handed out after a safe amount of time has passed.Also great for the politicians to blame things on. 🙂

  57. John Jones says:

    “Over the weekend of September 13/14 I received an email with the words of the agreed vow that had been ‘signed off’ by the three leaders”. Ehh surely reasonable for Mr Foote to include the words “from etc” detailing who and in what capacity i.e. whose authorisation it was sent, or am I just another Scottish (non reader of the Record) voter who needs “clarification” on the guff from the Better together campaign and it’s propoganda machine.

  58. Gordon says:

    I would say the real question for the Record is: why was no journalism applied to the “vow”?

    Everything Yes Scotland said was examined under a microscope for any possibility that there was a trace of anything unanswered.

    Yet the most vague piece of waffle from Better Together merits front page coverage and no examination?

  59. Jack Murphy says:

    It wisnae me—from Milliband’s office in response to a request for clarification on the Record’s Vow.
    Posted on WingsoverScotland 28th October 2014.

    “From: WILLIAMS, Angie
    Sent: 28 October 2014 11:19
    To: HARTY, Sam
    Subject: RE: Official Copy of Vow

    Hi Sam,
    There is no official document, it was something that the Daily Record mocked up. My best suggestion would be to send them the attached. We won’t be producing anything more official.”

  60. Grouse Beater says:

    Mark Russell: Brown wrote the vow; it’s his style, no one else’s.

    I first thought it belonged in large measure to the odious McTernan but soon realised he doesn’t have that imagination.

    It has all the hallmarks of Brown’s bluff and bluster. A sitting MP, why not write to him, Mark, and ask for a Yes or a No? Did he compose it in whole or in part?

  61. AuldA says:

    I was sure he’d never divulge who sent the text and when. That’s much too a sensitive piece of information.

    The truth will have to be ferreted out, it seems.

  62. gillie says:

    Vowgate – The Theories

    1. The Daily Record concocted the whole thing. There are no emails.

    2. The wording of the Vow was authored by No 10, making it a Tory promise with shades of 1979.

    3. The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a strongly worded agreement offering concrete powers but Labour blocked it.

    Any more?

  63. Macart says:

    OFFS, so the ‘VOW’ is now supposedly owned by no one? The parliamentary parties are disowning it and Mr Foote is claiming that he received the wording of the vow by email ‘now’t t’do wi us at the Record’.

    The release of said email trail would clear everything up surely? This is turning into an epic farce. So is there or is there not an agreed wording or document? If so, then who sent it? Who ratified it and who cleared it for use? If not, then where did this release originate from and who dreamed it up?

  64. Boris says:

    The head of BBC Scotland News and Current Affairs, (formerly Editor of Elections and Political Output) is John Boothman. In 1979 he was the Chairperson of Strathclyde University Labour Club, Chairperson Scottish Organisation of Labour Students in 1980 and Chairperson of the National (UK) Organisation of Labour Students 1981. This is the person at the heart of the BBC political approach to news reporting. This report is work in progress and there is much to add but there are nearly 70 items worthy of reading. Each one provides axample of the blatant bias of BBC Scotland reporting. A public inquiry needs to be arranged BEFORE the 2015 election so that there can be a clearout of the Labour incumbent news reporting staff providing a healthy political environment. Happy reading.

  65. manandboy says:

    Anyone of below average intelligence, who wished to make it clear to the electorate what was on offer should they vote No, would have made a far better job of it than the Daily Record and John McTernan.

    That the VOW was so vague and it’s meaning so blurred means that the intention of it’s authors was to deceive the readers into believing that they would definitely be getting new powers of real significance, when the DR & JMcT knew all the while that no such powers were actually going to be devolved.

    It was fraud. An open and shut case.

    Referendum null and void – as so many have previously and rightly stated.

    BUT, there is no arm of the British State will lift a finger to prosecute this fraud. Lord Nelson comes to mind when he reportedly lifted his telescope to his blind eye and without hesitation proclaimed ‘nothing to see here’.

    The blind eye – a noble tradition in Establishment history and culture and always guaranteed to provoke a chuckle or two, what ho!

    If a man is only as good as his word, then Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are good for nothing.

    The British Establishment is rotten to the core.

    Were he alive today, even Nelson on a dark night and in thick fog could see that.

  66. Swami Backverandah says:

    Long 2 part post forthcoming – please excuse:

    From the Foote email above:
    As the Daily Record stated, Gordon Brown was involved in brokering this arrangement with the three party leaders.
    previously – DR Sept 15 2014 – we had been informed that
    “The agreement was brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour.”

    Questions for Scottish Labour here, or more revisionism?

    Foote reiterates DR had no say in wording, but it appears, neither did the leaders, and yet the Parliamentary Briefing Paper Clause 2.3 gives us to believe they issued a “ joint signed statement of undertakings …”

    As the Vow statements can be clearly traced to Brown – where is the evidence of a joint statement of undertakings? It’s a statement signed up to, but there’s no new jointly crafted statement. Misleading.

    How Now Brown’s Vow:

    From DR Sept 9, Brown’s 12 point plan:
    “10. New Constitutional powers
    Confirming the Scottish Parliament as a permanent, irreversible part of our constitution”

    and from DR Sept 15 Gordon Brown:
    Brown said: “Last Monday, [Sept 8] I proposed a timetable for new powers for a stronger Scottish Parliament within the UK, which all the pro-devolution parties in Westminster and Holyrood agreed with.”, becomes, in the ‘joint signed statement of undertakings’ PBPaper Clause 2.3
    “The Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable signed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19 September….

    DR Sept 15 Gordon Brown: “At meeting after meeting, morning, afternoon and evening, I will be stating clearly what I know is the truth: That because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, the final power to decide on how much is spent on the NHS every year rests with the Scottish Parliament.
    Becomes: in the ‘joint signed statement’ Clause 2.3:
    “And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament….

    “Pooling and sharing” rhetoric (haven’t looked for the sources of this but if I remember correctly it was widely quoted in the days leading up to the 16 September.
    “We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing the resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen.”


  67. Kenny says:

    Apart from the time in the Book of Daniel when the writing appeared on the wall, I know of no other case in recorded history when a piece of writing appeared without anyone actually creating it!

    Stu is right, the vow is now SYNONYMOUS with the Daily Retard (at least it is in my mind, because I have no other DR associations in my mind — except with piss-poor Glasgow Rangers articles, of course).

    The Daily Retard never stopped trumpeting about the vow. So how strange that it does not want to reveal how its Siamese twin came into being?

    I am convinced this was the brainchild of Foote himself and he is desperate now not to go down in Scottish history as one of the most despicable individuals to walk our bonnie land. Someone who manipulated the most important vote in our history — all at the bidding of a foreign colonising power.

    I feel sure Foote came up with the idea himself and there must have been some financial reason for him in doing so… Or pressure put on Trinity Mirror? Either that or Broon had a hand in it, although if this were so I suspect we would have seen more strutting from the pompous egomaniac after the vow had worked…

  68. Cherry Loudon says:

    @Rev Stu re @Alan McHarg 12.26pm. Would sending the information you have got to the Scottish Fraud Office, not help, couldn’t hurt. The more we keep them on their toes the more this is the first thing we think about when we wake up in the morning. Just beggars belief, we could all have been rejoicing our new found freedom and what it could’ve done for each and everyone of us. Even the likes of you Murray Foote.

  69. Dave says:

    Stu, people, you’re missing the key point. Mr Foote admits requesting the vow. In other words; the Record commisioned the unionist parties to write it. Therefore the record is effectively the author.

    “To clarify any misconception about what the unionist parties were proposing the Daily Record requested that the three leaders provide a clear, concise and signed joint promise, in their own words, that would serve as a binding guarantee to the people of Scotland that there would be further devolved powers in the event of a No vote.”

    Fault my logic.

  70. Kenny says:

    Foote can always publish HIS side of the correspondence. The original article claims that the Record “demanded” something of the party leaders. Was this purely in the leader column he mentions or was correspondence issued? Big Bad Broon was involved in “brokering” the deal – that would usually mean being an intermediary between the parties concerned (that is the DR and the political parties, not necessarily between the political parties themselves.)

    The people already in contact with Foote should keep up the challenge – ask who made the initial contact – was it the DR or did one of the other offices concerned contact them? That’s a fair question and it can be answered without implicating anyone else specifically. Then ask for Foote’s side of the conversations, with specific names or obvious contextual identification redacted if necessary.

  71. Bill Halliday says:

    ‘Hot’ Foote says: “As the Daily Record stated, Gordon Brown was involved in brokering this arrangement with the three party leaders”.
    So, we can rest assured that when Gordon Brown said:- “Devo Max”, “Home Rule”, “something Federal” he knew that was ok with Cameron, Clegg and Milliband. Catch is, what do Cameron, Clegg, Milliband and Brown think these terms mean?
    Surely before printing the ‘Vow’ Foote should have asked this.

  72. Swami Backverandah says:

    “Pooling and sharing” is the Pledge of 16 June 2014 of the 3 leaders of the Scottish Conservative, Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrat parties, recorded in the Parliamentary Briefing Paper:
    “2.1 Three-party pledge of new powers
    On 16 June 2014, the leaders of the Scottish Conservative, Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrat parties issued a joint statement:
    We believe that the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom is to Scotland’s benefit in a partnership of four nations in which distinct national identities can flourish and be celebrated. “
    becomes, in Clause 2.3
    “We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing the resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen.”

    DR Sept 15 Gordon Brown:
    ‘Last night – [14th Sept] Brown said more powers for Scotland are now “locked in” to a No vote on Thursday.’
    “So let us lock in three guarantees that will deliver … better, faster, fairer and safer than anything the SNP can offer through independence.
    DR Sept 15: Gordon Brown “ “It is now clear that a No vote means faster, better and safer change for a stronger Scotland – rather than huge risks to our NHS with a Yes vote.”
    becomes – DR 15 September – the Vow
    “People want to see change. A no vote will deliver faster, safer and better change than separation”

    Was the publication of the ‘signed up to’ email on the front page of the DR designed to give the impression that the three leaders of the UK political parties issued a joint signed statement of undertakings, as if it had been crafted by them jointly?

    When viewed against Foote’s initial response, posted on the Cream Puff article on this site: “Fact: The three party leaders negotiated … the words used in the Vow.” , negotiated at best could only refer to the minor tweaking of the statements seen in the above comparisons of source comments – if at all. The DR Sept 15 stated that the 3 leaders have “In their own words”, pledged …

    Whose own words?

    There is nothing concrete signed up to apart from a pledge to work together in the vent of a No vote, and nothing that could be considered to be jointly crafted by the 3 Westminster Leaders, however, it appears there was a deliberate attempt by a cohort of campaigners to make it appear that way.

  73. Jamie Arriere says:

    I think any text with ‘pooling and sharing resources’ at the heart of it, obviously has Gordon Brown’s shitty skidmarks all over it.

  74. manandboy says:

    I fully agree – that makes three. Seriously, a serious point – a narrow win for Yes in Indy would have left the Scottish Government a major headache in negotiations with WM, but also in governing Scotland with so much unionist opposition from Labour & Tory Councils, Councillors and voters.

    To my mind, the necessity of seriously reducing the Unionist parties and Unionist voting levels in Scotland as a prerequisite to Independence is crystal clear.

    An Independent Scotland divided against itself may not be the extreme case of jumping out of the UK frying pan into the fire. But jumping into a pot of uncomfortably hot water might fit the bill.

    Better a nation – a united nation, working together in the common purpose of making Independent Scotland a success with benefits and well-being for all its citizens.

  75. Mosstrooper says:

    There is of course the example from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam to reflect on.

    ” The moving finger writes; and having writ moves on; nor all thy piety nor wit, shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it”

    Rather fitting for the VOW in my opinion.

  76. desimond says:

    If you want to prove it was Gordon Brown behind it, well theres a simple way to confirm.

    Ask Alastair Darling.

    Its alleged their relationship is so bad both would welcome any opportunity to stab each other in the back.

  77. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    I still say this was a criminal act of electoral deception in complete contravention of the agreed Purdah period.

    As such it make the postal vote completely unsafe and the vote on the day, poisoned.

    The Referendum was improperly carried out and should be struck down, but by whom and what specific legal procedure.

    Anybody up for a crowdfund to get a brief from several constitutional experts, Scots Law and election protocols?

    An international committee?

    One with 1 month to produce an interim report and interpretation of the legality of the Referendum result and two more months to deliver the final report. It can be done in that timeframe and legal examinations have been carried out quickly.

  78. Grouse Beater says:

    Scotland’s tragedy; we elect representatives who then promote and uphold policies counter to Scotland’s interests, and we call that democracy.

  79. No no no...Yes says:

    There is definitely something afoote here, keep digging folks.

  80. Onwards says:

    “That the VOW was so vague and it’s meaning so blurred means that the intention of it’s authors was to deceive the readers into believing that they would definitely be getting new powers of real significance..”

    Of course.
    It wasn’t just the Daily Record front page alone, but the huge media coverage surrounding it.

    The result was to turn a NO vote into a compromise vote.
    The middle way.
    No didn’t mean No any more. It meant a guarantee of extensive new powers. Devo-Max / Devo-SuperMax was getting plugged on TV, and Brown was shouting about federalism.

    Most politically aware people could see it was BS, but the perception given to the average voter would have made a huge difference.

    No wonder the Labour party is suffering when people see their reality of significant new powers.


    Instead of attacking NO voters, we should be attacking the media and the Labour party, and appealing for No voters to join us now.
    Some would have voted No regardless, but many must be feeling totally deceived.

    The word Betrayal should be associated with the Labour party in Scotland from now on.

  81. Valerie says:

    Just read the whole thread and I think it all points to Gordo, the same hapless architect of the timetable, with no authority. The same organ donor liar, the idiot that said, if you don’t know, vote No.

    Weaving shite out of dross. Come to think of it, the only one of the 3 stooges to mention the word Vow, was Cameron the morning after the vote to Salmond, to whom he described it as meaningless.

    The day that Vow appeared in the Rancid, my personal reaction was to Photoshop it with a big middle digit, with the words – here is what the Vow means, and distribute my meme far and wide.

  82. Martin Wood says:

    For the added luxury I added my own email today to the DR

    The Vow
    Martin Wood 14:22

    In recent replies and coverage of “The Vow” made by the three party leaders, there is the curious situation where Sir Menzies Campbell has said

    “Each of the parties that did not support Independence had their own view as to how devolution could be improved. But there was no collective ‘vow’ as such, but an agreement on the need for change.”

    This is at odds with your statement in the article dated September 15th 2014

    “In their own words, they pledge to work together to transfer more powers to Holyrood if Scots reject independence on Thursday.”

    Placed at odds with the latest reply from your editor (Wings over Scotland)

    “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 question is therefore……

    Who worded the vow? The MP’s are distancing themselves from it – you take no responsibility for the words as printed stating it is in the words of the three leaders – which has been denied.

    Either you or the MP’s concerned are not being truthful – which is it?

    Can you confirm the source of the wording of the vow was Messrs. Cameron , Clegg and Milliband and if not then why you misrepresented them in your article to the people of Scotland?
    In addition to this can you supply the name of the source of the wording if it was not the aforementioned MP’s?



  83. lochside says:

    How about sending a letter to Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Milliband asking each of them for their accounts of their respective involvement in the genesis and ultimate authorisation of the ‘Vow’?

  84. donald anderson says:

    Liar, liar Foote on fire.

  85. Macca73 says:

    naebd says:

    5 November, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    “We believed this clarification was essential to help our readers decide whether to accept or reject the pro-union offer as they saw fit on September 18.”


    “We believed this bollocks was essential to help our readers vote No on September 18.”

    I couldn’t agree more naebd! What angers me more than the VOW itself is the “Records view” at the foot of that page “Now people can make an informed choice” I fail to see how with such a poorly written document!

    It was all just fluff designed to reach the swaying voter in the hope that they might just move to a no vote. What it’s ammounted to all this time later is nothing.

  86. Kenny says:

    Re pooling and resources…. why does that even mean we have to live in the same country? I would like Scotland to be independent, create an oil fund, scrap nuclear weapons, increase our renewable energies, invest in education, attract the best minds from third-world countries…. We are a net contributor to the UK economy, always have been. We are the 14th richest nation (UK is 18th). I believe we could have a very strong independent country…. and I would certainly agree to money then being given to England, Wales, NI as “foreign aid”…. Maybe Nicola could send a cheque to all the English having problems paying the bedroom tax, for example…. That would be boosting the English economy, what’s not to like Cameron and Gideon?!?

  87. frankie goes to holyrood says:

    Perhaps Mr Foote could simply divulge WHO sent the email that he refers to:

    “Over the weekend of September 13/14 I received an email with the words of the agreed vow that had been ‘signed off’ by the three leaders.”

    The identity of the sender is surely something that we can expect to be told?

  88. Ali says:

    It may be true tha the Smith commission wouldn’t be sitting now, for better or for worse. Not having been necessary at all would be an excellent reason not to sit.

  89. galamcennalath says:

    So, just to be 100% clear, Murray Foote, refers to his article which says …

    But there is another place for people to put their hopes for Scotland. It is called Home Rule. It is Scotland taking responsibility for a powerful package of tax and spending decisions …. it is what we are convinced most people want.

    … he is telling us that this is the background, context, amd meaning of the statement from the leaders which he sought, received and published?

    Murray Foote needs to be called out to clarify that this is his explicit understanding, because he certainly implies it is.

    And, what is the Record’s record is pursuing this Home Rule stance since the vote? I sense it has mellowed somewhat, like everyone else on the Unionist side.

  90. One_Scot says:

    Is there a more media corrupt country on the planet.

  91. JillP says:

    A political timeline.

    Brown entered the referendum debate on Monday 10th March 2014. I had the “great fortune” to be part of the audience that day. It was quite frightening to realise I had become part of such a “big” event. I was probably the only YES voter in the room and was well aware of the rubbish he was spouting. But little old me was not going to say anything as I would surely have made the news broadcasts that night and for long afterwards as the only dissenting voice.

    This was the event at which “pooling and sharing” was first heard. Whenever I hear the dreaded phrase I see GB standing at the front of that room spouting forth and everyone lapping it up 🙁

    I spoke to Johann Lamont and to Margaret Curran after the event and GB even wished me well as we passed in the doorway. I was leaving and he was coming back in after talking to press outside.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had I challenged him that day and asked whose resources would be pooled and shared, and which resources, then the phrase would have meant something completely different. It was believed and pushed by msm to be the rest of UK sharing their resources with Scotland, whereas we know it is Scotland’s great wealth of resources being shared around UK, and London in particular.

    But wait, the compliant media would have just ignored anyone who wasn’t towing the “party line”. I can sleep again. I didn’t miss the chance to change the path of the referendum campaign 🙂

  92. Kenny says:

    I would like Stu to call out the Daily Retard and ask it to put on its front page its demands for the Smith Commission, loud and clear, for all the people of Scotland to see (not sure how many of them actually buy “Scotland’s Champion”, of course!). These would naturally be Home Rule…

  93. Stoker says:

    Scotland must cleanse herself of all ("Tractor" - Ed)s – pass it on.

  94. A. Mylchreest says:

    Now anyone who thinks for a few minutes will realise that the ‘document’ on the Daily Wreck’s front page that day had been put together by whoever laid out the page, the mugshots obviously. Nevertheless, most people would have glanced at the page and gone on first impressions, and your first impression is that there existed an actual piece of paper, a physical document, with the wording of the ‘vow’ to which the three stooges had each signed their name. It’s clear from the email quoted above that no such document really existed, so therefore the newspaper must be guilty of deception, since it fabricated the item. It ‘uttered a forgery’. It produced a document and made it appear as though three other people had signed it. If we did that wouldn’t we end up in court?

  95. Luigi says:

    I agree the Vow looks like the work of Gordzilla. Poorly written, deliberately ambiguous and misleading, but sweet enough to fool enough soft NO’s and undecideds that were definitely beginning to consider voting YES.

    If it was the huge radioactive reptile, then he took a liberty, a calculated risk that the three amigos would not dare deny it. With so much at stake and all, how could they?

    The Sun could really destroy it’s competitor in Scotland if it pushed on this. Sadly, the unionist press always seems to circle the wagons and close ranks when one of the rags is under pressure.

  96. Haggis Hunter says:

    Confused dot com, I am. What I have got out of the correspondance is the LabServative Dems say nobody promised jack sh!t and from the Record, it was the LabServative Dems who dun it. Wtf?

  97. O/T Do not know if this is a hoax but just seen retweet from East Sussex County Council and there effigy of Scotlands First Minister Alex Salmond that they are going to burn tonight. @EastSussexCC

  98. Proud Cybernat says:

    Photo Caption:

    “The lie was THIS big!”

  99. ‘Accountability’; the scariest word in the world amongst Westminster Politicians and their media pals.

  100. manandboy says:


    What sustains Westminster, The Unionist Establishment in both England and Scotland, the Unionist print and TV media, etc?

    What sustains the very Union itself?

    I would suggest it is their BELIEF. But which belief?

    It is NOT the belief of the core union tribal supporters that the British State IS right, even when it’s wrong.

    Nor is it the belief by so many that the Government OUGHT to to do what is right

    Instead it is the belief by a large number of the non-core unionist electorate that the British State MUST be right simply because it is British.

    So, for example, when Alistair Darling speaks falsely on TV, the unionists cheer because what he says is in accord with tribal belief and custom.

    Those who know the facts and know that AD is lying, share a very different reaction.

    But the third group, who are NOT informed of the facts and who have little means by which to measure the truth or otherwise of Mr Darlings’ statements, will ASSUME he is telling the truth, simply because he is a representative of the British Establishment.
    It is this automatic belief that the Government or the Establishment must be telling the truth – this is what makes the NO VOTERS TICK.

    In other words, large swathes of British Society are programmed, so to speak, over many years, to believe implicitly in the British State. For these people, the very idea of thinking otherwise is as inconceivable as it is repulsive.
    Typically, they will say ‘I like being British’. Or, ‘I’m British. I just happen to live in Scotland’.

    The point of all this is that the Unionist side already know that the electorate is ‘weighted’ in their favour because the uninformed, the silent majority, are predisposed to believe the Unionist/Government version of events even when it is a continuous tissue of lies.

    The Indy campaign has a much harder job, for the same reason. Many people believe that someone who is against the Gov. must be a troublemaker and can’t possibly be right.

    What makes No voters tick represents a major challenge to those seeking Independence.
    But it could be worse, we could be groping in the dark, not knowing what we’re up against.

    Think. Why is the McCrone report and the WBB so effective?
    It’s because they disprove the belief that the British Gov is always right.
    Stu’s Wee Blue Book (WBB. Don’t leave home without one.

  101. Donna Lindsay says:

    Sounds like the daily record instigated the publication of the vow and they claim the parties provided the wording.

    No-one seems keen to touch it now with a s***** stick.

    “To clarify any misconception about what the unionist parties were proposing the Daily Record requested that the three leaders provide a clear, concise and signed joint promise, in their own words, that would serve as a binding guarantee to the people of Scotland that there would be further devolved powers in the event of a No vote.”

  102. Rigmac7 says:

    @Scott Finlayson

    No hoax, EBC website actually has a photograph of the effigy, it’s a very unflattering one and also includes the loch ness monster. Not putting a link to it for obvious reasons.

    Fuck Sussex, scum.

  103. JLT says:

    The Record made a faustian pact with no one but the devil. That is becoming clear. Did Cameron, Miliband or Clegg sign up to The Vow as hinted by the Record. Well, it’s starting to look a tad doubtful now. The Record is descending into its own personal hell …just like Scottish Labour. The lies that they spun have come back with a vengeance …and now they all paying a price. Their own souls be damned!

  104. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Re Lewes in Sussex

    They have form, and used to burn during centuries an effigy of the Pope in full Triple Crown attire.

    Rich bastards and closet racists. AS and Scotland is a just a within the Law racist act. The couldn’t do it nowadays to an Irish effigy like de Valera or Michael Collins could they. That would cause a diplomatic incident.

  105. Roberto Esquierdo says:

    Everybody is missing the point you cannot sign off a document unless you have written it. The verb signs definition–When you sign a documentYou write your name on it usually at the bottom or a place provided to indicate that YOU have written the document. All three leaders say they did not write it. So who the fuck did and why did they not sign it and say it was agreed by the three leaders and on their behalf

  106. SquareHaggis says:

    Shared this article with a few No’ers in the pub this afternoon.
    Interesting response.

    Previously, they liked to slag off this site, calling it Whinge over Scotland (and other choice names) prior to the referendum.

    Today, they were looking for allies and were actually complimentary and gracious about Wings and it’s authors’ attempts to unravel the VOW.

    The tide is turning ;-P

  107. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Robert Esquidero

    Equally as important why, if they did not sign it, did they keep quiet about that after it was published?

    Damned if they did, damned if the didn’t.

    So they are damned.

  108. Valerie says:

    @SquareHaggis, it’s good to hear some will open their minds, perhaps they see they voted with the dregs of the Labour party etc., and will start to read further.

    ‘re. That effigy thing in Essex, how hateful and disgusting. I don’t care what people say, there is a vocal English minority, who are openly racist. I have seen it too much.

  109. SquareHaggis says:


    They’re Tories…
    One voted No but still put a fairly large wager on a Yes.

    Re; Bonfire effigies, the kids did originally plan a JoLa but it looked too small and insignificant, subsequently binned.
    Skeletor as a scarecrow will be put to roast on Saturday.

    Good likeness too.

  110. gorbalito says:

    The Vow on its own was never going to be enough for that merchant of over the top Brown, it needed the gravitas of the saviour’s verbal input, a few choice words to conflate the Vow with what he believed were the words to convince the don’t knows. Those words: home rule and near federalism as damn. I believe he was author of both.

  111. Stoker says:

    Bugger (the Panda) says:
    5 November, 2014 at 5:03 pm
    Re Lewes in Sussex
    “They have form, and used to burn during centuries an effigy of the Pope in full Triple Crown attire.
    Rich bastards and closet racists. AS and Scotland is a just a within the Law racist act. The couldn’t do it nowadays to an Irish effigy like de Valera or Michael Collins could they. That would cause a diplomatic incident.”

    Thanks, Panda.

    The name “Lewes” was doing my head in and i couldn’t quite get why the name was coming across so strongly in my memory.

    Then i read your post and BINGO, i remember reading all about their wee “traditions” a few years ago.


  112. Ian kemp says:

    ” Roberto Esquierdo says:
    5 November, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Everybody is missing the point you cannot sign off a document unless you have written it. The verb signs definition–When you sign a documentYou write your name on it usually at the bottom or a place provided to indicate that YOU have written the document. All three leaders say they did not write it. So who the fuck did and why did they not sign it and say it was agreed by the three leaders and on their behalf”

    I’m intrigued by the fact that the 3 stooges photocopied signatures were attached to this ‘Vow’. If they personally were not party to or agreed the wording surely there must be some legal comeback against using their signature(s). In the mind of a layman that is fraud pure and simple.

  113. Molly says:

    Sorry to repeat the point but…

    On the first line of the vow it states” we agreed the Scottish Parliament is permanent” if the vow was a serious document , it is?If it was cobbled together , it isn’t ? This line has to be clarified by someone in the know.This is a Westminster decision , so has to be cleared up.

    Grouse beaters point about who we elect. While I certainly would never vote for the likes of Gordon Brown at least he is elected. If the vow has actually been put together by the likes of unelected spin doctors , that puts a completely different complexion on it.

  114. lochside says:

    Murray Foote: we’ve got your number!!

  115. Lollysmum says:

    @ BtP at 2.11pm
    Funding a legal opinion-I can support that with pleasure. Otherwise we’re just going round in circles which is what they want. Only succeeds in diverting us from other things happening. We need to start being pro-active now. I’ll chuck in £200 to a kitty

  116. FJ says:

    Definitely seems to be a country wide out-break of Foote in Mouth.
    Can we put their Red Tory Top paper in quarantine for a few years
    to see if it clears up?

  117. Bugger (the Panda) says:


    We will need about £200,000 for phase 1 and into 1.5?

    I just made that figure up but, so do lawyers as they write their bills?

    Train hard, fight easy.

  118. Lollymum says:

    @ BtP at 7.49pm

    Aw come on Panda we have to start somewhere-just thought I’d start the ball rolling but I guess everyone else is asleep or in Glasgow for the Million Mask march 🙂

  119. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    @ Lollysmum ( OK this time? )

    I thought that

    someone needs to increase their bandwidth?

    Are you going to the Glasgow rally for Nicola at the Armadillo this month end?

    See you there?



  120. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Nae money me.

  121. Lollysmum says:

    @ BtP
    Wish I could but I’m stuck way down in East Anglia (England) Left Scotland many years ago (mid seventies) but have always wanted to go back. Life just doesn’t work out the way you plan, does it?

    2 years to go to retirement then maybe-you never know-tentative plans & all that. I get really envious of everyone fighting for a better, fairer life in Scotland. Down here everyone knows you can’t fight Westminster so daren’t raise their heads above the parapet.I just want to be there doing my bit!

    Scotland is really fortunate in having both Alex & Nicola-both can be inspirational & both can play Westminsters game. Can’t make the NS Tour but maybe join in for the next referendum.

    Enjoy the Armadillo. Hope to hear good reports of it from everyone.

  122. De Valera says:

    As I’ve mentioned before, barring another coaltion at the next GE, two of the three leaders will stand down in May 2015, so they can sign whatever they want.

    Also the “winning” leader can then conveniently forget any event that took place way back in September. I would be very surprised if any of them had ever heard of the Daily Record anyway.

  123. gavin lessells says:

    It could be that the referendum result had already been fiddled and that the “Vow” was created to justify the already determined outcome. Just a thought.

  124. Barontorc says:

    All very quiet from the SG on this ‘VOW’. I dare say there are legal advisers available to them. Is it to be a matter for Joe McPublic alone to force through?

    We’ve got the BBC pi**ing all over us Scots. They’re burning an effigy of Alex Salmond, our FM, in Sussex tonight. They’ve mis-represented the UK Prime Minister and other UK party Leaders, forged their signatures to endorse a ‘VOW’ that swayed the referendum, a matter which is being disowned by the same leaders … and nothing is being done about it, or is it?

    We’re looking for leadership and protection here. That’s what government is supposed to do.

  125. Kenneth McCargow says:

    Has Murray Foote become one of the 118 guys?

  126. donald anderson says:

    Since we are on about Labour liars I thought I would share this with everyone. Don Roberto was an a aristocrat, then Liberal Reformer, then Founder member of the original Labour Party and then the National Party of Scotland in 1826. He was a Scottish Republican Socialist with no common ancestry to the British Labour Party, Miliband, Murphy or any of the other contenders for the gravy trough.

    Hello Donald,
    I just thought that you might be interested in joining The Cunninghame Graham Society and if you could let your members know about the meeting so that they could come along and join. Membership is £10.00 per year.

    Please find attached the Winter 2014/2015 Newsletter ‘Don Roberto.

    The Society AGM will be held on Friday the 28th of November, at 7pm in The Hidden Gallery, 1081 Argyle Street G3 8LZ (map below). Please come along.

    Any items for the agenda should be sent to Joe Farrell:

    Best Regards,

    Lachie Munro


  127. Will Podmore says:

    manandboy has come up with his analysis of why people voted no – it’s because they have been indoctrinated by the all-powerful state. So, it would seem to follow, that supporters of independence need to indoctrinate these 2 million misguided souls the other way. Sounds like Mao – people are blank sheets of paper, for me to write on. Contempt for your fellow-countrymen is hardly a winning formula.

  128. donald anderson says:

    Hi Will, you really have no idea of the cultural and historical indoctrination over the past 300 years in Scotland, let alone the current media assault.

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