stooges of the Kremlin

Wings Over Scotland

Vow left on bus, eaten by dog

Posted on November 26, 2014 by

We’ve had another letter from the government.

A few weeks ago we sent this letter to the Prime Minister’s office.


Today we heard back.

“I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office.”

Other than the standard boilerplate, that’s it. That’s all of it. No withholding of data on the grounds of privacy or national security or any of the usual dodges, just a flat-out denial that it happened at all. Nothing to see here, move along.

Daily Record editor Murray Foote expressly stated this month that email was the delivery mechanism. Now the Prime Minister claims no knowledge of any such emails. How, then, was “The Vow” arrived at? A midnight chat in an underground car park? Smoke signals? A nod and a wink and a tap of the nose? We don’t know, and frankly we’re not sure where we go from here in trying to find out. Any ideas, readers?

Print Friendly

    3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 26 11 14 14:59

      Vow left on bus, eaten by dog | FreeScotland

    2. 26 11 14 15:41

      Vow left on bus, eaten by dog - Speymouth

    3. 27 11 14 12:52

      Vow left on bus, eaten by dog | Politics Scotla...

    276 to “Vow left on bus, eaten by dog”

    1. Dinnatouch says:

      “the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office.”

      Does that mean the information doesn’t exist, or just that someone or somewhere else has it?

    2. callum says:

      One potential idea is a legal challenge targetting the Daily Record with a court appointed commissioner to retrieve evidence from their side of the fence.

      Given the vow was gratutious promise to the people of Scotland, it would be lovely if the pursuer would be “the people of Scotland” vs the daily record…

    3. Donald MacKenzie says:

      My interpretation of that is along the lines of, “Absolutely b…..r all to do with us. Completely made up by your little regional paper and some of the chaps thougth it would be fun to just add David’s name to it, knowing that it was only some sort of silly little regional vote on something and didn’t really amount to much and that the Jocks would soon forget all about it anyway. Now stop bothering us. We’re important people in London with really important things to be worrying about, like those nutters from UKIP.”

    4. Gavin Alexander says:

      Why don’t you ask David Cameron how, when and between whom the wording of “The Vow” was arrived at?

      Alternatively, report him to the Police for breaking purdah.

    5. desimond says:

      Somewhere Murray Foote just screamed “OHFURFUXAKE!”

    6. Nantonos says:

      It did what it was supposed to (affect the referendum) and is now being disclaimed by all parties involved.

      “Evaporating like campaign promises”

    7. Dave says:

      Either the Prime Minister or Mr Foote are lying. We’re entitled to know which. I know the Record isn’t that serious a newspaper, but do they want to be seen as stooges? I’d think the Record would want to clear the air. Maybe the Evening Times would investigate?

    8. Ian Patterson says:

      Perhaps consider asking the Daily record for a copy of the said email; perhaps noting it seemed to have been sent to the newspaper so its contents could be published. If DR will not supply a copy, perhaps it would then say who sent the said email – date and time etc – and then you could revert to Cabinet office with such data, asking for a fresh look to be made ‘as there may have been an item the was overlooked at (specified)’date/time’.

    9. Dr Ew says:

      To Murray Foote, Stu. The Prime Minister’s office has called him a liar.

      Can I also suggest you send all the revelant correspondence to the Scottish Government either directly or perhaps via a Scottish resident willing to pursue the matter through their MSP and/or MP.

    10. Stephen Lappin says:

      Make a complaint to to the Information Commissioner’s Office

    11. Elis Macfadyen says:

      Sentence including ‘kegs of dynamite’ comes to mind!

    12. Betty Boop says:

      Ask Jim Murphy – he knows everything!

    13. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

      It would be interesting to receive the Daily Labour Party’s comments. I’m sure it’s just a misunderstand Between Mr Foote and aliens from outer space!

    14. pajh says:

      Maybe you should ask the Record where they got the signatures from.

    15. Gordon Hay says:

      Perhaps, and I offer this as a serious suggestion, they searched using only the term “The Vow” knowing that it would return no results and they could then reply that nothing matching your request was found.

    16. Valerie says:

      I thought the same as dinnatouch. It’s good doublespeak, without actually lieing, or being helpful to point where it is held.

      Can’t expect full disclosure, or help, after all.

    17. ScottieDog says:

      It think it more appropriate “Vow deposited by dog”
      Bow wow vow.

    18. Martin Wood says:

      Might I suggest you forward it to the National?

      Could be an interesting front cover for tomorrow (or friday)

    19. Vicky Harper says:

      Who is responsible for ensuring the purdah was adhered to? Who governs those rules? If they have indeed been broken who do we turn to?

    20. Luigi says:

      Dave says:
      26 November, 2014 at 2:45 pm

      Either the Prime Minister or Mr Foote are lying. We’re entitled to know which.

      Exactly – even the possibility that the PM is lying is a very serious matter, of national importance.

      Given the slur on the PM’s reputation, Mr Foote should be ordered by Downing Street to apologise and recract his comments immediately.

      If not – then why not? Does Mr Cameron have something to hide?

      Regarding where to go next – how about one of the SNP MPs challenging the PM about this at QT? Either the Daily Record or the PM are going to be trashed for this.

      And what about Clegg, the third Amigo? He may be the weak link in the chain.

    21. Betty Boop says:

      Should not the Electoral Commission be questioned here to clarify why the UK government was allowed to make a new offer which was not on the ballot paper and the Scottish Government was not.

      I recall seeing a comment somewhere that as far as the EC was concerned, it was okay for the UK government because it was not deemed a campaigner (aye, right), but, the Scottish Government would be in breach of campaign rules if they had done something similar. Can’t recall the exact detail or where I read it.

      We seriously need to hold the EC to account too.

      In the words of Jacob Rees-Mogg (with thanks to Ian Brotherhood here) – underhand. We could expect nothing else.

    22. chalks says:

      Is it not the conservative PARTY that are responsible?

      In much the same way as it’s the Labour party who are signatories….rather than ‘the opposition?’

    23. jim heraghty says:

      It’s not in the ‘paper and electronic records’, it’s on the back of a fag packet. It’s not ‘held by the Cabinet Office’, it’s in the broom cupboard down the corridor.

    24. AuldA says:

      Don’t despair, Stu’, I’m sure the NSA keeps a copy of it.

    25. MolliBlum says:

      #1 Response asking – if this information is not held by the Cabinet Office, by whom is it held?

      #2 Identical letters to the offices of the other two signatories.

      Suppose you’ve already done all that, though.

    26. Macart says:

      Ooooooo popcorn time already?

      The plot thickens.

      I’m betting on nod, wink, nose tap and car park all at the same time. Possibly Mackintosh jaikets and wide brimmed fedoras involved too. 🙂

    27. Mike says:

      Perhaps the Sun could do a little hacking and find out the truth.

      Disclaimer, this post is written by me of my own volition. Due to Government cuts, banking incompetence, corporate rip offs and all the other guff I’m a broke pensioner so not worth suing.

    28. galamcennalath says:

      If the statement that the Cabinet Office ( of which the PM’s office is part) have absolutely no record of the negotiation and planning of the Vow is genuine, then it must not have originated from Cameron the PM. Which means it originated from Cameron the campaigning party politician. and that, is an indirect admission that Purdah had been breached IMO.

      Where to? Back to the Record for comment? Also, pursue the Purdah breaching angle?

    29. No no no...Yes says:

      The Vow was written on parchment, perhaps they could search their parchment records?

      Of course the PM and DPM office know nothing about, do you really think they would want any trace of this getting back to them?

      Mr Foote, his paper and the people of Scotland have been taken for mugs. Payback has already started:

      DR circulation-down, down, down
      The National- Pro-indy paper now in print
      SNP, Greens and all pro-indy groups- numbers up.
      Polls- SLAB in meltdown
      GE2015 tick tock..

    30. TJenny says:

      Anyone know how to contact Wikileaks?

    31. Stoker says:

      Today we heard back.

      “I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office.”

      Then who is it held by or have all traces been wiped.

      Rev, who sent you the reply? Did anyone put their name to it?

    32. scaredy cat says:

      Perhaps Mr. Brown or Mr. Darling would be able to assist?

    33. Jim Arnott says:

      Is there any way that The Daily Record can be embarrassed for claiming that they received an email after being written, discussed and agreed by the three political party leaders?

      We should all continually point out to The Daily Record that the Cabinet Office have confirmed they have no record of the email claimed by The Daily Record to have been received from the three party leaders. Let’s all just continually embarrass The Daily Record until they cave in.

      Problem – The Daily Record are not easily embarrassed.

    34. MolliBlum says:

      TJenny says “Anyone know how to contact Wikileaks?”
      Via the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, I suppose. 😉

    35. Andy-B says:

      Sounds to me like a curt letter fobbing you off. If the Vow is such a big deal to the Westminster bigwigs, then info on it between the leaders and the Daily Record, must surely exist somewhere within Westminster.

      Occam’s Razor, seems the more likely outcome, simply that the event never happened at all.

      After all its the Daily Record we’re dealing with here.

    36. gillie says:

      So the vow was signed(?) in a personal capacity by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, and not as representatives of the UK government, the official opposition at Westminster, nor as respective leaders of the Tory, Lib Dem and Labour parties and nor as representatives of the three parties.

      Daily Record claim the final wording came from Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Better Together.

      So who actually wrote the vow, how did the parties concerned come to agree to it, and who delivered it to the Daily Record?

    37. david agnew says:

      The Daily Record – Hoist by their own petard. Not even the clunking fist is hanging around to see it through – he’s off to do “charity” work. Someone will make their names writing about this period of history in Scotland. Hell, we can get Neil Oliver to do the documentary – we just need a wind swept hill for him to stand on.

    38. Kenny says:

      Forward all the info you have to The National. Maybe ask them for a wee stipend as their new columnist, Investigative Reporter and Gaming Correspondent. 😉

      I also like the idea of all of us getting in touch with our MSPs and getting them to help push the issue. A co-ordinated letter-writing campaign to the Record could put some pressure on Foote to release his side of the conversations. Obviously, further pressure on the PM, perhaps via the FOI ombudsman (or whatever it’s called) is essential. Also, perhaps we could get a Kirkcaldy constituent to ask their local MP to fight their corner on this, given his commitment to THE VOW’s fulfilment.

      (BTW, I’m totally serious about offering your services as a gaming correspondent for The National. A new young paper should be covering one of the most important entertainment markets in the world, not least since it’s an important niche industry for Scotland. Who better to cover it for them?)

    39. Stylishkev says:

      Hold on if the Daily record is saying they have emails why not ask them for a copy of said emails and you’ll find the proof of who sent it???

      That way you’ll easy find out who the bullshitter is. If the record refuses i’d call them on it, if they produce even one email, governments pants are on fire

    40. Training Day says:

      The Daily Record, Scotland’s Champion, will be keen to release the email Foote says he received, thus identifying its source. As a paragon of integrity we would expect nothing less from this august organ.

      Wouldn’t we, Murray?

    41. MolliBlum says:

      Hmmm… resubmit request quoting verbatim “We are agreed that: The Scottish Parliament is permanent, and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September” signed by etc. etc.

    42. Chuck says:

      Need to hold Murray Foote’s feet to the fire…alliterally

    43. JStewart says:

      Surely Gordon Brown would have a copy as it was him that foisted it upon us last minute?

    44. Luigi says:

      It seems obvious now that a fair bit of nudging and winking went on during the wee hours before the “signed” Vow was published.

      The problem with this little exercise in plausible deniability is that it does not work for both Downing Street and the Daily Record. And as for the other amigos? I expect they will close ranks and deny any agreement with the Daily Record. Goodbye, Mr Foote. It still begs the question though:

      If the Amigo signatures were blatantly and fraudulently used to give the Vow credibility, why was nothing at all said or done about it at the time? Senior politicians cannot allow their signatures to be used without their full agreement in such a serious matter.

      Nudge nudge, wink wink?

      Sorry, Amigos, you can’t slip out of this one so easily.

    45. Fiona says:

      How about asking for the minutes of any meetings at which the Vow was discussed?

    46. Harry McAye says:

      In my wee newsagent earlier around 1pm, there were a bigger pile of unsold Daily Record’s than there were unsold Nationals. Their demise cannot come soon enough. Scotland’s Champion, feck off!

    47. Ian Sanderson says:

      I’m sure that all the “vowing leaders” will have access to personal email a/c and/or party email.

      Perhaps an approach, time-consuming tho’ it might be, to the respective party HQ(s)?

      Anyone wanting to contact Wkileaks only has to Google it

    48. think again says:

      I have, on impulse, just emailed Nick Clegg via Lib Dem website.

      An instantaneous reply tells me that emails from his constituents are sent to Sheffield for reply – they ask your postcode – however due to the high volume of other mail received it is not always possible to reply in detail, although Nick and the policy unit get feedback.

      He sure will get feedback come May.

    49. HandandShrimp says:

      The Record got into bed with the Tories and came out with a nasty dose of something unmentionable.

    50. Luigi says:

      Whatever the Daily Record got up to with the Vow, the Amigos are going to look pretty bad either way. Let’s suppose it was the Record wot dun it – then what kind of politician allows his/her signature to be used in the front page of a national newspaper without prior agreement?

    51. says:

      “I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office.”

      Next stage is asking same Cabinet office who does in fact hold the information you requested. Although they won’t tell you probably. The Daily Record editor might actually be an out sand out liar, though highly unlikely:D

      Dudes like him usually operate at the my country right or wrong level and there are plenty of them creeping about. My ex Slovene girlfriend and UKOK aw Prof Tomkins is another example of teamGEnglandB or bust.

    52. gillie says:

      If all this was done by email, then it must be personal email accounts.

    53. Lollysmum says:

      Re negotiations on the VOW, don’t forget that WM MP’s & ministers have been known to use personal email addresses to avoid having to produce said emails in event of investigation or Freedom of Information requests.

      There is an electronic paper trail somewhere possibly in name of SPADs,members of the lords or some such but sent on behalf of & with full knowledge & consent of their principals(Dave, Ed & Nick).

      Anyone thought of asking Anonymous to help? 🙂

    54. TJenny says:

      Actually just goggled ‘How do I contact Wikileaks’ and it gives various options including ‘Press, Legal and Press inquiries’. I’m sure Stu’s considering. 😉

    55. Dr Jim says:

      Jings Crivvens Help ma Boab Ah Dinnae Believe It

    56. Luigi says:

      How about a public petition to the House of Commons?

      Can we force them to debate the matter of the Vow and who was responsible, if we get enough signatures?

    57. Ian Sanderson says:

      Use of either their own, or colleagues, personal email accounts?

      Wiki leaks is easily available via a Google search…

    58. Lollysmum says:

      We do know who will have copies of all correspondence


      after all we do know they keep copies of every email sent but somehow I don’t expect them to respond to FOI requests either. They’re all in it together!

    59. Swami Backverandah says:

      The DR specifically states that the wording was “written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.”
      There must be correspondence of some kind evidencing this discussion.
      This seems to indicate that the requests for this evidence need to be submitted to the party leaders via their party mechanisms.
      This should flush out how the wording of the “Vow” was arrived at and who was responsible.
      If the Cabinet Office doesn’t have a record of it, this could be because it keeps only records appertaining to Government, not Parties.

      If you are requesting this info from the point of breach of purdah, that would only apply if the Government made the offer of new powers. If it was party campaigners, whatever their positions, who “arrived at the wording” there should be evidence of this.

      Breaching purdah could be arrived at re the technicality of the mechanisms in the timetable, as they are Parliamentary processes, but this is a separate issue in my view.

      The point of the ‘Vow’ with the appended signatures was to appear to the public that this was UK Gov, present, and possibly future, making these offers, when it was not. This is a point worth restating for the benefit of the wider public. They can then decide whether, and to what degree, they were duped.

    60. Ros says:

      They’re saying it’s not held by the cabinet office….it’ll be lurking somewhere else. But if it seems to have vanished, the DR would surely love to be informed that there’s no evidence to back their claim…

      Alistair Darling is my MP – I’d be delighted to write to him to ask him to shed some light on what happened, if that’s any help?

    61. McHaggis says:

      “the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office.”

      Does that mean the information doesn’t exist, or just that someone or somewhere else has it?

      the fact information is held elsewhere is actually one of the exemptions in the Scottish FOI regs, but in exercising it the respondent would have to detail where the information is held.

      I assume there is similar provision in the E&W regs.

      I suspect that the truth is somewhere in between. The DR will have a flurry of emails from Tory, Labour and Libdem representatives* but that is all. They won’t have something directly from Cameron.

      *by representatives I actually think this was all dreamed up by DR/Labour spin doctors and notified to libdem and tory press offices who simply said ‘yeah, go for it’.

    62. Brian Powell says:

      Bear in mind the UK Gov, the Treasury, the UK civil service, the CBI, the ConLib Party (Westminster n Scotland), the Labour Party (Westminster n Scotland), thought that after the No vote, that the SNP, Yes and associated parties, would collapse and disappear.

      it never occurred they would be in the spotlight, asked to answer for what they did, or prove anything.

    63. Murray McCallum says:

      If the Cabinet Office have no record of Prime Minister Cameron being a party to what the Daily Record printed (including his signature) and Murray Foote later claimed, then surely there has been identity theft or forgery?

      Their document management system would record the receipt and transmission of papers even if they no longer hold them.

    64. ClanDonald says:

      We’re still waiting for Faisal Islam of Sky News, who claims to have copies of these emails, to release them. Hope we don’t have to wait much longer but they are probably holding on to them till nearer the election.

      Hey, maybe this is why Brown resigned: he knows the emails are going to be released and will be a great embarrassment to him. Oh God, hope it’s true 🙂

    65. Mary Peters says:

      Has anyone contacted Gordon Brown? Or what about Torcuil Chrichton the Daily Records man in Westminster?

      The following is a letter sent by the Celtic League to the United Nations with regard to Westminster manipulating and meddling in a democratic process.

      ‘Manipulation’ and ‘Interference’ in Referendum Campaign UN Notified

      The general secretary of the Celtic League has written to the new United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, expressing his concern over breaches to an international covenant during the run up to the Scottish referendum on Thursday 18th September 2014.

      In his letter, Rhisiart Tal-e-bot, stated that he would like to make a formal complaint to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on behalf of the Celtic League – an NGO with roster consultative status with the United Nations – about the manipulation and interference of United Kingdom State parties in the referendum campaign. In the letter the general secretary referred to several “well documented” complaints, which were: “obviously designed to ‘manipulate or influence’ the outcome – a clear violation of the HRC guidance.” The full text of the letter is set out below:

      “United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein


      Dear United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

      UK in Breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) regarding Scottish Referendum (Friday 18th September 2014)

      I am writing to express my concern about clear breaches by the UK Parliament of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in relation to the Scottish referendum for independence.

      As you will be aware the UK has signed and ratified the ICCPR, compelling it to agree to uphold the Covenant. However, in a number of instances leading up to the Scottish referendum, UK State parties seemed to renegade on the terms of the Covenant, in relation to the accepted procedure of how referenda campaigns should be carried out.

      We would like to draw your attention to Article 25 of the ICCPR and section 19 in particular, of the Human Rights Committee, General Comment 25 (57), General Comments under article 40, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the Committee at its 1510th meeting, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7 (1996). I have copied below the relevant section 19 in General Comment 25 (57) mentioned above for your convenience:

      “In conformity with paragraph (b), elections must be conducted fairly and freely on a periodic basis within a framework of laws guaranteeing the effective exercise of voting rights. Persons entitled to vote must be free to vote for any candidate for election and for or against any proposal submitted to referendum or plebiscite, and free to support or to oppose government, without undue influence or coercion of any kind which may distort or inhibit the free expression of the elector’s will. Voters should be able to form opinions independently, free of violence or threat of violence, compulsion, inducement or manipulative interference of any kind. Reasonable limitations on campaign expenditure may be justified where this is necessary to ensure that the free choice of voters is not undermined or the democratic process distorted by the disproportionate expenditure on behalf of any candidate or party. The results of genuine elections should be respected and implemented.”

      In relation to section 19 in particular, there are a number of instances where State parties actively sought to manipulate and interfere with the freedom of voters to express their choice fairly under the democratic process. Specifically, and most significantly, these actions include:

      1) The UK Government (although having stated the decision was for the Scottish people) solicited foreign governments and senior officials of International bodies such as NATO and the EU to attempt to influence the process

      2) UK State parties actively solicited businesses i.e. Supermarkets and banks to influence the process.

      3) Three UK political parties outlined additional powers (‘The Vow’) to voters after the electoral process had started i.e. after postal ballots had been cast.

      All these steps taken by the UK government and the three political parties were obviously designed to ‘manipulate or influence’ the outcome – a clear violation of the HRC guidance.

      These matters are well documented and on the public record. In our view these issues form the basis of a potential complaint and that is what I would like to do on behalf of the Celtic League as a registered NGO with Roster consultative status with the United Nations.

      We look forward to hearing from you soon.

      Rhisiart Tal-e-bot
      General Secretary
      Celtic League
      gensec [at] celticleague [dot] net
      gensec [at] celticleague [dot] net
      M: 07787318666

      The General Secretary will determine the appropriate branch or General Council Officer to respond to your query.

      ISSUED BY THE CELTIC LEAGUE INFORMATION SERVICE The Celtic League has branches in the six Celtic Countries. It works to promote cooperation between these countries and campaigns on a broad range of political, cultural and environmental matters. It highlights human rights abuse, monitors all military activity and focuses on socio-economic issues.

    66. ian says:

      This could be the rope to hang them all with.

    67. darren bell says:

      If none of the party leaders are admitting any connection to the “vow” then why cant the daily record be procecuted for fraud? since they used signitures of three people that didnt know of any such document? 😉 it makes sense

    68. indigo says:

      The vow was made by the individuals in their capacity as party leaders, not as government, so presumably correspondence would be between DR and Conservative Party, Labour Party etc.

      Political parties I’m guessing aren’t subject to FoI, so there would be no obligation on them to reveal any comms if done through party channels?

    69. liz says:

      Rev, Maybe you should contact Faisal Islam who claimed to have seen emails between the cons and Lab grandees re the Vow.

    70. Callum says:

      here is a full assessment (publically available) of the document management systems at 10 downing street:

      quote of the day:

      “The Prime Minister’s Office Correspondence Unit’s 10 Share is an impressive, well managed electronic correspondence and email management system”

    71. Frankiebhoy58 says:

      Surely Clegg and Millibands office have still to reply. As well as the Record. If any or all continue to deny knowledge of the formation or affirmation of the ‘VOW’ then the police should be informed as someone has clearly committed a fraudulent act by claiming the ‘VOW’ was agreed and signed by the 3 Amigos.

    72. tombee says:

      Could this be considered FRAUD?.
      Criminal activity defined as,
      1. Abuse of position.
      2. False representation.
      3. Predudicing someone’s rights for personal gain.

      Put simply, Fraud is an act of deception, intended for personal gain. Or, to cause loss to another Party.

      Fraud is committed via
      (a) False representation.
      (b) by failing to disclose information,
      (c) by abuse of position.
      (d) Electoral Fraud.

      All means of deception, by whatever means, (including by email), designed to take affect upon another to their detriment.

      Most cases dealt with by the Police, but occasionally, by other agencies.
      Is a report to the police a viable consideration?.

    73. Clootie says:

      …why was it the Daily Record coudn’t show us a copy of the received email…I’ve forgotten why 😀

    74. ian says:

      I think what kills me and eats me up about this whole thing is they are not even subtle about it.The BBC, press, the goverment they have reached a level of utter disrespect for the rest of us thats beyond belief.At the age of 55 i still believe most people tell the truth and do the right thing, how wrong was i.What an ugly world we live in.

    75. farrochie says:

      It is really up to all of us to write letters to our MPs. I’ve already done so.

      I asked where to get a true copy of the original signed version, and about the circumstances of the signing.

      OK, I didn’t get a satisfactory answer to my original or to my follow-up. My MP just says “it was given to the Daily Record as an exclusive”. Apparently, I’m not going to be told who holds the original, who drafted it, how it was signed, etc.

      I knew it was fishy when there was no band of photographers to witness the historic signing.

    76. liz says:

      Ah @ClanDonlad – we are thinking the same thing.

      Do you think Murdoch is hanging on to them until the time is right??

    77. cirsium says:

      Would the next step not be to submit a FOI request to the special Foreign Office unit which was set up to deal with the referendum?

      Would it be productive to contact Mr Islam of Sky News?

    78. Lenny Hartley says:

      What about tipping off RT News UK to do an expose on it, it would be right up there street.

    79. Alastair Ewen says:

      “All traces have been wiped”

      The question then, is, wiped on what exactly?

    80. gillie says:

      I contacted the Scotland Office and they replied that they don’t have any information on the ‘vow’, but suggested I should “contact the party leaders”.

      Nick Clegg’s office responded by saying, “In the weeks before the referendum, the UK party leaders agreed to promises made, and the wording of the statement, that became known as ‘the vow’. The statement was then given to the Daily Record who decided on the layout and printed it as an exclusive story. The text in that newspaper is therefore the complete text of the vow.”

      I also contacted Murray Foote, who responded by saying, “the three leaders agreed the words used and they further agreed that their signatures would be used as a binding commitment to deliver on the promise they made to the people of Scotland.”

      When you consider how important the ‘vow’ was the strange thing is no one is prepared to release the corresponding emails that proves its existence.

      Could it be we are all being simply lied to by the party leaders and the Daily Record.

    81. farrochie says:

      Alert Readers,

      Write to your MP today, please folks.

      Ask to see the original version that was provided to the DR.

      Ask who drafted it and who cleared it for release.

      Ask who now holds the original.

      Refer to Standard Note SN/PC/06987 where it states, page 6, “the leaders of the UK political parties issued a joint signed statement of undertakings”

      Get writing now.

    82. galamcennalath says:

      The more everyone passes the buck, the more it looks like something which needs to be denied
      occured. Perhaps the DR overstepped itself, but that suited the three amigos so they just went along with it. Perhaps some clever spin-mechanics in BT dreamt it up, and again the three party leaders just let it go. Perhaps they all want the Vow to go away because they were never serious. Or, perhaps it didn’t come from HMG and therefore breached Purdah.

      The truth will come out!

    83. farrochie says:

      gillie says:
      26 November, 2014 at 4:36 pm

      I got the same wording via my LibDem MP, after a couple of reminders, referring to Nick Clegg office.

      I e-mailed Angus Robertson as leader of SNP at Westminster, got nothing back.

      I wrote, enclosing SAE, to Smith Commission, asking for copy of the vow, which must be the key document for them. Nothing back.

      I think Stewart Hosie might be my next letter.

    84. MarkAustin says:

      Brian Powell says:

      26 November, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Bear in mind the UK Gov, the Treasury, the UK civil service, the CBI, the ConLib Party (Westminster n Scotland), the Labour Party (Westminster n Scotland), thought that after the No vote, that the SNP, Yes and associated parties, would collapse and disappear.

      it never occurred they would be in the spotlight, asked to answer for what they did, or prove anything.

      I think this is the case. In last week’s Spectator (at work, so can’t reference page etc), they report a correspondant speaking to a Labour big-wig, who said that they expected a civil war in the post-referendum SNP between the “independance only” and “devo-max” factions.

      What actually happend must have come as a nasty shock.

    85. Jim Mitchell says:

      Nantonos, I agree, the real ‘main’ thing here is that the union was saved, all of those things mentioned above would probably have occurred to the various parties before the vows release but the thing was, win the referendum, the excuses will be in place, what is important now is how we use this information with the Scottish people and I would suggest also how we can use it to split the unionist party’s, i e get them to publicly blame each other and/or the record

    86. msean says:

      Only in Scottish politics lol. We have a winner,but er, no one wants to claim the credit.

    87. farrochie says:

      Lesley Riddoch also offered the following insight.

      @farrochie Sep 24
      @LesleyRiddoch Lesley, have you seen copy of actual vow that was signed by 3 party leaders, shown in DR? I want to find where original held.

      @LesleyRiddoch Sep 24
      @farrochie No. And some senior Labour folk suggest it wasn’t actually signed.

    88. msean says:

      You could ask the U S Government,don’t they have a copy of everybodies emails? 🙂

    89. manandboy says:

      I once knew an old lady who was blind, deaf and dumb and completely invalid. I thought at first she must live a dark, isolated and lonely life.
      Then her daughter explained to me that she still had touch and feel as well as the sense of smell. But above all she had a brain – and she was alert. She knew she was loved and being cared for. And she could communicate, mostly by facial expressions.

      When I think of Britain’s brainwashed electorate, and the way the WM Gov treats the population in general, that old lady was way ahead.

      From David Cameron to Murray Foote via Murphy, Milliband, and the BBC/Press, the UK and its Government is a dark place indeed because that’s the way they have made it, through decades of continuous lying on an almost hourly basis.

      When we watch TV or read the papers, we are actually looking into that same darkness.
      Though whether we recognise it as such is another matter.

      One thing we can be sure of is that 2 million in Scotland looked at the darkness and believed the lies that made it so.

      In GE15 we all have the chance to take another look.

      Let’s hope a lot more recognise the darkness for what it truly is, and turn to the light.

    90. wingman 2020 says:

      “I have established that the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office.”

      It is held somewhere else. Most likely the anti-independence committee attended by Cameron and chaired by Osborne. They didn’t operate out of the cabinet office.

    91. Jim Mitchell says:

      I think that it might be more illuminating if we were to ask our MP’s to pursue the matter and then make their response public!

      However we should be aware that the real response will come (it’s already started in fact), when unionist candidates are electioneering and they refrain from saying, ‘we know that lots of things we unionists have done in the past have been wrong but this is still the best deal in town’, but they still want us to have that in the front of our minds, or as apologists would say ‘Aye bit’. its worked before!

    92. Joemcg says:

      Hate to be the bearer of bad news but I saw many more copies of The National left than the Rancid at 4pm today.Mind you the shop in question WAS waitrose in MORNINGSIDE road!

    93. jimnarlene says:

      As we knew all along, the “Vow” was a load of pish. Hopefully the new paper can run with this.

    94. Ewan says:

      Sounds like its gone the same way as Leon Brittan’s dossier.

    95. The_Burger says:

      Why not have a crowd funder to raise the cash to start legal proceedings against the DR?

      As somebody above stated, ‘The People of Scotland vs. The Daily Record’ would have a nice ring to it.

    96. Ken MacColl says:

      They lie. Nothing new here.
      Who is surprised?

    97. velofello says:

      Ah, you see Rev you didn’t cast your net wide enough – they believe, and so can respond with ” the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office”. Pedantry yes, they fully understand the correspondence you are seeking.

      Reminds me of many years back when on an assignment in the Far East. We had commissioned a vessel with a crane and the crane continuously failed. So we called a meeting with the owner and his ex-Pat colonial type manager. The ex-Pat put forward the defence that we had commissioned a vessel with a crane but we hadn’t stipulated that the crane was to be operational! My response that such a response was an affront to personal esteem caused the Owner to explode with anguish, and agree to fix the crane.

      So Cameron. Clegg, and Millie hiding behind “the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office” is an affront to the three amigos. But then unlike the Owner referred to above, maybe they don’t care.

    98. No no no...Yes says:

      A wee reminder of the core subject under discussion. Here is the archive copy of the DR front page:

      Key text:
      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.
      The agreement was brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour.

      So, quite clearly, the DR were the instigators of the whole con and GBroon and SLAB are central players.

      Of course in a previous WoS article, it was learned that the Daily Record “mocked up” the Vow:

      Questions arise from all of this:
      What did the DR mean when they said SLAB was involved in brokering the Vow?
      What was Johann Lamont and Anas Sarwar’s role. Were they ignored by Head Office? Was this part of the reason they resigned?
      What exactly was Broon’s involvement? It would not surprise me if it was all his idea, given his love of Scotland..

      Methinks Murray Foote has the answers to all of these questions, will he set the Record straight?

      The constituents of Broon, Lamont and Sarwar all have a right to attend their surgeries and ask questions.

    99. Grouse Beater says:

      Does ‘not held by the cabinet office’ mean held by Gordon Brown’s office?

      Half-truths are a good way to deflect curiousity and avoid naming names.

    100. Truth says:

      From my limited experience of foi requests I would interpret this to mean the emails don’t exist.

      The govt don’t have to lie if they don’t want to release it, there are ample get outs they can use.

      Daily Record, you’ve just been found out. What have you got to say?

    101. Albaman says:

      Aye Rev,
      Put the your investigation into the public domain, via “The National”. And let the public at large see what underhand tactics the Westminster, and Whitehall departments get up to, then, and no doubt in the future!.

    102. Schrödinger's cat says:

      Something stinks, not sure why both the DR and wm areducking and diving

      If there is no record of emails, is the DR guilty of fraud?

      Murray foots correspondence was quick to point out the 3 party leaders didn’t act to disown the vow……is that because this failure could be considered an act of electoral fraud?

      I’m convinced footes email to stu was for the benefit of wm, not us

      Wings and the national should just accuse the DR of fraud, if there is a court case they will need to supply proof to the contrary

      I’m not sure if the above scenario is the correct way to force the issue, but I get the impression of panic from all party’s, so forcing the issue is what must be done. Foi is a bit of a waste of time, it could be it is too specific and even if we did identify the correct department where such info could be found in wm, I’m sure they would just shift it to another dept and then say they couldn’t find it?

      Would. Mass foi request from all of us at the same time in every dept not pay dividends?

      Just bouncing ideas about…..

    103. Stoker says:

      @ Mary Peters (4.17pm).

      Thank you for that, very interesting.

      The Vow and its architects cr@pped all over this part:
      “Voters should be able to form opinions Independently,
      free of violence or threat of violence, compulsion,
      inducement or manipulative interference of any kind.”

      For “inducement and manipulative interference” please
      see ‘The Vow’ – one of MANY examples of interference.

      When can we expect a response – after May 2015?

      Thank you once again, please keep us informed.

    104. desimond says:

      Hopefully the new paper can run with this.


      If The National are reading, and surely they are, then this could be the ideal way to spend the next 24 hours preparing a final day splash “LIARS UK!

    105. Schrödinger's cat says:


      It is held somewhere else.?

      Locked filing cabinet in the basement with “beware of the leopard” in large friendly letters on the front

    106. Schrödinger's cat says:

      Time to flush out the rats, how about
      “Murray foote is a liar”
      Sit back and enjoy?, what’s the going rate for a retraction? 6k?
      I.d crowd fund that…..Lol

    107. scotsbob says:

      “Is not held by the Cabinet Office”

      That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Maybe the request needs to go elsewhere.

    108. Albaman says:

      Maybe just maybe Morag may find the “Vow” emails, hid away in a corner drawer in an archive basement room, and in that drawer marked “not to be disclosed EVER ” she will find also evidence of Goverment involvement in the Lockerbie cover-up!.

    109. kininvie says:

      The emails won’t be in any government department – because if any part of the vow had been negotiated via government machinery, it would have been a clear breach of purdah – and they ain’t that stupid.

      Spads & party HQs will have done all the wording negotiations via personal emails & phone calls, and will then have taken final text – maybe in person – to the leaders for approval. Knowing the Tories, they will have got Labour HQ to send the final text to the DR – since the more they can distance themselves, the better. Labour, bless them, saw themselves as getting all the credit, which is why Cameron then shafted them with EVEL – just to remind them who is boss.

      Stu – you are on a hiding to nothing here. This was an underhand and dirty little stitch up between parties, and throughout, the government will have made sure there were no official fingerprints on it.

      Your chances of getting hold of anything through official channels are nil. The only hope is that there was a mole somewhere who did a little bit of quiet forwarding, or that someone decided to archive a few emails – for future use. I can think of one or two people who might have done just that.

    110. Albaman says:

      Who wrote the “Vow”?,
      I may be wrong, but my guess is Clegg, not Nic, but David, the Record’s political editor.

    111. Schrödinger's cat says:


      That sounds reasonable, is there any mileage in outing this info?

      Why would the 3 parties want to distance themselves from this info?

      Murray foote did seem really pissed of in his last letter to stu….

    112. Nana Smith says:

      Tomorrow we will get an early Christmas present…probably a box of fudge!

    113. Schrödinger's cat says:

      No no no”……yes
      What was Johann Lamont and Anas Sarwar’s role. .?

      They make an excellent cup of tea I hear…..

    114. Barontorc says:

      Rev Stu; as Farochie said earlier ‘…Refer to Standard Note SN/PC/06987 where it states, page 6, “the leaders of the UK political parties issued a joint signed statement of undertakings”

      Get writing now.

      I don’t know the weight of said ‘Standard Note’ in legal terms – but it always goes back to the old Scot’s saying … “Facts are chiels that winna ding…” so if it was in an official UK Parliament briefing paper – somebody put it there – so where’s that source?

      For me – this is that ‘smoking gun’.

    115. muttley79 says:

      Just reading today’s edition of the National. Fantastic, batshit crazy, almost limitless lack of self awareness quote from Jim Murphy on page 2. The right-wing Blairite, uber-neoliberal, warmonger and Iraq war supporter, apparent member of the Henry Jackson Society in the USA, and nuclear weapons loving, Labour MP says:

      “I am a democratic socialist standing to lead a democratic socialist party.” 😀 😀

    116. john king says:

      Anyone have an opinion of Nicola Sturgeons proposals for a local income tax?

      Is this the first shot in the counter attack on Labours attempt to bypass Holyrood and “devolve extra responsibility” to local government to sideline the Scottish government?

    117. Swami Backverandah says:

      Here’s a curly one.
      Why Scotland cannot get any ‘new’ powers.
      If the party leaders made new promises after the postal vote went out, they would be in breach of purdah.

      Therefore, so that the process of the referendum is not rendered invalid, the Smith Commission can only offer what was already agreed prior to the vote, stated as the ‘Vow’; ie. continuation of Barnett, in some form or other, and what is already contained in the Scotland Act 2012 re revenue raising.

      Even if one could argue that within the consultation process of Smith, the parties could come to an agreement that constituted the devolution of more powers, these cannot be said to have been promised within the purdah period prior to the referendum, and therefore must have been previously agreed, or not mentioned at all.

      Is this the case?

    118. Sounds like the Vogon Civil Service interstellar planning authority on Alpha Centaurii would be a better bet for clarifying information on this issue – Stu.

      You know filed in triplicate, lost, found, re-requested, lost, shredded, composted and then fed with their Granny to the Bugblatterbeast of Troll (which in itself requires notification in triplicate and then …)

    119. Barontorc says:

      Apologies if this has gone out already

      Rev Stu: As farochie said earlier ‘…Refer to Standard Note SN/PC/06987 where it states, page 6, “the leaders of the UK political parties issued a joint signed statement of undertakings”

      Get writing now.

      I don’t know the “legal weight” of said Standard Note briefing paper – but it is an official parliamentary document that somebody filed – so where is that source?

      This is a ‘smoking gun’.

    120. Denboy says:

      I wonder if the clever folk at anonymous could hack in and dig it out.

    121. Croompenstein says:

      The Vow has all the underhandedness and sleekitness of McTernan, I’m sure his evil hands were involved somewhere along the line..

    122. Lesley says:

      Betty Boop you are right. That was what the Electoral Commission wrote back to me when I raised the issue of breach of purdah.

    123. Truth says:

      Love the solitary comment on the channel 4 blog: “karma”

    124. Schrödinger's cat says:

      Buried in soft peat for 3 months ……

    125. Stoker says:

      kininvie says:
      26 November, 2014 at 5:53 pm
      “The emails won’t be in any government department – because if any part of the vow had been negotiated via government machinery, it would have been a clear breach of purdah – and they ain’t that stupid.”

      Spot on!

      …Yes says:
      26 November, 2014 at 5:35 pm
      “Key text:
      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.
      The agreement was brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour.
      So, quite clearly, the DR were the instigators of the whole con and GBroon and SLAB are central players.
      Of course in a previous WoS article, it was learned that the Daily Record “mocked up” the Vow:”

      I would like it clarified – WHO or WHAT do they mean by “Scottish Labour?”
      And i know what it says but i’m not convinced the DR was the true “instigator” – more the vehicle to transmit the deception.

      Point of note – “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.”

      BUT, and it’s a big but, that had already been agreed, had it not? The simple Yes or No question which was supposed to lead to Independence or the status quo.

      We’re back to that “inducement and manipulative interference” again, eh!

      Somebody really needs to build and pursue a strong legal case.

      Hopefully the Celtic League will come up with a positive result.

    126. The Isolator says:

      Ever since it was published I’ve found “The Vow” to be a bit of a strange event in relation to the unionist cause and also where it sits post referendum.Unionist rag produces smokescreen shocker days before the vote.

      Obviously the fluff involved was intentional on their part but the lack of attack from the SNP since has been puzzling for sure.

      Has Cameron set a trap for Labour nationally with his involvement in this I wonder?To suggest that the SNP and Alex Salmond /Nicola Sturgeon in particular appear on the surface fairly non plussed by this and the flaunting of Purdah rules by the three Amigos in general is an understatement.

      Goodness knows,but I’m hoping that there is a plan somewhere in the Independence movement to hold this shower of shysters to account beginning with May next year.I’m afraid holding their feet to the fire may not suffice.

    127. IAB says:

      The one party that cannot deny responsibility is the Daily Record and someone in the know needs to tell us how to start to get at the truth of their involvement. Second is Brown who pontificated until he decided to retire (there is a great deal of stuff on record including his petition). Last and not least (at the run up to the GE) are the three amigos – if they had no involvement then why did they not challenge their signatures? Any legal expert out there?

    128. JayR says:

      I contacted Murray Foote with 4 questions and he replied within a few hours to “explain” how “The Vow” came about, without answer my question on who actually wrote it and who emailed it to him.

      I emailed him again to answer that final question (who wrote it and how emailed it?). That was several weeks ago and there has been no reply. Several friends of mine have emailed him the same question, and have got the same silence.

      My guess is either DR are lying through their teeth and they wrote the whole thing and made the story up, with a little help from John McTernan.

    129. Coco says:

      The one and only copy was probably accidentally stapled to DCs expenses claim from around 2008 on its way to the incinerator

    130. John says:

      I’m waiting on my reply from the press complaints kitten, I suggested that the DR e mails they wouldn’t give Stu could be shown to them and they could report to me what the circumstances were.
      No doubt I’ll get nothing of the sort.

    131. dunghurlersunite says:

      Why not just hang the ‘Vow’ around Labour’s neck. They might just decide to squeal when they get their just desserts as it was clunking fist who delivered it to the electorate. Is anyone taking over Brown’s role? Can they shed any light on the ‘Vow’?

    132. JayR says:

      We MUST find out the truth.

      If, as seems likely, the DR made it up and just lied to the Scottish people, then proving that and making everyone aware of that will destroy the DR and its “reputation”, and neutralize a major propaganda barrier against independence.

    133. sandy thomson says:

      An SNP Westminster MP can ask a written question, this must be answered by letter or orally in the chamber. as long as the question is asked in the correct manner (leaving no wriggle room), we would get the answer to who’s lying.

    134. Tam Jardine says:

      Does Smith not hold everything? After all, GB states

      “Last Friday I met with Lord Smith of Kelvin, the head of the new commission responsible for delivering more powers to the Scottish Parliament. I passed him the documents that I had assembled from my pre-referendum talks with the pro-devolution political parties about the timetable for further devolution and the signing of the vow” in his letter to the constituency labour party.”

    135. Flower of Scotland says:

      It would be nice if The NATIONAL invited you to do a piece for them and you did this! The 55% might be interested!

      It’s funny how in 68 years I have never used sweary words but now mutter B******s under my breath all the time now!

    136. Al Hunter says:

      Tackle Gordon Brown for evidence of his conversations with the ‘leaders’ offering a vow

    137. Al Hunter says:

      Tackle Gordon Brown before he too slips off the political radar

    138. gerry parker says:

      @ John King.
      I hope they come up with a replacement to the council tax that will have the same effect as the stamp duty replacement had.

      Hope everyone takes Farrochie’s advice and writes to their MP about the Vow, they need to be chased mercilessly on this one.
      Remember from Eds office to Tom Clarkes office.
      “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.”

    139. Stoker says:

      Sky News announcing:
      “Sky news have learned details” of the Smith Commission agreements. And they say a televised press conference will take place tomorrow (Thursday 27th) – never caught if they stated a time.

    140. Robert Bryce says:

      In an almost unrelated matter I too wrote a letter in this instance to my MP Mr Greg McClymont.

      I asked him to support Clive Efford’s bill to halt privatisation of the NHS. His reply boils down to the following two points.

      1. SNP bad
      2. Labour will save us from everything.

      He did confirm though that he was in support of Clive Efford’s bill but unfortunately couldn’t attend parliament to vote in favour of it but he was definitely in support of it.

      Oh and the NHS needs saving from the SNP.

    141. Cuilean says:

      This ‘Vow’ is turning into a real ‘Will~O~The~Wisp’ or that mythical ‘crock of gold at the end of the rainbow’. It’s a crock alright, just not gold. [Or, if you are one of the two million No’ voters, ‘fools’ gold’]. We did try to tell them how this all ends, before the 18th. No-one can ever say we didn’t try to warn the fools.

    142. Swami Backverandah says:

      Just on that comment upthread re ‘the plan’.
      It’s absolutely certain that the Labour party has been caught offguard by the result of the Referendum.
      Had it been Yes, their Scottish seats in WM would have become redundant, and they would have known this, but didn’t expect a Yes vote, so weren’t concerned.
      What they didn’t expect was the same scenario happening to their WM seats in the event of a No. They may have even thought their hand was strengthened there.
      However, Tories are quite happy to see 100% income tax devolved as it gives them more of a case for EVEL. SNP also want full fiscal autonomy (and future Independence), and this could be considered a step on that road. Apart from the feet to the fire rhetoric, the most frequent of NS’s comments in regard to holding them to their promises is the reference to Cameron saying ‘all possibilities of devolution were possible [or words to that effect].
      So Yes = no WM Labour, and No = same result ( big decline in seats predicted). Result, either way, Labour loss.
      The No vote has allowed Cameron to spiel about EVEL, and the SNP will most likely be strengthened in WM and can hold Labour to account on a case by case basis should they agree to prop up a minority Gov.

      Labour = totally outmanoevered.

    143. Paula Rose says:

      ( @ Flower of Scotland – That’s not using sweaty words )

    144. Robert Costello says:

      Quite simply ,get the editor of the Record to provide the email on which the vow was delivered .,There will be the email address of the person who sent it and the IP address of the computer used can be looked up

    145. Capella says:

      Perhaps someone has mentioned upthread: there is a Standard Note in the House of Commons library which records a signed statement by the three party leaders. That would be an official parliament record. Not on my pc so haven’t got the link at the mo.

    146. Chitterinlicht says:

      Uri Geller did it

      If he can make footballs move by the power of his mind he could easily telepathically link the Daily Record and PM office

    147. Marcia says:

      The ‘Vow’ was written with white text on a sheet of white paper.

    148. Capella says:

      H o C Standard Note is SN/PC/06987
      Section 2.3 UK party leaders”vow”
      “joint signed statement published in the Daily Record”
      This is an official H o C record. It is very odd if the Cabinet office has nothing referring to such an important agreement.

    149. Alex says:

      Well given the mystery here I hope all pro Indy parties keep telling people it was an official promise and has been broken. Imagine every unionist campaigner being asked about the vow all the time. It would infuriate them.

    150. onelessday says:

      Anyone have any connection to Aamer Anwar Who may be willing to give advice, in an informal capacity, if asked

      He recently joined the SNP

    151. ronnie anderson says:

      ( Not Sectarian )

      Rev as I said right from the begining WE should take the Daily Record to the Court of Law. I recommend Donald Findlay QC unlike him We wont be singing No Surrender but WE wont Surrender to those lying cheating basquets.

    152. No no no...Yes says:

      Capella 7:54pm

      H o C Standard Note SN/PC/06987 The Vow document

      I don’t do Twitter, but I’m sure a certain Pete Wishart MP may be interested in tracking down this document. Anyone oblige?

    153. Paula Rose says:

      Never mind the PM office – perhaps it went to the AM office?

    154. John Walsh says:

      Didn’t Murray Foote say they were furnished with digital signatures for the mock up of the ” VOW” so where did Cameron’s signature come from ?

    155. Bob Mack says:

      Sounds like a job for David Blaine or Dynamo to find the vow. They specialise in illusions !!

    156. One_Scot says:

      Having read some of the above comments it is beginning to look like the whole Vow thing was a Jackanory story.

      You could not make it up.

    157. Jimbo says:

      It was probably just a wee pal’s act briefing from Gordon Brown to Murray Foote – ‘Do what ever you have to to save the Labour Party from the people of Scotland, and my appointment to the House of Lords.’

    158. Effijy says:

      We need to take every action available to us-
      1, Back to Freedom of information as we demand to see a copy of the signed Vow.
      2, Broon Gravy Train was that man who gave his personal word that this vow would be implemented-so he needs to be contacted to explain the who, why, what, and where.
      3, The Record need to be reported to the press complaints commission.
      4. The National need to contacted for their contribution to this story.
      5, The Record would need to confirm how they know the nonsense in the Vow wasn’t sign by some Chinese hacker? Do they ever check a story for credibility?
      6. Contact the Gen Sec of the Celtic League as to why the UN has not yet answered his complaint after such a lengthy period.
      7. Faisal Islam of Sky News, who claims to have seen a signed copy? Press Complaints again if he has details to support the claim.

    159. Sandra Wilson says:

      The reason some filing monkey couldn’t find anything was because he was looking under TH for the vow. Ask them to look again under SUTJ – stitch up the Jocks. I feel confident the relevant documents will be found. Alternatively try the laugh and tear file aka the bin. Duplicity reigns.

    160. macnakamura says:

      Process of elimination may be the way to get to the heart of the matter.

      I do not have the original document.

      Do you ?

    161. AuldA says:

      Not the AM, the FM office. 101.5 MHz high.

      Apparently something has already leaked:

    162. manandboy says:


      “It is quite clear both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigners had either not read the agreement, or deliberately misrepresented it (and its accompanying protocols) to the electorate.

      Firstly, it is not a legal agreement (see this 2012 critique).

      Second, it was only ever intended to provide an indication of Scottish opinion at a point in time. In short, the referendum was not an independence decision at all. It was merely giving the SNP (as the Scottish government) an option to open negotiations about independence (or anything else for that matter).

      Third the result was not binding in any way on either party. It only required both governments “to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome (of the referendum), whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”
      Most damningly, no provisions were made for how the governments would ‘work together’; and how they would reconcile inevitable differences about what they considered the ‘best interests…. of Scotland and of the rest of the UK’ to be.”

      In other words, knowing that the Edin. Agreement was PR, the No Campaign felt free to play fast and loose with the whole process – and continue to do so.

    163. seanair says:

      Carrell and Brooks say that Brown brokered the new powers, but that is not true. Brown is opposed to devolving income tax fully.

    164. Croompenstein says:

      It’s all so predictable that even #McTernan Predicts could have done it.. but here’s Alan Bissett from last year…

    165. Effijy says:

      Did anyone notice this in the Guardian?
      They advise that Scotland will control Taxation and Welfare budgets and the quote:

      The powers, agreed during secret talks overseen by Lord Smith of Kelvin and officials from the Treasury, are expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster next year. They had been brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown in the closing stages of the Scottish independence referendum campaign.

      How could Brown do this when the Labour party have been totally against this until yesterday?????????????????????????????????????

    166. gillie says:

      Women’s groups Abortion Rights and Engender Scotland who have close links to Labour opposed devolving powers over abortion to the Scottish parliament. Politics at its worst.

    167. muttley79 says:


      That is complete bollocks about Brown brokering the new powers. He apparently meet with Smith last week for a meeting, that seems to have been the full extent of Brown’s involvement in this. They are shysters if they are claiming that. I wish the MSM would stop portraying the Great Clunking Fist/big bruiser Brown as some god-like figure. We all know the reality.

    168. Bob Mack says:

      As Sherlock Holmes would say. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left no matter how improbable, is the solution. I suspect that the whole concept given the unclear nature of the commitments made, were composed by The Daily R. itself. They then contacted the Parties to say they were going to run a story with the Vow on the front page. Seemed a good idea at the time ,and concensus was agreed. What the Party Leaders did not expect was for the Record to attach their signatures to this “loose” document ,nor for the wording which will have been done by the Record to be as expansive as it was. Papers can easily obtain signatures and resize them to fit. I do not believe for one minute the politician expected to see their signatures attached. Bad idea Mr Murray. However due to the shortage of time left in the campaign, the Leaders may have felt to deny the story may be seen as harmful or indeed destructive ,so they went with the flow and hoped that post referendum all the fuss would die down and dissipate as many expected. They called it wrong. They now do not want to be seen as having been nonplussed by a newspaper. Bad image. The record also does not want to be truthful and admit they tried to con the public on behalf of the union parties. We were expected to crawl away and forget everything in our despair. We did not. There is no paperwork for the vow other than a cheap publicity stunt on the front of an anti independence paper gone wrong

    169. muttley79 says:


      They mean Brown brokered the Vow (I think). If Brown had brokered these talks instead of Smith, then the ****** would have crashed them!…

    170. Swami Backverandah says:

      @ muttley et al
      Yes, it’s just really sloppy journalism from Carrell and Brooks. No surprises there.
      They couldn’t even get the current UK position ( 2 tier) on abortion correct, and that was the main plank of their article.

      Piss poor, as we say here in backverandahland.

    171. Christian Schmidt says:


      I usually found civil servants quite helpful when it comes to FOI requests – it is after all not them that are responsible for such silly answers to highly political questions. So it may be worth ringing the person who signed it and ask him what this means. For example, if Mr Cameron in his capacity as Tory leader communicates by email, is there any government involvement? (If only for national security reasons.) Does the answer means there is no record in the government, or is there no official government record?

    172. Paul D says:

      Memory not being what it once was, can someone remind me what it is we are trying to confirm? Is it to prove breach or purdah?

      Watching questions to the Secretary of State this afternoon, the SoS made it clear in an answer that the vow “…was made in all good faith and solemnity by the party leaders in the course of the referendum campaign….”

      That suggests it was not done by the Government but by the parties/Better Together. Does that not then mean it is not covered by either advertising or election rules which is most disappointing?

    173. Paula Rose says:

      So – if the branch office offer full independence they can win the general election – have I got this right?

    174. William McKenzie says:

      Some weeks ago I emailed all three leaders asking for clarification on The Vow and the role of the Daily Record. Still waiting for responses from offices of Mssrs Cameron and Milliband but did receive this reply from office of Mr Clegg ;
      Kelsey Smith (Nick Clegg)
      Nov 18 15:04

      Dear William,

      Thank you for your email to Nick.

      All three parties worked together through the Better Together campaign. The UK party leaders agreed to the vow and the wording of the statement, which was then given to the Daily Record who laid it out and printed it an exclusive story. In answer to your question therefore, Nick absolutely stands by the promise that he and the other leaders made, printed by the Daily Record, and the Liberal Democrats remain committed to delivering significant new powers to Scotland in full and on time.

      Thank you again for your email.

      Yours sincerely

      Kelsey Smith
      Office of Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP

      Does this really clarify anything ?


    175. Nana Smith says:

      PQ Insider considers what the Smith Commission might say about Scottish broadcasting

      Here in BBC Scotland very close attention will be paid to Lord Smith’s report this week.

    176. gillie says:

      Lord Smith met secretly with Treasury officials. This is a Unionist stitch up.

    177. Natasha says:

      @Mary Peters 4.17pm
      Please tell me that Rhisiart Tal-e-bot did not actually use the word ‘renegade’ when what he really meant was ‘renege’, and that it was simply a typo in your reproduction of the text.

    178. Tamson says:

      Guardian reporting that Ed Balls demanded control of the personal allowance (i.e. the 0% tax band) remain with Westminster.

      Of course, this cripples a Scottish government’s ability to use income tax control as a genuinely progressive measure (by taking many low paid people out of paying income tax altogether). It’s also, maybe, a fig-leaf to add legitimacy to Scottish Labour MPs voting on Westminster Budgets.

    179. Nana Smith says:

      The ukippers are going mental over at the telegraph, the headline being….

      Scottish MPs ‘to vote on English taxes’ after devolution deal

    180. Katie says:

      Satifying e-mail conversation of the day…….
      I received this (bullsh#t) in my in box….

      Dear Katie,
      New First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is currently backing a dodgy EU-US trade deal which will take power out of Scotland, and put it in the hands of big American business. [1] The deal, TTIP, will allow big US corporations like McDonald’s to sue our governments if they don’t like our laws. [2] How can that be in Scotland’s interest?

      I promptly replied:
      Dear action@38degrees,
      Im sure Nicola knows what shes doing. She deserves more credit than any of your Jim Murphy jokers in the Red Tory party!
      Kind regards, Katie

      To which yet again I received…..

      Thanks for getting in touch!

      As we send emails to over one million people from this email address, it receives a lot of out of office replies and spam. That means it’s difficult to find the genuine messages from real people like you.

      Hmmmm I wonder how many times they send that same message out……

    181. Cadogan Enright says:

      C’mon Rev – keep going – Scottish or English Info commissioner? Both?

      POST A DRAFT QUESTION ON THIS SITE FOR AN MP – and we can all have a look at it and see if it is wiggle-proof before it is put

    182. Graeme Doig says:

      EBC reporting that more powers to come, via the Smith Comm., to the Scottish Assembly.
      ‘Assembly’ is it now. FFS. Bastards!

      Anyway, some folk talking about lack of concern regarding the ‘Vow’ from the SNP. I firmly believe that the SNP have made a decision to stay out of any post referendum examination of jiggery pokery in public. I have no doubt they have the same concerns and issues surrounding the whole process but have chosen, rightly in my view, to leave others to fight these battles and to let Scottish Labour tie itself in knots.
      SNP govt continues to run the country and gain respect and supporters while Stu and others continue to expose the lies et al of all these shysters.
      The perfect symbiotic relationship that takes us to Indyref 2.

    183. If the information you requested is not held in the cabinet office, then where is it?

      I would reply with ‘Where is correspondence between the PM and the Daily Record and other MP’s held?’

    184. dougiekdy says:

      Right, so the Cabinet Office doesn’t have it.

      Ask the individual party HQs. Ask Broon before he f**ks off into the sunset.

      Keep going Rev. Some lying b4stard’s got what we’re looking for.

    185. One_Scot says:

      It is beginning to feel like tomorrows offering will be an old ruin of a house, that in reality is only fit for being knocked down and rebuilt with a brand new one.

    186. North chiel says:

      Ref EBC report on “Smith commission ” income tax/ air passenger
      Is this the “sum total” of the “vow”?

    187. heedtracker says:

      Huge coverage here in England for Scottish devo income tax but nothing about the Barnet formula is going to be doing. Funny that.

    188. Natasha says:

      @heedtracker 10.13pm
      How on earth do you live in England and still stay sane? I was there for 36 hours last week and that was more than enough! 🙂

    189. Marcia says:

      The National – front page for Thursday;

    190. muttley79 says:

      A Tweet from Claire Stewart, STV political journalist:

      More than 70% taxation still to be controlled by Westminster and 85% of welfare remain reserved

      Return of the Calman, the Calman Commission Strikes Back, Calman the Revenge?

    191. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Katie at 9.51

      Many of us got the same shite from 38degrees. I pointed out to them that the quote, taken out of current context was almost two years old and that perhaps they might care to publish more recent comments on the subject from Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond to which I received no reply.

      I took the offered option to unsubscribe from 38degrees

    192. Lollysmum says:

      @ Bob Mack

      Interesting response to your email from Nick Clegg’s office considering that a winger some weeks ago posted an email reply from Ming Campbell about the Vow.

      From recollection, I believe Ming said there was no Vow in which case how can a Note appear in Hansard referring to the Vow if it didn’t exist. You can’t have a formal note entering a non existent document into the official record of parliamentary proceedings if such a document didn’t exist. Wouldn’t this be construed as corruption of the parliamentary process due to Hansard being the definitive record of proceedings. Actual documents enter the parliamentary systems & eventually end up in National Archives in 30 years or so, We can’t wait for 30 years.

      Is this an attempt to rewrite history the WM elite say it happened rather than what actually happened during the Referendum because it’s increasingly looking like that’s the case.

      Probably time to write to every Scottish MP & MSP, SoSfS, asking for a copy of the Vow & if they don’t have a copy then why not.

      Murray Foote letter to Stu clearly said that the 3 leaders agreed wording & provided permission to use their signatures below the Vow. The leaders are saying it was nothing to do with them.

      Perhaps its time to consider legal action. No point in taking it to the Police on grounds that the perpetrators committed an act of fraud on the Scottish People. Police wouldn’t be able to investigate it as they would be leaned on from above as happened with the investigation into the paedophile ring allegedly operating within WM.

      In that case, how do we stand under Scottish law if the people (or a substantial group of them) brought a private prosecution against Daily Record, Ed Milliband, johann Lamont & all the others involved in this sorry mess. A class action if you will.

      I only know English law but several private prosecutions have been brought in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to act against a person accused of criminality.

      Just chucking it out there for consideration. Think of the Press coverage from such a story 🙂

    193. Lesley-Anne says:

      If in doubt go straight to the horse’s mouth … so to speak. Here’s a copy of a wee *ahem* tweet I just sent to the *cough* honourable member. 😉

      @David_Cameron Can you confirm whether YOU or the @Daily_Record are telling LIES over “The Vow”?

    194. caz-m says:

      Does raising our own income tax not cancel out the same amount we would receive through the Barnet formula.

      The only thing that we get 100% of out of this deal is “the blame”.

      We will be no better off and when we are struggling with lack of income, Westminster will blame the Scottish Government for not being fit enough to run their own country.

      Please somebody tell me I have got this all wrong.

    195. HandandShrimp says:

      The reaction to the speculation regarding the Smith report in the Groaiard is quite remarkable. The haters are always going to hate though.

      Perhaps, this might be a useful step towards independence. Let those of an intemperate disposition get used to the idea of Scottish autonomy before we cut the final ties.

    196. Lesley-Anne says:

      Oops. I forgot to say I’ve also tweeted same tweet to our *ahem* beloved Daily Record. 😛

      I’m not proud I’ll ask anyone, anything, any time. 😉

    197. gillie says:

      No devo-max. No federalism. No home-rule.

      We are being offered a dog’s breakfast by Lord Smith.

    198. muttley79 says:

      The article Nana Smith linked to above on NNS is well worth a read. It appears Derek Bateman was spot on about Boothman. Here is a wee taster (I highlighted the bit in bold):

      And now to the point of all this: Boothman – who missed the final stages of the campaign due to a burst duodenal ulcer but remained in touch with favoured correspondents for all but a few days – has been subject to 17 specific accusations of bullying, stretching over years, many of them fully supported by the journalists’ trade union.

      His department has for the past four years scored spectacularly badly in BBC-wide staff morale surveys. He was the only BBC Head of Department to try to “front-load” the most recent round of enforced sackings, meaning he tried to force through five years’ worth of redundancies in one quarter, just months before receiving the funding to recruit dozens of extra staff for the referendum.

      I’ll tell you more about this all later, but the key point ahead of the Smith report is that Boothman, and possibly his boss, were allegedly kept in place by the BBC’s “big bosses” because of their Labour connections, and the value of that to the No campaign.

      If that bit in bold is true then….

    199. Swami Backverandah says:

      @ lollysmum
      Standard Note:SN/PC/06987 is a Briefing Paper.
      I’m not sure it has been mentioned in Hansard.

      I had a fair look at it post-ref when it was amended, and it seems to me that the mention of the issue of a joint signed statement was inserted by the author/s after seeing the Vow published in DR.
      If not, as I mentioned then, it would be very interesting to check who directed the insertion of that clause.
      Either way, scrutiny from this angle could provide a route to the specified email.

    200. muttley79 says:


      Full income tax, Air Duty, plus some very minor welfare responsibilities, and probably some miscellaneous others is utter, utter pish.


      Why are people angry on Cif (I presume you mean unionists/Brit nats)? We have gained hardly anything.

    201. Tam Jardine says:

      James Cook on Scotland 2014 seems to be suggesting the Smith Comission is falling some distance short of full fiscal autonomy, federalism or devo-max.

      But I have heard the Aggregates Levy may be coming our way. Time to take down the Yes posters, take off the badge and forget about the campaign. It turns out we won after all.

      Let’s start a progressive tax regime on aggregates with different bands applying to course grain and fine grain. After all, surely the largest particles of aggregate should bear the heaviest burden?

    202. Kevin Evans says:

      I think am right in thinking that the earlier posts about this correspondence Mr foote said they were allowed to print the 3 party leaders electronic signatures on the front cover vow picture. So basically is the PM is not responsible for the vow why would he allow his signature to be used? There’s fraud somewhere going on. Just dunno who the buck stops at yet.

    203. terry says:

      @caz-m –
      I fear you are right – we pay less in income tax (cos we hae less rich, banker types in Scotland) but contirbute more OVERALL in tax. Or that’s what I can see – correct me if I’m wrong, someone. Funnily enough we will still be pooling and sharing the things we contiribute far more of though ie oil tax revenues.

      So by cunningly giving us “more” powers we are actually worse off, the scottish snp govt will struggl and become unpopular as they may have to raise income tax higher than in the rest of the UK. Lbaour will get back in and that’s an end to devo. This is only one scenario – but the one the establishment is directing us towards.

      Well if welathy No voters have to pay more in taxes that is what they have voted for, eh?

      Went in to another sainsburys in aberdeen – big stock of the National still on the shelf at 7pm – so they are selling it here.

    204. Rock says:

      Categorically state that either Murray Foote or David Cameron is a liar.

      The one who is not the liar will then be forced to come out with the truth.

    205. sinky says:

      Newsnight in england now discussing nsvy and then the vow

    206. heedtracker says:

      Natasha says:
      26 November, 2014 at 10:20 pm
      @heedtracker 10.13pm
      How on earth do you live in England and still stay sane?

      I have never claimed sanity Natasha:D Also it is interesting watching AlicSamin turned into a monster in England or at least BBC etc try to. THE VOW getting massive boost here but no actual real world stuff, just empty propaganda. Well not empty really, its getting a bit more sophisticated, tell them the Scots have loads of devo now so they should shut up, vote Labour and get on with it as happy jocks in rule Britannia world. Looks like that’s it now really, perfect stitch up. At least there’s hardly any proud Scot buts in England, most work for the BBC in London.

    207. Neil Dorward says:

      Thanks for the postings here about 38 Degrees and TTIP. After careful consideration, I have now unsubscribed from 38 Degrees. Also … won’t be buying my Christmas cards from Save the Children

    208. K1 says:

      The Daily Rancid, already claiming ‘The Vow Delivers’.

    209. HandandShrimp says:


      Not sure, but they are spitting tacks. Mind you the article doesn’t help. Rather suggests we are getting everything with jam on top.

    210. ClanDonald says:

      The Smith Commission is a triumph; England gets to keep all Scotland’s oil and whisky revenues. It’s all they really cared about.

    211. kininvie says:

      If everything in the DR is to be believed, it’s a reasonable package, and may well achieve the underlying aim of putting off a second referendum for a decade or two.

      I know this will not be welcome to most readers – and certainly not to me – but, and it’s something we are inclined to forget….we did lose that vote. As a compensation prize, it’s worth having (if the DR really knows what is on offer)

      From the No point of view, it ties the SG up in the need (again) to prove they can govern responsibly with a raft of new stuff to deal with. From the Yes point of view, there will be endless anomalies – especially on the fiscal front – with which to prolong the argument – but more importantly, to continue to carve out the distinctions between the countries.

      As someone said on Twitter, we are merely taking the scenic route to independence…and some of the scenery will be the delightful view of Westminster parties tearing themselves to shreds over this.

    212. Dr Jim says:

      Well, they can shout their mouths off about Devo Max all they want, but all thats happened is we’ve become English tax collectors, “Air Passenger Duty” Good! but until i hear more it dont look good, but in a way thats good. Tomorrow i think we’ll hear possibly a bit of shouty stuff at FM questions coz there’s no jam here, just a big hope that we’re as stupid as they think we are…Roll on the fun…

    213. Tackety Beets says:

      @ farrochie @ 4.38 pm

      Thank you , E-mail off to Beaker eh F@nny Alexander

      The establishment have had it all their own way for so long .Treating us like nitwits.
      I do hope you guys can trip them up big time .

      @ Callum @ 2.42pm etc etc
      Delighted to fund , if some heavy weights on here can see a way to challenge legally .

    214. caz-m says:

      I look forward to Jim Murphy explaining to us why this is a good deal for Scotland. The Daily Record says that we will continue to receive the Barnet Formula. But if we have to raise our own spending money, then how can we possibly keep receiving the Barnet Formula.

      C’mon Murphy, hurry up and explain this dog’s dinner to me, coz am totally confused.

    215. heedtracker says:

      Rancid old Guardian says

      “Scottish parliament to get control over income tax and welfare spending
      Far-reaching reforms to go ahead after Labour drops opposition but Westminster to have overall control of personal allowance”

      but Scotland’s champions at Record says

      “The Smith Commission on Devolution will hand Holyrood huge new powers to set the rate and bands for personal income tax in Scotland and control over a third of Scotland’s £10 billion welfare budget.”

      Even by Libby Carrell of the Graun’s usual standards, not saying tis only a third of welfare control, it is a very big UKOK con going on in England.

    216. Edulis says:

      A few comments above have suggested using the ‘National’ to get this story out. They did a superb demolition of the Murph today in their editorial.

    217. caz-m says:

      That would be some court case wouldn’t it.

      The Daily Record versus The People of Scotland. Thousands of YES campaigners outside the court every day of the hearings.

      There must be some YES minded lawyers out there who would take up the case for us.

    218. Thor says:

      The timetable that has been given is the 25th of January and no one and nothing can change that fact , and the problem that Westminster now face is the clock is ticking and the world is watching , the rope has been given the noose is now set !

      Bring on the executor !!

    219. the great elbe says:

      Smiths toytown “powers” cut no ice here. Time to get every unionist mp out of Scotland and then declare UDI.

    220. caz-m says:

      We give them Oil and Whisky and they give us Trident and Austerity.

      Pool and Share.

      Better Together.

    221. Capella says:

      @ Marcia
      Brilliant front page for the National tomorrow. “Taking Back the People’s Land”. Love it.

    222. hetty says:


      yep oil and whisky, oh and our water, oh yeh and nuke waste dumping ground and nuke missile
      port, bettertogetherrrrrr

    223. yesindyref2 says:

      The Record “HOLYROOD will be granted new powers to control almost all of the country’s welfare budget.”

      but “and control over a third of Scotland’s £10 billion welfare budget.”

      Mathematically challenged! I also like the misprint: “The deal, trashed out between rival political parties “

      You can say that again!

      Getting APD is good though. As is the question: “Will the 72% (or whatever) who wanted Devo-Max be fooled, and be happy happy happy?”. 7/5/15.

    224. yesindyref2 says:

      Smith was always win(A)-win(B)-win[C) for the SNP as Government and the YES alliance. It was a win(A) if the Vow was ignored or Labour’s pathetic offering was the result, as total revenge would be almost inevitable in May, and beyond, a soon Indy Ref 2.

      It was a win[C) if devo-max was delivered, as most of the trappings of Independent Scotland would be in place for the next, delayed, referendum. Perhaps 2017 for the EU, otherwise later.

      Most difficult one is this, the expected one – an apparent substantial package, no oil (or whisky!) revenues or corporation tax, or many other things. It depends on how much “unbiased” analysis gets into the media. I daresay the SNP will already have been geared up to tackle this one for the GE 2015. And then there’s The National.

    225. Barontorc says:

      Seems The Nation is upsetting some of the natives – but not all by a long Irish mile!

      The VOW buck sits heavily at the DR door and it’s getting close to who blinks first -especially when the VOW is clearly putting them out of business.

      So who’s the fall guy gonna be Mr Foote?

    226. manandboy says:

      If what is being reported is true, then

      Smith is giving Scotland very little – plus a headache –

      while leaving England still taking the serious money.

      Smith is an exercise in taking a long time to move a pawn.

      And a not very strategic one at that.

    227. Oneironaut says:

      No doubt all references to The Vow held by the government went in the nearest shredder (and the shreds into the nearest furnace, just to be on the safe side!) right after the referendum…

      It did its job, may as well just let the mugs at the Record take the fall for it…

    228. Onwards says:

      New powers mostly a let-down if the reports are true.

      Hardly ‘Home Rule’ if 70% of taxes remain under Westminster control.

      APD is interesting though if devolved.
      It was always expected to be thrown in as one of the minor taxes.

      But it is a job creating power, and breaks any principle of not allowing competition.

      Lots more tourists could be on the way..

    229. Wp says:

      Record leading story ” Scotland to control almost all of the welfare budget”. Next paragraph “Scotland to control one third of welfare budget”. And there are still folk who buy this rag. No wonder they don’t allow comments any more.

    230. yesindyref2 says:

      From the Herald, headline: “Minister rejects SNP call to replace LibDems in debate”

      Reality: It was Peter Bone MP, Conservative Wellingborough, in Scottish Questions who called for the LibDems to be replaced by the SNP. It wasn’t the SNP.

    231. john king says:

      John says
      “I’m waiting on my reply from the press complaints kitten”

      That is the first time I have actually had my tea come out of my ears,
      well done John 🙁

      Isolator says
      “Goodness knows,but I’m hoping that there is a plan somewhere in the Independence movement to hold this shower of shysters to account beginning with May next year.”

      Dont hold your breath,
      Im still waiting for the counter attack from the YES camp against the relentless tide of negativity from UKOK
      and what did we get?
      If we need feet held to fires we need to do it ourselves,
      Such as Gerry Parkers tireless (thanks Gerry) attempts to force the truth out of these people via a letter writing campaign maybe just maybe one of them will trip himself up and vomit up the truth, and guess who my MP is?
      Mr Gordon “the vow” Brown himself

      JayR says
      “If, as seems likely, the DR made it up and just lied to the Scottish people, then proving that and making everyone aware of that will destroy the DR and its “reputation”, and neutralize a major propaganda barrier against independence.”

      Thats assuming most people give a shit that they were lied to,
      When I point this out to my colleagues at work they just shrug and go “Mwe whats for lunch?”

    232. ian says:

      Whatever new powers are granted surely they have to be agreed by the house of commons?That should be fun if the case, as i’m sure there’s plenty MP’S South of the border are completely agianst this and quite rightly so

    233. AuldA says:

      By the way, excellent editorial in today’s edition of the National.
      Well worth reading. Couldn’t agree more.

    234. Lollysmum says:

      Good piece by Craig Murray on Broon the Feartie 🙂

    235. Luigi says:

      Stand by for a massive propaganda exercise as the BBC tries to flog us a dead horse.

      “The Smith Commission reports on time – amazing powers for Scotland! It’s a dream come true – something in it for everyone! This will surely strengthen the union for another 300 years. Rule Britannia!”

      Brace yourselves. Put away the popcorn for a couple of days and get the sick bags out.

    236. Free Scotland says:

      Let’s all do what we can in our own circles – family, friends, neighbours, people at work – to expose the Daily Record for what it really is: not Scotland’s Champion, but Scotland’s Enemy, devised and spouted from the same bilge-mill as the Mirror.

    237. scotcat2014 says:

      Murphy bring ‘interviewed’ on R4 this morning. If a certain Danish brewer did sh**e oozing from car radios……. ‘Yes voters will be satisfied…’ ‘All the parties fully agreed….’ ‘Pooling & sharing…’ ‘Best of both worlds…..’ ‘Holyrood can’t blame anyone else now….’ as well as some seriously dodgy figures of how much control of all income the SG will have. I hesitate to recommend a listen, if you do, have a sick bag close and any solid objects far away.

    238. heedtracker says:

      Very UKOK hard core propaganda BBC style down here, with absolutely nothing reported from anyone YES in Holyrood or anywhere else in Scotland that hoped for more than devo nothing, or what they call BBC balance and biaslessness. Apparently most massive move in powers in 15 years to Scotland includes control of carers allowance. BBC get worse by the day.

    239. jackie g says:

      Good Morning folks,

      Cretin writing in the metro this morning who says the SNP are now a religious movement.

      he goes on, with an uncarasmatic leader who we hero worship for saying one thing and doing the opposite.

      Yesterday someone also said that out leader was not elected!

      geez these are the morons in the MSM that we are up against.

      Maybe he is missing his rants in the DR.

    240. David Wardrope says:

      I understand the Smith Commission will recommend the powers to be devolved, but I’m not clear on this, aren’t they just recommendations? If so, then we’re back to square one surely, where WM will argue over the findings and fail to agree on them? The DR headline this morning is laughable considering how it’s been trying to play down the whole Vow thing recently. Also, while I’m on a rant, the Daily Mirrors front page proclaiming that 2m Brits will be getting gastric ops when the reality is much different shows exactly what’s wrong with the sensationalist press and media today.

      That is all.

    241. Macart says:

      Scanned a few of the front pages and words like ‘historic’ and ‘significant’ are being bandied about quite a bit on their guestimates of the Smith commission release. How and ever there is only one question needs be asked here of the Scottish electorate and of those 14k submissions.

      Is this what you consider to be devo max?

      Is mostly responsible for income tax, mostly responsible for some welfare, and a few other sweeties what you imagined when you put your cross in a box?

      I mean those were the buzz words hammered home by 100% of the UK media in the weeks leading up to the referendum DEVO MAX. Those words came at you through every newspaper title, every broadcaster, through the screen, over the radio…

      At least two people beat the drum of near federalism in those weeks. They sold it to audiences with a lot of fanfare and screen coverage. Where are they now? Where is Brown and Darling? Oh, that’s right they’re stepping down as MPs for the next election. They’re not responsible for the musings of the Smith commission or the standing government of the day and never were.

      Another wee point, a minor one, but nonetheless pertinent. DEVO MAX was never on the ballot and was NEVER GOING TO BE DELIVERED. Face it peeps, you were betrayed by your media and by ‘Better Togethers’ now absconded leadership. If you hoped for the mythical Full Fiscal Autonomy most people accept to be the very definition of Devo Max then you are going to be very disappointed.

      Welcome to the club.

      Now what are you going to do about it?

    242. heedtracker says:

      AlicSamin heckler Nick Robertson just explained how amazing THE VOW is but its too complicated for people to understand you see. too detailed etc.

    243. Macart says:

      @ David Wardrope

      You understand just fine. These will merely be recommendations.

      A bill will need to be proposed go through committee, readings in both houses, amendments etc all before Jan 25th. What we see in these recommendations as poor as they are may be nowhere near what finally gets ratified by parliament. It could get better, it could get radically worse. What it won’t be is Full Fiscal Autonomy.

    244. Nana Smith says:

      The first time I have ever clicked on anything the tories have to say. Have to go douse myself in disinfectant now…

      The end of the Union?

    245. farrochie says:

      From The Smith Commission Interim Report

      “NOTE: Devo max, home rule and the vow are all terms used by civic organisations and the public and are not terms used by the Commission”

    246. A Moon says:

      I don’t know enough to be aware of the next appropriate line of attack but keep going at this. With them being so evasive it is clear that exposing this sham of a process would be worth it’s weight in gold to the pro-indy camp.

    247. Molly says:

      7am BBC breakfast news tells viewers, the vow signed by the three Westminster leaders, lead to the Smith Commission which in turn has led to these magical new powers.
      The BBC clearly referenced them for the vow.
      The BBC wouldn’t give their audience the wrong information, would it?

    248. Capella says:

      There is a very elaborate hoax being perpetrated. It involves a House of Commons Library Standard Note, the Daily Record, the leaders of the Westminster parties, Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, the BBC and Lord Smith (former Chair of Weir Group and governor of the BBC).
      This isn’t just about their fiddling of expenses claims or lying to Parliament. It is a major constitutional issue.

    249. manandboy says:

      The Smith Commission – chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin.

      He was a nobody before.

      Now he’s a nonentity.

      He has effectively thrown a carrot into a pot of water and is calling it soup, while throwing all the other ingredients in the bin – where his reputation now lies.

    250. farrochie says:

      I requested a copy of “the vow” from Smith Commission, dated 18th October.

      Answer came there none.

      Dear Lord Smith,

      I am intending making a submission to The Smith Commission before the closing date.

      As a matter of urgency, can you provide me with a copy, or link, to the original “vow” which has been widely discussed and must be a key document for your Commission. The vow is referred to in the following House of Commons Library paper:
      Scotland: Devolution proposals
      Standard note: SN/PC/06987
      Last updated: 23 September 2014
      Author: Hazel Armstrong

      I have attached the title page and extract of the House of Commons paper. For the avoidance of doubt, I am seeking access to a true copy of the original joint signed statement of undertakings as issued by the 3 leaders.

      I would be grateful if you could supply the document in the stamped addressed envelope provided.

      I look forward to your reply.

      Yours sincerely,

    251. Nana Smith says:

      Everything is just wonderful, Gordy says. So that’s ok then after all he saved the world once!

      Give me strength, will scots fall for this crap?

      Gordon Brown welcomes Smith Commission proposals

      The Vow to deliver a stronger Scottish Parliament within the UK has been kept, as promised, and the timetable for draft laws to be published in January will now be honoured, as promised.

    252. Macart says:

      @ farrochie

      The few breakdowns in evidence on that interim report were pretty clear on preference of outcome. I fully suspect that todays recommendations are not really going to be anywhere near what those submissions are looking for.

    253. Stoker says:

      the great elbe says:
      27 November, 2014 at 12:36 am
      “Time to get every unionist mp out of Scotland and then declare UDI.”

      HERE HERE!

    254. Capella says:

      Control over income tax rates is not a new power. Holyrood already has that. It’s never been used because it is unworkable.

    255. Robert Kerr says:

      O/T sorry.

      Herewith the text of my email sent to the Circulation Support Manager of The National this morning.

      “Hi Lynn

      Have read first three issues and skimmed this mornings one. Bought a hard copy yesterday and left it on train as an advertisement.

      Good luck with this venture.

      Please advise as to mechanism to continue subscribing after Friday when the pilot run ends. I shall be very surprised if the pilot is not deemed a success.

      Further I am interested in subscribing to the Sunday Herald if this can be done without involving the Herald. I have no wish to waste my money on a publication that gives publicity to the appalling Gardham and his views.

      kind regards


    256. galamcennalath says:

      Nana Smith says:
      ” The end of the Union? ”

      I thought that was a very good analysis. Quite optimistic, from a pro-Indy point of view! He suggested the Smith recommendations will only annoy both sides rather than appease anyone. True, I would think.

    257. Capella says:

      @ Nana Smith
      You’re working hard this morning!
      Skimmed through the Smith report. As expected, all things of any consequence are reserved. No Devo Max, Home Rule Federalism. Non-existent Vow betrayed.
      On to GE2015.

    258. Clare says:

      They will have gubbed you on a technicality. I suspect that the email will have come from someone as a different office – potentially the political office – or the Scottish Office.

      Widen the scope of your request – you’ll then get swamped with shite but at least there will be something to wade through.
      Somebody in government must have given permission for David Cameron’s name to be added to it. Start with a request for that, then ask for their emails.

    259. Nana Smith says:


      I need a lie down for sure,blanket over my head type of thing.

      Please call me Nana.

    260. Stoker says:

      farrochie says:
      27 November, 2014 at 9:00 am
      From The Smith Commission Interim Report

      “NOTE: Devo max, home rule and the vow are all terms used by civic organisations and the public and are not terms used by the Commission”

      Thanks for that link farrochie.

      Extremely disappointed to see, so far, only 84 Public submissions specifically relating to broadcasting.

      It should not just be about money (taxes etc).
      If we don’t get some form of control over broadcasting, or at the very least powers to make those at BBC Scotland answerable to the Scottish government, then we will continue to p!ss against the wind and be sh@t on forevermore.

      I also note that this “interim report” states they have received
      “over 17,000 emails, letters and signatures on petitions..”

      That’s a strange one!
      The Newsnet Scotland petition asking for broadcasting powers to be devolved had gathered over 25,000 signatures on its own.

      Maybe we’ll see these included in the updated report, eh!

    261. Capella says:

      @ Nana
      Will do!
      I was thinking that the 27th November is “The Day the Shit Hits the Fan Day”!
      Am going out to do something normal for a while and buy a National.

    262. Fraser says:

      You’re looking for something that doesn’t exist (evidence that the UK government endorsed the vow). What you might find is some emails between Better Together and representatives of the 3 parties involved. That email went to DR from Better Together, no doubt.

    263. Benjamin Rae says:

      This the government way of saying fuck off

    264. MarkAustin says:

      Guardian reporting that Ed Balls demanded control of the personal allowance (i.e. the 0% tax band) remain with Westminster.

      Of course, this cripples a Scottish government’s ability to use income tax control as a genuinely progressive measure (by taking many low paid people out of paying income tax altogether). It’s also, maybe, a fig-leaf to add legitimacy to Scottish Labour MPs voting on Westminster Budgets.

      This is not true. Increasing the personal tax allowance overwhelming benefits the rich. After all, most of the poor don’t pay much if any income tax. The best way of decreasing the tax burden on the poor would be to reduce VAT, which, as a proportion of income, bears most heavily on the poor.

    265. farrochie says:

      And today we have Ed Miliband telling the lie again.

      “A vow was signed during the referendum campaign.”

    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. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top