The Vow - irreparably broken

[NickB]

.
It was not unexpected that both the Tory and the SNP amendments to the Scotland Act - currently under discussion in Westminster - proposing full fiscal autonomy failed. Neither was it wholly unexpected that the BBC and most other media outlets completely failed to report on this.

What should not have gone unnoticed however was the total trashing of that infamous VOW. Take a look at the first five words:



Yes, that's right - “The Scottish Parliament is permanent”.

This was NOT included in the Scotland Act, so the SNP - supported by Labour - included this amendement:

Amendment 58, proposed by the SNP and backed by Labour, was actually a modest concession. It provided a way by which Westminster COULD abolish the Scottish Parliament, with its permission and subject to a referendum of the Scottish people.

The amendment contained no tricks or traps. Nothing was tacked onto it to which the UK government could object. It did only what it claimed to do.

It would have cost the Conservatives nothing to allow the amendment to pass. It commits them only to do what they said they would do, and in any event was a mere symbolic courtesy – in reality no government can bind the hands of its successor.

But the government voted it down anyway, pointlessly trashing the promise that David Cameron had signed his name to before the referendum.

[Stevie Jarron]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13OP ... JJWtpc/pub

That's not the only thing that was broken!

[NickB]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13OP ... JJWtpc/pub

That's not the only thing that was broken!

That's a fascinating report Stevie, though too long and heavy for most people to be bothered wading through. There should however be no surprise that the whole might and apparatus of the British state was brought to bear in the Indyref campaign, and nothing should shock us in the post-match analysis.

What is of more relevance is, how can we stop the same thing happening next time?

The thing about the VOW is it was in the Daily Record, everyone saw it and now it has been smashed to pieces with a refusal by Westminster to even make a nod towards the permanency of the Scottish parliament. Has the Daily Record published this? Was it mentioned anywhere on any of the BBC channels or on the BBC website?

No, it wasn't. What do you make of that, Jimcee? Is there a 'perfectly logical explanation' as to why our national broadcaster should make no mention of a fundamental principle of the infamous vow being trashed?

[jimcee]

Evidently I am expected to reply to this convoluted legalistic outburst from NB, and SJ who seems to have joined the merry? band.
I am not into picking over the nitty gritty of their perceived injustice at proceedings in Westminster, which have seemed to have upset them somewhat - but just the whiff of the SNP not getting the promised land with 50 odd representatives, is bound to get their hackles rising.
I am not used to getting answers on this website - if I ask a question it tends to be diverted into an refutation of previous statements, and what an ignoramous I am for questioning their wisdom.
However I will persevere again and pose this question (to which please do not give me a lot of legalese mumbo jumbo - as contained in the above postings) -
What powers agreed by the all party decisions after the referendum will not now be honoured?
That seems to be a fairly simple question, and I will keep my fingers crossed that it might elucidate a fairly simple answer - over to the zealots.

[NickB]

What powers agreed by the all party decisions after the referendum will not now be honoured?

The Scottish Parliament is not to be made permanent.

That was the first five words of the 'VOW'

Not too convoluted is it, Jim?

[jimcee]

Well thanks for a quick concise answer.
Although it might be debatable, I cannot see what all the fuss is about over a lot of legalese.
I think that someone once said that the only thing that was permanent was death.
The last Scottish Parliament in 16 whatever wasn't permanent, and who knows what the next 2-3 hundred years will have on the shape of the world institutions - I would hazard a guess that even Westminster might become redundant if EEC amalgamation is successful.
However, to keep the current pot boiling, perhaps NB or SJ (or even B.McD who is keeping a low profile) who are into the political machinations could enlighten us, into how or what would terminate the current Scottish Parliament?

[NickB]

I cannot see what all the fuss is about over a lot of legalese

[jimcee]

"With your vast knowledge of these affairs, could you supply any credible reason why they would ever choose to do so?

[NickB]

"With your vast knowledge of these affairs, could you supply any credible reason why they would ever choose to do so?

I don't have a crystal ball, Jim. But . . .

There are many who would like to close Holyrood in the Tory ranks, and a few (eg Tam Dalyell) in the Labour Party.

Who knows what the future power structure inside the Tory party will be? Or if UKIP will come to power in the future?

Lord Smith intended the permanence of Holyrood and the Scottish Government to be enshrined in law. This was a fundamental part of the VOW, Gordon Brown's 'promise' to Scotland and the Smith Commission recommendations.

Now the Tories have reneged on this, and all you can say is 'don't worry, it will never happen'

I find that shockingly naïve.

[jimcee]

Well there's a lot of conjecture about nasty Tories having it in for these pesky Scots north of the border, and wishing to do them dirty at every available opportunity even to the extent of dissolving their establishment in Edinburgh- not a very convincing argument for the abolution of Holyrood surely you can do better than that NB.
Really, you SNP zealots, why do you have it in for the Conservative party in such an agressive way?
The other political parties seem to have escaped this blanket condemnation, except when individual members fall foul of maybe threatening to thwart SNP ambitions (recent examples will not be hard to find on this website).
I have no desire on these pages to be an apologist for the Conservative party - I have not given my vote to them for yonks, but neither do I wish to discredit them or any other party - they all have good and bad apples, and have done some good and bad for the country - even the SNP ( and there's an admission for you).
My purpose on these pages is to try to curb the excessive desire by the contributors (apart from apparently myself) to find fault with everything that is anti SNP - to me this is purely propoganda for the cause, and I will continue to voice my thoughts until such time as I am barred from the site, and that surely will be a nail in the coffin of free speech.

[NickB]

Really, you SNP zealots, why do you have it in for the Conservative party in such an agressive way?

What anti-Tory aggression? The only MP I mentioned by name in my post above was Tam Dalyell, who is a Labour MP. I also mentioned UKIP, who have no love for Holyrood. Most of them would like to see it shut down.

You are simply making stuff up. It really is about time you actually bothered to read what people write instead of just tryping (sic) any old rubbish that comes into your head. You are, IMO, contributing absolutely nothing to this discussion, or indeed most of the others you contribute to. You are like a stuck record.

I have decided to put you on ignore, which means I cannot see your posts.

(For other members who might wish to dispense with Jim's verbiage, or even, heaven forfend, mine, log into your Members Control Panel and use the Friends and Foes option. YOu can still view the posts, but you have to click on them first)

[jimcee]

Oh dear,
I seem to have upset our administrator.
So much for free speech, and being able to contribute one's thoughts.
I am not quite clear just how this IGNORING thing works, and this is more or less a test to see whether this posting appears on the current thread - as it should legitimately do, considering it is a reply to the above administrators remarks.
Further thoughts on this draconian measure might well issue from this source if these remarks appear on the website.

[NickB]

.
I can't hear a word you are saying, Jim.



Silence is golden!