FuzzyAffro Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I didn't say Brown announced the Vow! Why do you keep saying this? I said Brown went rogue when he entered the campaign and started talking about Home Rule and federalism. It wasn't pre-cleared by the other parties or his own. The patter about a convention after a No vote was all him and the others couldn't say no without exposing BT's internal shambles. That's exactly what you said, and the talk of Home Rule and federalism WAS the fucking vow, that's what it was. The DR piece was meaningless, authored by nobody and signed by nobody. The vow was what we were verbally promised by unionist politicians including Brown and the fucking chancellor of the exchequer. And how the hell could he go rogue at an official Labour party event did he storm the stage? You just want to be right so you invented a load of shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FREDDYFRY Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 My 89 year old Mother received her letter from Jim yesterday.. I am sure he is glad to know how upset she was to be told she was to lose her pension, fortunately I was able to explaine that the letter came from a lying scumbag and just to bin it. Shame on you Jim Murphy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 That's exactly what you said, and the talk of Home Rule and federalism WAS the fucking vow, that's what it was. The DR piece was meaningless, authored by nobody and signed by nobody. The vow was what we were verbally promised by unionist politicians including Brown and the fucking chancellor of the exchequer. And how the hell could he go rogue at an official Labour party event did he storm the stage? You just want to be right so you invented a load of shite. No. The Vow was the text of the front page of the Daily Record. His entrance into the fray was done without the approval of the UK Labour Party. He was using his position within Unite with Labour to get the initial contacts. After shitting themselves and not wanting to be seen as divided the parties went along with it and BT gave him a platform. Source: one of the nominated negotiators in the Smith Commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth_Glasgow Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Murphy back in with a shout in East Ren - SNP lead cut to 3 with a sizeable chunk of the Tory vote now backing Murphy. I would genuinely be devastated if that p***k kept his seat. Hopefully folk don't shite it on polling day again, I know I won't at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 No. The Vow was the text of the front page of the Daily Record. His entrance into the fray was done without the approval of the UK Labour Party. He was using his position within Unite with Labour to get the initial contacts. After shitting themselves and not wanting to be seen as divided the parties went along with it and BT gave him a platform. Source: one of the nominated negotiators in the Smith Commission. Who wrote the text then? Who was vowing exactly? And who signed it? Who pledged to carry out the actions contained in that text? You're the legal man tell us who signed it and who wrote it The vow was the verbal promises made by unionist politicians and members of the cabinet, that we can legally hold them to account on and reasonably expect to be fulfilled. The authorless front page of a newspaper signed by nobody is meaningless. And yeah an ex-PM on stage at an official Labour event was going rogue, give it up you're a liar. Answer my questions who wrote the vow and who signed it? And given that what bearing did it have legally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 No. The Vow was the text of the front page of the Daily Record. His entrance into the fray was done without the approval of the UK Labour Party. He was using his position within Unite with Labour to get the initial contacts. After shitting themselves and not wanting to be seen as divided the parties went along with it and BT gave him a platform. Source: one of the nominated negotiators in the Smith Commission. Just for clarity, can you point us to the statement from Clegg where he disassociated himself from the 'Vow'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooky Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 The Lib Dems will take a kicking at this election, but I'd be surprised if they didn't bounce back in the not too distant future. I think it's important to have a strong Liberal Democrat voice in Parliament. I do think that a lot of their ideas that they brought to the government have been good policies. With regards to tuition fees, I'd question whether free university for all is the right policy, especially in Scotland where the SNPs education legacy has been one of 140,000 cuts to college places, including 35,000 in science, technology, maths and engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Just for clarity, can you point us to the statement from Clegg where he disassociated himself from the 'Vow'. He didn't. And he didn't break it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Who wrote the text then? Who was vowing exactly? And who signed it? Who pledged to carry out the actions contained in that text? You're the legal man tell us who signed it and who wrote it Who wrote it is irrelevant. It was signed and endorsed by all three Westminster Party leaders. The vow was the verbal promises made by unionist politicians and members of the cabinet, that we can legally hold them to account on and reasonably expect to be fulfilled. The authorless front page of a newspaper signed by nobody is meaningless. 1. No the Vow is not composed of any verbal promises. 2. No verbal promises made by anyone about devolution are "legally" enforceable. 3. The Vow on the front page of the Record was signed by three party leaders, not nobody. And yeah an ex-PM on stage at an official Labour event was going rogue, give it up you're a liar. When he used that platform to announce cross party talks in a convention in the event of a No vote he acted without authority and was going rogue. Answer my questions who wrote the vow and who signed it? And given that what bearing did it have legally? 1. The exact text? No idea. 2. Who signed it? David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg 3. Legal bearing? None. Political promises never have legal bearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Complete and utter shite. The vow was signed by literally nobody, the DR printed the signatures on the front page nobody signed anything. As someone in the legal profession I expected better from you, but you can't help but lie in order to be 'right'. You just can't help it. I'm glad you are an irrelevance electorally, as you have a lot of growing up to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 And who wrote the text of a solemn promise to a country to amend the constitution in order to grant them 'extensive' new powers is irrelevant? You really are a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Complete and utter shite. The vow was signed by literally nobody, the DR printed the signatures on the front page nobody signed anything. What the f**k are you on about? That's a staggering view to hold. Basic stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 What? Your view is a staggering view to hold of basic stupidity, all three leaders have said they signed nothing, the DR has said they signed nothing, they signed nothing. Do you really think they went to DR HQ and signed a copy of the DR then they printed those off and sold them? None of them signed anything. The signatures were printed on the page to give that impression to dumb people, legally it has no basis as nobody physically signed anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 What? Your view is a staggering view to hold of basic stupidity, all three leaders have said they signed nothing, the DR has said they signed nothing, they signed nothing. Do you really think they went to DR HQ and signed a copy of the DR then they printed those off and sold them? None of them signed anything. The signatures were printed on the page to give that impression to dumb people, legally it has no basis as nobody physically signed anything. Do you think the Record printed the front page without the clear consent of the 3 leaders? Do you think their signature was put there without them agreeing to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 No of course it was all done with their consent but legally has no bearing at all as none of them actually signed anything. That's word for word what Salmond said Cameron told him on the morning of the 19th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 No of course it was all done with their consent but legally has no bearing at all as none of them actually signed anything. That's word for word what Salmond said Cameron told him on the morning of the 19th. Political promises never have legal consent though. Look at the Lib Dems an their pledge - has anyone sued them? No, they have shamed them, and rightly so. Its about integrity, not legal obligations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 The Lib Dems will take a kicking at this election, but I'd be surprised if they didn't bounce back in the not too distant future. I think it's important to have a strong Liberal Democrat voice in Parliament. I do think that a lot of their ideas that they brought to the government have been good policies. With regards to tuition fees, I'd question whether free university for all is the right policy, especially in Scotland where the SNPs education legacy has been one of 140,000 cuts to college places, including 35,000 in science, technology, maths and engineering. Your a Tory. You espouse the politics of greed and self interest. Best just getting that out up front. Anything the SNP government do in Scotland is hamstrung by the fact that they don't have control over the budgets, they have to work within the constraints of the money that comes from Westminster. I assume you understand that. Yes their policy on tuition fees is the correct one. There no doubt about that. It's the same as their policy on free prescriptions. Is it the most progressive and redistributive of policies, no it isn't. But certain things should be free regardless of income, like tertiary education and the NHS, because the minute you deviate from that path you end up down the road of division; a road that the party you support thrives upon. I don't have much of a personal axe to grind here, I went to University some years ago as a mature student so I did benefit personally; neither of by adult sons has gone to college or university. But beyond the personal I wouldn't want anyone to feel inhibited about going on to college or university because of the thought of debt hanging over their heads. Not good for them, not good for Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Political promises never have legal consent though. Look at the Lib Dems an their pledge - has anyone sued them? No, they have shamed them, and rightly so. Its about integrity, not legal obligations. Indeed it is, but the vow was unique that wasn't just an election or manifesto pledge. That was a promise from all three main parties at a UK level to the electorate of an entire country codified on paper and given the appearance of legitimacy by some printed signatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 The Lib Dems will take a kicking at this election, but I'd be surprised if they didn't bounce back in the not too distant future. I think it's important to have a strong Liberal Democrat voice in Parliament. I do think that a lot of their ideas that they brought to the government have been good policies. With regards to tuition fees, I'd question whether free university for all is the right policy, especially in Scotland where the SNPs education legacy has been one of 140,000 cuts to college places, including 35,000 in science, technology, maths and engineering. I agree with you on tuition fees, there really should be a household income cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 What the f**k are you on about? That's a staggering view to hold. Basic stupidity. Perhaps Fuzzy wanted them to sit down and sign one by one, like a novel launch at Waterstones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.