Winning ticket remains unclaimed
A number of readers last night sent us copies of the response to complaints they’d made to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Daily Record’s infamous “The Vow” front cover. We attach the full judgement at the bottom of this article, and as far as we’re concerned it’s fair and accurate. The Vow was a deliberate deception, but it didn’t break any rules – it merely relied on readers misinterpreting it.
The bit we’re still interested in is the paragraph above.
IPSO note that the three leaders “contributed to the wording” of the pseudo-document. Which of course leaves the unanswered question of who wrote the rest of it. We’ve been asking Daily Record editor Murray Foote that question for three months now, and had no answer other than “The Daily Record had no involvement at any point in the wording of The Vow”.
The UK government, meanwhile, flatly denies knowing anything about it. And MPs at Westminster have told the House of Commons that the vow simply didn’t exist in any meaningful way and cannot be upheld.
We remain puzzled that nobody in the Union camp wants credit for saving it. The front cover won awards, yet has no author. We must presume that the saviours of the UK sought that goal and are proud of it, yet nobody wants to be identified as the creator of the celebrated proclamation at the heart of it.
All those involved with “The Vow” know who originally drafted it, and whose words were whose. It would be a simple task to say who they were. The only logical conclusion one could arrive at from the dogged determination not to disclose the fact would be that whoever it was fears that it will not be seen by the Scottish people to have been honoured, and doesn’t want to be held accountable for it.
It’s a plausible explanation – indeed, the only plausible explanation. But we suspect it won’t fill Scottish voters with faith as the time nears for “The Vow” to be delivered.
————————————————————————————————-
Decision of the Complaints Committee
Summary of complaint
- The Independent Press Standards Organisation received 21 complaints that the Daily Record had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Three leaders sign promise to Scotland”, published on 16 September 2014.
- The article had reported that David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg had signed a promise which would guarantee more devolved powers to Scotland, and protect the NHS, if Scotland voted against Scottish Independence. It was presented as a document signed by the three party leaders, and featured each of their photographs.
- Complainants were concerned that “The Vow” had been presented as a formal document which had been signed by the three party leaders. They said that the fact the article had been written in the first person and contained the signatures of the party leaders contributed to this misleading impression. Complainants said that there was no such document, and noted that an email from Mr Miliband’s office explained that no document of the kind depicted on the front page of the Daily Record existed. The email referred to “The Vow” as being “mocked up” by the newspaper. Complainants were concerned that the inaccuracy was significant owing to its effects on the referendum campaign.
- One complainant was concerned that the article referred to a “historical joint promise which, in their own words, will guarantee more devolved powers to Scotland”. The complainant said that the vow did not have this effect, as further devolution would require a vote in Parliament. Another complainant said that the commitment did not “rubbish claims” that the Barnett formula could be changed; rather the commitment only said that the formula would continue to operate.
- The newspaper said that the deal between the party leaders had been brokered by Gordon Brown. The party leaders had all agreed to sign up to the promises set out, and they had provided electronic copies of their signatures to the newspaper for publication. The newspaper said that the document is the Daily Record itself; it would not have been reasonable for readers to believe that there had been a separate document.
- The newspaper provided responses on behalf of all three party leaders, confirming that that they contributed to, and agreed, the wording of “The Vow” prior to its publication. They also all confirmed that the electronic signatures had been provided to the newspaper.
Relevant Code Provisions
- Clause 1 (Accuracy)
(i)The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
(ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.
(iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
- The newspaper had provided confirmation from the offices of the three party leaders that they had lent their signatures to the agreement, and had contributed to the wording of “The Vow”. As the party leaders had confirmed that the content of the “The Vow” had accurately reflected their agreement, the Committee was satisfied that the presentation of the article had not been significantly misleading. The concern that there was not a formal document beyond what had featured in the newspaper, and that the party leaders had not physically signed the agreement, did not raise a breach of the Code.
- The concern that the “joint promise” did not guarantee more devolved powers to Scotland, as further devolution would require a vote in Parliament, was not significantly misleading. The coverage set out the commitments of the parties to deliver new powers to the Scottish Parliament. In this context, it had not been significantly misleading to describe this as a “guarantee”, particularly given that the party leaders had themselves described the commitment in such terms.
- A complainant said that the agreement did not “rubbish claims” that the Barnett formula could be changed to leave Scotland less money for public services; rather, the commitment said only that the formula would continue to operate. As the parties had made clear their commitment to “the continuation of the Barnett allocation of resources”, the Committee was satisfied that the newspaper’s interpretation had not been significantly misleading on this point.
Conclusions
- The complaint was not upheld.
James Garmston
Complaints OfficerIndependent Press Standards Organisation
c/o Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
I bet it was Flipper Darling what wrote it.
Too stupid to realise we we being misled, and they were right.
“… Had not been Significantly misleading..”
Does that men the article misled. At what point does it become significant ? An election that has the future of 51/2 million Scots?
Yes, it is curious.
Who would be backward about claiming responsibility for ‘saving the union’? More importantly, why would they be so bashful?
Does kinda lead you to only one rational, logical conclusion doesn’t it?
Sorry, i was lost at :
The newspaper said that the document is the Daily Record itself;
In the words of Mandy Rice Davies “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they”
Lets all be honest did anybody think for even a micro second that there would be any other outcome?
Does it not smack of the Brothers Grimm behind this…Brown & Darling?
Same kind of literary genre.
A case of the irresistable force and the immovable object? The 4th estate says it exists and the government and the 3rd say it doesn’t. It makes analysing the weasel words of a phantom vow hidden in a chimera of displaced electrons a fruitless exercise.
And despite this, there was a real effect. Maybe we should measure that instead?
Amazing isn’t it. A document which “SAVED” the union yet nobody wants to take any credit for it.
Perhaps they know that people would start to ask questions about it eventually and they are running very scared.
No one in the British Government wants to claim ownership of “The Vow” because it simply doesn’t exist.
It was & remains a fabrication of The Daily Record which deliberately attempted to fool its readers into believing that it was a real document, authored & signed by the three unionist party leaders.
The three people who it is claimed, signed it are equally guilty since they know it is an illusion which worked to maintain the status quo.
My only surprise is that it hasn’t yet been revealed by Penn & Teller.
Ah I see this is the Establishment closing ranks, nothing to see here, move on.
If they continue in this way they will actually cause what they seek to prevent, there will be a revolution in this country. It need not be a violent one but there will be one. Better to have acknowledged some wrong doing than this. They look exactly what they are, completely in the pocket and prepared to do or say anything to save their Union and their masters.
I.P.S.O.
this body is supposed to be ‘Independent’…’nuff said.
[…] A number of readers last night sent us copies of the response to complaints they’d made to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Daily Record’s infamous “The Vow” front cover. We attach the full judgement at the bottom of this article, and as far as we’re concerned it’s fair and accurate. The Vow was a deliberate deception, but it didn’t break any rules – it merely relied on readers misinterpreting it. […]
Stu,
should the last two paras be 10 and 11?
So…. what EVIDENCE does the IPSO committee have to support its statement that party leaders ‘contributed to wording’ that Stu was unable to find? The Cabinet Office told Stu there were no emails between PM and Daily Mail that it was able to find over The Vow.
Well the Record is virtually run by the Labour party. So we know that it was probably a Labour led initiative. I would put my money on McTernan and David Clegg with a bit of input from Torquill.
I still can’t believe there were only twenty one complaints.
OK, apologies, it’s off topic I know, but Wingers have been generous supporters of Bo’ness before. Could you please help us raise a very modest £500 so that we can open a campaign hub in the town for the UK election? Many thanks.
link to indiegogo.com
would the following type of booklet delivered to homes break any rules?:
Newspapers and politicians: what they said, what they meant.
Content focussing on the most offensive/insulting to Scots and to democrats, particularly those on the more socialist end of the scale e.g.
Gordon Brown/Daily Record + leaders of Lab/Con/LibDems/BBC: told you if you voted No in the referendum, you’d get ‘near federalism’ and ‘modern home rule’ [dates]
What they meant: no-one ever said you’d get home rule; England needs to have EVEL i.e. jocks shouldn’t get to vote on English issues even if they affect the money we give them.
The Block grant is safe [date]. Jocks are over subsidised. New devolution must make sure Scotland is no better off with the changes
There would be literally hundreds, so we’d need to decide which ones had the most impact with voters. I’m fed up with the softly softly approach because basically we were far too nice last year.
By the way, I read a tweet the other day which reminded me how angry I had been prior to 2011 that Lab/Con/Lib wouldn’t allow Scots a referendum. SNP had to get a majority to give us a democratic vote.
Brilliant article, you have got right to the heart of the matter here. The whole thing was done in a panic and all involved knew that after a No vote, the promises made would be conveniently forgotten.
It will probably remain a case of “some big boys did it and ran away”.
I think a more pertinent point is the fact that the so called IPSO is once again unwilling to judge and condemn another all too blatant breach of press etiquette and rules on a matter pertaining to the UK establishment and directly the UK Government. Another indication if one were needed of the despotic nature of the UK and all who serve its ideals and function
Regardless of whether there was another document it is a fact that “The Vow” was offered in the DR with the full knowledge of the 3 amigos. They had a full 2 days to disavow “The Vow” as a fake but never did, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to hold them to “The Vow” as described and backed up by their emissary Gorgie Brown.
“Hold their feet to the fire and get The Vow delivered”
Ownership of this tawdry document means nothing less than the deth sentence for the Party which claims it. I therefore suspect the one with most to lose,and the one with the clearest links and influence over the tabloid involved. Could it be proved beyond doubt,then Labour would most assuredly be defunct in Scotland.
The main architect I think is indeed Brown, as Darling had been pretty unconvincing up until this point,and was floundering for ideas to pull the situation back from the brink.
What would the British ‘Independent’ (irony) Press Standards Organisation do but uphold the British state?
You should see the waffle BBC Complaints office are giving me for their journalists’ continued dissembling; reams of pettifogging crapology.
Know all that, we make the complaint in order to get it registered historically forcing the bastards to compose more lies and dig deeper holes.
Much mystery remains. Stu is almost certainly right, when they are perceived as not delivering, those responsible don’t want to have the finger pointed at them!
IMO …
Gordon Brown brokered nothing, he was a front guy because he still carried some weight in Scotland among older Labour voters.
The entire Unionist establishment were in a complete state of panic from 6/7th September onwards. Everyone knew an offer of DevoMax/Home Rule could win the day, so they did it. It would have been authorised from the top, with all three WM party leaders involved.
Who planned/wrote it? I personally doubt if the Daily Record played any part other than publishing it. Some offer of DevoMax/Home Rule would have been BT’s planned final line of defense if it looked like they might lose. The Vow and Brown were merely the instruments to deliver a long established plan, I would suggest.
There was too much going on on, too many leading figures singing from the same hymnsheet, all of the MSM on side. The Vow was part of a well thought out weapon of last resort.
What some of us knew then, and more of us know now, is that the essence of their plan was to appear to offer great things, but to deliver little or nothing at the end of the day!
I don’t think it was a plan dreamt up in panic. I think it was a pre developed plan implemented in panic. It was designed to be deceitful and manipulative, and that is why it is being disowned.
That all said, with regard to the DR specifically …
“(i)The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
(ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.
(iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.”
Applies, even remotely, to the MSM? The Independent Press Standards Organisation has to be pulling our legs!
There MUST be a paper trail connecting the three leaders whose signatures were used and the wording of The Vow as it appeared on the cover of the DR. Yet three leaders deny any such thing. They refuse to disclose this evidence. The Cabinet Office says it simply doesn’t exist. Milliband’s office is a bit more oblique… it simply says that any such document as The Vow never existed – which is not quite the same thing as that Miliband agreed to lend his signature to the wording as it appeared in the DR.
Are they seriously asking us to believe that this was totally the fabrication of the Daily Record? That any cheap tabloid can just snitch the signatures of three party leaders, to influence a major constitutional campaign, two of whom are the government, and attach them to any document that the paper draws up?
Right…so.. It was a case of he says this, them he came along and added this, but this was before someone came long and wrote something before hand, then he said prior to that that it was the Daily Record, then they said it was a joint effort, then he said, no it wasn’t us what wrote it, it was the Record, then a man from London came along and cleared it all up.
Sorted then..
This all stinks? Reeks to high heaven of the big jobbie I’ve stood on with a Daily Record, Tory and Red Tory banner on it..
But then maybe there was no jobbie, maybe it was a made up jobbie that promised to be messay and stinky because some political folk promised it would be if we continued on the road to Jobbie Freedom.
Turns out it was just a big fake jobbie. It made some of us think things would get messy further up the road and it would be stinky. So rather than take the risk, we voted for the Non-Jobbie (does not contain sweetcorn) Vow.
I don’t believe the Vow had any significant effect on the vote and a recent poll of 6000 confirms this.
It has however now become an millstone round the necks of the unionists and is operating heavily against them.
I believe the VOW was used primarily to provide a smoke stream by somehow giving justification and explanation of a result that was very hard to believe.
We are dealing with very clever opponents behind the scenes
Helena Brown:
I see this is the Establishment closing ranks, nothing to see here, move on.
They helped save the Union so that a corrupt Westminster can continue to operate – the means justify the outcome.
“The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.“
So, which of these was it?
And how exactly was it distinguished as such?
Committee was satisfied that the presentation of the article had not been significantly misleading.
so it was misleading DOH
Put this on the last post, but it’s probably more apt here.
“I am not sure who is at fault here, the British media and establishment for conning Scotland, or the Scottish public for believing their crap.”
@Bob Mack 11.18 am
“…means nothing less than the deth sentence for the Party which claims it”
So the question arises; if you were a political party in a GE year, wanting to put one over on your political opponents, would you not ‘out’ them by declaring what significant part they had played in the pantomime script, aka The Vow?
If this is something mainly cobbled together by the SLab & Daily Rancid, then surely point scoring is just waiting to be grabbed by Cameron & Clegg?
Or perhaps the opportunity to expose your enemy in all of this highlights the complicity that runs both deep and wide?
Too simplistic an analysis?
Well Murray Foote has been breathing easier since we stopped exploring a legal solution to that article. Perhaps it’s time to resume the discussion as he was the editor that Ok’d the printing of it, he would be deemed as culpable under the law.
Wait a minute. We all knew The Vow was a pile of tripe. We didn’t believe it from day 1.
If others couldn’t see that (or chose not to see that) then that is entirely their responsibility. They didn’t vote No because of The Vow. They merely used The Vow as cognitive dissonance to justify their decision to vote No.
We are not dealing with children here. These people knew what they were doing and knew the potential risks of voting No yet they chose to vote No anyway. They took a gamble – and, in my view, they lost.
Sadly we are all losing out now because of that.
Democracy eh? Who’da thunk it.
It’s interesting comparing what Miliband’s office and the Cabinet office say.
The Cabinet office says flat out that no emails exist linking Cameron and his signature to the wording of The Vow.
Can we conclude then by this response that they once existed but were since deleted? Or are they confirming that they are happy with the situation of a paper just randomly snitching the PM’s and Deputy PM’s signature and sticking it on any front page of any newspaper to any statement that they have not sanctioned?
Miliband’s office simply dodges the issue. It replies that no actual document as The Vow exists, it was just mocked up by the paper to look like a document. But that is not the question. We, of course, know that. The question is, what input did Miliband have into ‘contributing to the wording’ or else agreeing to the wording, that entitled the DR to stick his signature on it.
[…] Winning ticket remains unclaimed […]
We’ll never win when you have to beat the ‘establishment’ as well, they have us stitched up like body-bags!!
Auld Rock
We simply have to post the signature of milliband etc through every one’s door with the vow attached saying ‘remember this?’ and also a list of bills that labour voted with the Tories – might be a big leaflet..
They know and we know that this is just another set of lies, another cover-up that is symptomatic of the lack of democracy. It was just one example of the cynical exploitation of the gullible and the uninformed. But it is good that they have had to respond in writing. They have lied, they know they have lied and they have to live with the knowledge that they are liars. I wouldn’t want to be them and I am confident that their willingness to lie will ultimately eat at them and destroy them. Imagine being Brown or Darling or Reid or Robertson or Murphy etc, in the quiet of your final hours, knowing that all you amounted to was being a liar and a deceiver of your own people. I’d rather be poor …
We also need to start funding projects which expose the media for what it is – the establishment mouthpiece and promote websites like wings at the same time.
Whether ‘The Vow’ did the jobs or not, remember the poll from the 19th Sept told us that for 25% of those who voted NO the promise of extra powers was the most important factor for doing so (and for 38% it was the second most important factor).
So a front page that was knowingly deceptive gets an award at the Press Awards…
h
Says more about te press than anything I could say.
David McEwan Hill: I don’t believe the Vow had any significant effect on the vote and a recent poll of 6000 confirms this.
You’ve expressed that opinion before; I don’t necessarily disagree with it, but those No voters I talked to said the Vow gave them comfort that voting No would not impoverish Scotland, but actually might gain extra powers they too felt Scotland lacked.
Can you explain your feelings a bit more?
“The coverage set out the commitments of the parties to deliver new powers to the Scottish Parliament. In this context, it had not been significantly misleading to describe this as a “guarantee”, particularly given that the party leaders had themselves described the commitment in such terms”
Where though and why nothing written down anywhere by anyone other than the Rancid conman editor?
What a bunch. TeamGB establishment types stick together alright but what a classic example of our teamGB imperial masters/quango in London handing YES Scotland our arses. Bloody good value for other peoples money that one quango alone, frightfully expensive High Holburn offices though.
Thanks again proud Scot buts.
Had “They” been at all serious about the Vow; had they ever intended to keep even a tiny part of said Vow, then you can bet, Jim Murphy and Crash Gordon would, by now, be involved in an: “It was my idea” – “Naw it wisnae, it wis mine” argument.
You were conned No voters. So, don’t get fooled again.
@”Dave McEwan Hill”
What poll is that?
I find it hard to believe it didn’t have a significant effect.
Not so much the daily record itself, but the huge publicity around the ‘vow’
Believing in the Vow or not wasn’t in question but the poll which spooked most was the 52% lead for YES and that’s when things got interesting.
That VOW was exactly the catalyst needed for some to change minds and vote NO and the shyters behind it know as much as we all do here they are not getting away with it!
The fact the SNP are so ahead in the polls only shows the levels to which people feel duped and want this VOW delivered. They can only baulk at watching Labour trying to flap around at the moment. The 3 amigo’s are going to find themselves on a hotplate when Nicola gets hold of them all in this first TV debate .. I can’t wait.
I read my reply about four times and then decided to email back and thank them for agreeing with my complaint where they do in fact admit the document was misleading but by saying not significantly, who determines an amount of significance in respect of amount of voting intentions if around 2.8 million people voted how many are insignificant 10? 500? 1000? more?
Was this looked at “In Truth” by Prof John Curtice who could estimate the significance (IN) or otherwise or is it that the rights and democracies of Scots are not significant enough to be of importance to the Great British Union State of England and it’s subsidiaries.I am not expecting an intelligent reply
Once again “Britain Waives the Rules”
I would like Nicola or one of the other insurgent party leaders to raise this at one of the Party Leaders’ Debates. It would cause mayhem!
There must be legal issues here with sticking the PM’s signature on a document he never wrote. Or agreed to, apparently.
I believe it did, but I don’t keep repeating it. Hmm. Jury is still out.
@ galamcennalath
And if the vow as perceived by the public is not delivered as promised (and a lot of media space was given to sell a very specific albeit misleading message). Were the editorial staff of the Record aware or duped themselves? In their rush to support a particular party narrative through loyalty, were they blinded by party allegiance to the inherent constitutional fudge/trap or fully aware of Westminster’s intent for any further devolution of powers? Did they care either way? Were they even aware that the referendum had fuck all to do with party politics?
Let’s look at what we’re seeing in reality. How many charity, union, local or governmental bodies have fallen over themselves in delight at the devolution deal on the table? I’m only aware of the delight of Labour, Conservative and Lib dem politicians myself, but those at the sharp end of dealing with poverty seem to have a differing view from the average unionist politician. Spooky, but true.
Frankly, complicit or not, would you want to own responsibility for selling the Scottish electorate a false bill of goods on their future? I’ve yet to hear the Record asking even one pertinent question of the issue themselves. Questions like; Where are those significant powers? Where is the near federalism package? Is partial tax faddling and control over road signage all it takes to achieve ‘Home Rule’? Oh, and why do we have to clear anything at all with the SoSfS? I mean if only we’d known the awesome power of signage was all we needed to sort our future government and economy out.
Yet utter silence on that front too. Perhaps they’re hoping we do have short memories and that if they stay quiet for long enough everyone will probably just let it slide.
Devorgilla says:
I agree with your comment, Stu should send a letter requesting who said what,( whoever they are, they must know)
and request the proof of their case!
Plausible deniability.
That’s what they were aiming for. Unfortunately, in their panic, they did a rush, botched job and did not cover their sorry asses completely.
They may still be in denial, but they are no longer plausible.
Maybe it was ghost written. By Will O. Thewisp…
Try making sense of a complaint about a solicitor, It was described in detail on a web-site They send the complainant spinning in circles the same way as already described , the web-site was http://www.scottishwebsites.com
the use of the term ‘party leaders’ gets round the FOI since their communication isnt affected by the request. simples. instant deniability except Stu has pushed it to the best clarity we will get for now i suspect.
7.(iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Is this part of the above document relevant to the ‘biggest party’ discussion?
At the end of the day, I don’t think any reader of this site was convinced by the vow, but there are a LOT of people out there who won’t appreciate being taken for fools, when we tell them.
guys – don’t get mad, get even!
“One_Scot says:
10 February, 2015 at 11:35 am
Put this on the last post, but it’s probably more apt here.
“I am not sure who is at fault here, the British media and establishment for conning Scotland, or the Scottish public for believing their crap.””
If Dave McEwan Hill (a few posts higher up than One_Scot) is right, the Scottish public did not believe it. It was merely a smokescreen for a rigged result. That theory certainly has potential, I think. And now we’re all left chasing phantoms.
um…..the vow was mocked up by the DR, but the DR isnt guilty of fraud because although they didnt sign this non existent vow they lent their signatures to the dr to append to this vow that they never signed?
OK…….put your brain care specialists on danger money…..
the claim by the labour party and andrew neil that the entire vow was mocked up by the labour party left the DR facing allegations of fraud for reproducing their signatures
this is what the line “lent their signatures” is concerned with
it means the DR is not guilty of fraud they had permission to append the signatures from all 3 leaders
without that statement, it would have meant that all 3 leaders were guilty of electoral fraud for not disowning the DR vow at the time.
i think the findings are saying the vow wasnt mocked up and that it came from all 3 leaders
The Vow was purely a smoke screen. 99.9% of Daily Record readers were voting No beforehand.The referendum result was never in any doubt. That was quite evident from the smug attitudes of the labour representatives on BBC after the polls had closed, even before the first results came in. The fact that they also had just about every Labour Lord with a Scottish connection waiting in the wings to roll in front of the cameras, stinks. I think that the ‘rogue’ poll was more accurate than the rest, and the safeguard plans were already in place. Darling for one, became very uncomfortable in front of the cameras in the last few days, I believe as a result of the fact that he had been told not to worry, it was being ‘sorted’. The vow was thrown in as a safeguard, should people question the considerable last minute swing. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for someone to own up.
So maybe if I claim (as a big boy) I did it (and ran away). The person(s) who did do it will refute my statement and trap themselves.
Well it was just a thought.
Am glad we got to the bottom of the Vow issue ,i can get oan in bringing ma diary up to date.
Dear Diary it wiz the bigger of the biggest boys ever biggerer than them that did it and run away, over the hills an far far away even further away than that.
Keep on keeping on folks, well done to all complainants for taking the time & trouble, much appriciated.
Most of us on Wings, will not be in the least bit surprised that the Vow, as well as the reporting of it by the Daily Record, has turned out to be a lie, and was designed to deceive Scots into staying within the Union.
In fact we could have told anyone who wanted to listen that it was a panicked response to the fact that Yes began to look like it would pip No at the post.
However, most Daily Record readers don’t know this, so we must do everything we can to get this message out there.
The Daily Record lied too and deceived it’s own readers, and treated them like fools on behalf of Westminster and the wealthy London Elite.
We must keep banging this fact home to Daily Record readers.
sorry typo, try again
he claim by the labour party and andrew neil that the entire vow was mocked up by the DR, left the DR facing allegations of fraud for reproducing their signatures
this is what the line “lent their signatures” is concerned with
it means the DR is not guilty of fraud they had permission to append the signatures from all 3 leaders
without that statement, it would have also meant that all 3 leaders were guilty of electoral fraud for not disowning the DR vow at the time.
i think the findings are saying the vow wasnt mocked up and that it came from all 3 leaders
It’s not whether or not the Vow changed the outcome that is important now, as it wont change a thing if it was or was not the deciding factor,
What we need to get home to folk, is that the Daily Record/BBC/Labour Politicians, were willing to band together and outright lie to their own people or people who trusted them, in order to manipulate these people for the benefit of the Westminster Elite.
We can’t change the past, but we can use the Vow to put a wedge between the low information voter who still gets their information from the BBC/Daily Record/ MSM, and we can use this as part of a marketing strategy to encourage people to go ‘on-line’ for information.
I would argue that for all the good effort that is used in canvasing etc, we should also be trying to get as many Scots as possible to get themselves on-line for political information.
A leaflet/Poster campaign that uses the Vow Lie, to show that people who depend on the BBC/Daily Record, are purposely being misled by these organisations, and that they can get the truth at Wings (with a £10 bonus if they find lies in the articles) will be a double edged sword,
1, it will attract traffic to Wings.
2. it will damage the already tattered reputations of some of the MSM.
What’s not to like about that? 🙂
Shrodingers cat
Which brings us back to , where’s the original? If the Vow wasn’t mocked up and it came from the three leaders , where’s the original? Or is the Daily Record now an official Westminster mouthpiece?
I did ask My MP , be he said basically ask the three leaders. The Rev has done that and they deny any input.
It’s strange looking back to that week, Gordon Brown being given wall to wall coverage by the media , Alistair Campbell being interviewed in Scotland and yet not one asked about the Vow
Rob James at 1.17
I agree entirely. Smokescreen indeed. However I know a lot of Record readers who voted Yes and the Record is now damaging itself on a regular basis. Its attack in Mhairi Black did it no good and merely ensured that everybody now knows Mhairi
I agree with Patrick Roden we need to use “The Vow” as a way to to show the no voters that they have been duped and will be over and over again.I am sorry but Westminster do not give a monkey about Scotland never have never will they just keep trying to placate the whining child with sweeties.We need to get out there and make sure Scotlands voice is heard this time louder at the ballot box the only place we can make a difference.
Not “substantially misleading”. So it was misleading, just not enough for the complaint to be upheld. Yet I thought the code of conduct says you should not mislead, and not that you should not “substantially mislead”
True. Taken in its constituent parts none of the inaccuracies are significant enough to cause concern. However, when put together in this format it is clear that it is DESIGNED to mislead. If it were advertising it would not be acceptable. If it were either editorial opinion or party political campaign materials it would be legal AND readers would know that they had to take it with a pinch of salt. The problem is that they have taken their opinion, used a kernel of fact and not just manufactured a story but manufactured a cross party agreement – this was then passed of as news. I note that the response is that each claim they made was not SIGNIFICANTLY misleading. Obviously we know that these complaints could not have been upheld, if they had, what would’ve happened next? NB now that we know they made this agreement, this new policy just days before the vote, now that its been proved they were all involved and collaborating – does this mean either (1) That purdah was breached OR (2) That Better Together, The Conservative campaign, The LibDem Campaign, The Labour campaign and United With Labour breached campaign spending rules by working together?? Breaking the rules? Is that why no one wants to take credit??
Well I for oneI am not accepting a signature can be lent to a document and have notified IPSO of my non acceptance. The article said quite clearly that the three leaders had signed the vow. As I said in a previous post on the vow check the definition of the word signature. I was one of the twenty one to complain
“The front cover won awards…”
You’re kidding, right?… (clicks on link) :-O You’re not kidding!
Front Page of the Year
Category Information
“Judges will be looking for the outstanding and most memorable front page published in print during the year.”
Shortlist for 2014
(one from list of five) The Vow The Daily Record
Getting into the top-five list is something to be proud of, surely, yet, that no-one seems to want to lay claim to its composition… (‘It wisnae me! It musta been them.’ ‘Us? Naw, no way, pal! It had tae be him.’ ‘Me? Nae chance!’… ad nauseam, and etc.)… is an odd situation indeed!
And:
“Conclusions
1. The complaint was not upheld”
Well, there’s a surprise… Not!
The whole crux’s of the matter is who actually wrote the VOW, and did they actually come up with the idea if not who did ?
If it is proven that scottish labour/red tories (hell mend them) were the instigaters of the VOW and the rest of the unionist’s were mere lackeys, how is Scotland going to react.
It could be a very important piece of information to have.
Any further ideas ?
If A. Darling was involved in any way with the wording of ‘The Vow’ then his Director of Communications lackey for the BC campaign, R. Shorthouse would more than likely have been involved too.
The “better together” referendum campaign was a LIE, the “VOW” was a LIE, the result of the referendum was a LIE, the result of the smith commission because it didn’t deliver the promises of the vow was a LIE and everything that emanates from Scottish/Westminster unionists is/will be a LIE.
This was a major gripe of mine during the referendum campaign, that these lying bastards weren’t called liars to their faces in front of the camera when the opportunity arose. Surely it should be used this time round to show them up for the liars they are and to undermine their credibility.
The empire and its representatives have shat on us for 300 years, the time for being PC is well and truly over. Lets not let this opportunity slip through our fingers for the sake of not calling a spade a spade. They sold our country in 1707, they stole our country in 2014 lets not let them ignore our country in 2015.
Anyone remember the old cartoon with a line of people with screwed up faces and the leftmost person asking the question, “Who farted”, and the answers run along the line, “No me”, “Wisna me”, and so on to the rightmost guy with a great big grin on his face and you are left to conclude who the Phantom Pharter was.
Does not the question of who made the Vow remind you of that cartoon? So folks who is the guy with the biggest cheesy grin?