Brown "promises" To Powers Will Be Delivered ?

[mikey4444]

I'm not sure if I have this right or not. Gordon Brown is no longer in power. He is just like any other Scottish MP. So how exactly is he able to "promise" anything ? dave is on the only one who can make promises and have the wherewithal to bring them about...well at least until next May of course.

So why is so much been staked on Browns promise ?

[Quizmonster]

At least, NJ, even politicians generally wait until they are established in government and a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Then, gradually, the public begins to notice that something or other that had been promised in a manifesto seems to have disappeared. The matter appears in the media and only then do they come up with their so-called 'explanations' and off-fobbings.
On this occasion, the ink was scarcely dry on their signatures to the 'vow' - which itself had no add-ons - before they decided they were free to add whatever condition or proviso they saw fit. It is clear the view of most Scots that Tories are a waste of space is fully justified.

[New Judge]

I don't quite understand, QM.

As far as I know, and at least for the moment, none of the extra powers pledged to the Scots have been ruled out. All the Prime Minister is suggesting is that alongside their introduction should run a review of how the rest of the UK is governed and in particular how the issue that Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on matters which affect only England (which they have done on some major issues) is addressed. Surely, provided they do not delay their introduction, this cannot be seen as reneging on their promises (which they were in no position to make anyway) as such parallel undertakings do not affect Scotland at all (or do the Scots also want to influence, disproportionately, what takes place with English legislation as well?)

Of course all this has arisen because of the ridiculous reaction by the Three Stooges to a single, possibly flawed, poll. They drew up proposals for major constitutional change on the back of their EasyJet boarding passes as they headed north for their short flight to Abbotsinch airfield. Shame on them for doing that and good luck to them in sorting out the mess their panic-stricken folly has created.

[Quizmonster]

Firstly, if what you say, NJ, were true - and it may yet prove to be so - namely that, in addition to the new powers to Scotland, there "should run a review of how the rest of the UK is governed and in particular how the issue that Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on matters which affect only England", I would have no great objection to that, other than that I feel the "Bishop Question" should be under investigation, too. (You agreed with me on that once.)
However, that is not quite the same as saying, as Cameron did, that these should run "at the same pace". That is, for me, the two (or three) matters could certainly be started simultaneously, although one would clearly take considerably longer to reach a conclusion on than the other one (or two).
After all, the WLQ has been around for 37 years, whereas the new powers were stated to be on their way into legislation between September 2014 and May 2015!

Secondly, you say with reference to the WLQ that it has had an effect on (quote) “some major issues”. Off and on here on AnswerBank over the years, I have asked whether anyone can give me an example of when that has ever happened. Until a week or so ago, no one has ever given me any such answer. Then, Thecorbyloon did provide a link for me that indicated two occasions when that may have been so. It seems, then, that twice in 37 years, the WLQ might have been relevant. From the way John Redwood and some here on AB rant on about it, one might imagine it was a bugbear that arose at Westminster every month or two rather than once every couple of decades!
So, if Cameron & Co make it clear that they DO grasp the vast difference between (a) a recent vow and its rapid, stated timetable and (b) a long-standing thorn in parliamentary procedure which will take longer to solve, I will hold fire on my condemnation.

[New Judge]

I think Scottish MPs swayed the vote on university tuition fees and elderly care costs, QM (both of which did not apply in Scotland).

[Quizmonster]

NJ, I have literally never said that the WLQ was permanently a non-event. However, it is quite clear that it is little more than a very occasional irritant. It should be sorted out, of course, but so should the scandal of clergymen - whose church is not 'established' in three of the four constituent elements of the UK - having the vote on matters affecting these three.

[New Judge]

We've done the "Lords Spiritual" before, QM.

I think the issue here is that suddenly Mr Salmond and his mates are saying they've been turned over, lied to, misled, call it what you will and are suggesting a re-run might be necessary (God save us) or that Scotland may declare "gradual" UDI (never mind tiresome little matters such as the will of the people which is less than a week old). I'm suggesting they have not (yet) and to suggest that English matters cannot or must not be discussed alongside new powers for Scotland shows that the SNP has ideas above its station.

Senior Coalition politicians including the Prime Minister, William Hague and Danny Alexander have stated that the committments made to Scotland are not dependent upon the successful conclusion to the constitutional problems which affect England. None of the pledges made a week or so ago have been withdrawn or even threatened to be withdrawn so I don't know what Mr Salmond is complaining about.

[Quizmonster]

Yes, NJ, we have done the Bishops Question several times before and, on at least one of these occasions, you actually agreed with me! So why not now, when the very matter of voting ‘competencies’ are in debate?
Your words, "not dependent", re the referendum promises, are the crux of the matter. The attitude of many Scots is, if that were so, why did Cameron even have to mention the matter of English 'home rule' right at the heart of his Downing Street post-referendum speech? Why also suggest that the two matters had to be “in tandem”...ie trudging along together? He could as easily have saved that to be delivered at the party conference or had a bill proposed by Hague or whoever a week later in the House of Commons.
It's the juxtaposition that makes it look dodgy...and not just to ME. To give you a flavour of that, here is a sentence from The Independent a few days ago:
“An 11th-hour vow by the three Westminster leaders last week, promising more devolution if Scotland rejected independence, has been in disarray after Cameron appeared to attach new conditions.”
Note the word, ‘appeared’. I don’t for a moment suppose that The Telegraph or Mail thought of ‘dsarray’ as the appropriate word, but others clearly did. It is far from only (quote): “Mr Salmond and his mates” who felt justified in doubting Cameron’s true intentions!