Breach of Promise or Breach of Contract

Let’s consider a question I was asked recently, and to be honest, it sounded like it was a bit pointless at first blush.

The question was simple, and I’m reminding you I’m not a lawyer, but I was intrigued. The individual simply asked if Mssrs. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and possibly Brown and/or their parties could be sued for breach of promise over ‘The Vow’ as it was published in the Daily Record in the dying days of the Referendum Campaign.

There was a second aspect to this – if it is possible to do it, did I think it could be crowd-funded?

Honestly, I’ve no idea, was my immediate and rather doubtful response, but it was worth investigating anyway. You see, my recollection of that ‘Vow’ at the time was that it could be read in multiple ways, have a dozen interpretations, and there were really no ‘cast iron guarantees’ built into it. It was, essentially, designed to take the switherer and give them a justification for not doing what they were then believing; that it might be right to vote ‘Yes’.

Interestingly, in spite of what others may say, do or argue every indication I’m discovering is that whatever impact the ‘Vow’ had on the referendum is irrelevant now. Many believe it was the deciding factor. I agree it had a major impact, so I was surprised, none of that is actually relevant. The Union parties seem to think it is though, that caused me to keep digging – what’re they trying to hide?

The starting point is simple; what was actually promised, or less solidly, what would be reasonable to construe was promised. The fact that their names were signed to it, and they de-facto didn’t deny or refute any of it and in actuality did publicly (as the legal’s state) ‘aver and affirm’ if not specifically using those words, implies a promise or contract, in which they could now potentially be in breach.

If they did enter into such a contract, then it’d have been one with the people of Scotland, or even more specifically, those amongst us that altered our vote from ‘Yes’ to ‘No’ based upon that ‘Vow’ ‘Contract’ or ‘Promise’, but it’s most likely that a suit brought by specific individuals lodged and worded something as the ‘people of Scotland’ might suffice.

The second aspect was ‘were they protected by parliamentary privilege’, essentially meaning they can’t be sued. Categorically, the answer here is no. The announcement, undertaking or feel-good fuzzy, call it what you want to, was made by means of a daily tabloid “news”-paper.

So – was there anything specific enough to constitute a contract or promise?

In looking through the Record’s page on the day in question, reading it carefully, helped by someone who used to help actually make laws in the United States (so note the qualifier – it’s not Scot’s advice, but I’m told that although Contract and Promissory law has nuances, it’s overall pretty consistent) what I heard fell out as follows:

1. It stated the three main party leaders had all signed up to the incorporated statements – they’re therefore all on the hook for anything that followed, as long as the specifics could be defined. No specifics, no hook. No ‘No’ vote – it’s all moot anyway.

2. They promised to transfer more powers to Holyrood. That’d have to be in addition to anything that went before. If they give Holyrood the rights over its janitorial budget, and it hadn’t had them before then the promise is fulfilled. It still might be open to argument on ‘reasonable expectation’ grounds, but a near certain win has dropped into rather dubious ‘coin flip’ territory.

3. ‘No one, other than the Scottish Parliament can cut vital public services such as the NHS’ – This is where it might get interesting, because they (Westminster) hold the purse strings, and there was no guarantee they’d not cut funding thereby forcing the Scottish Government to cut services. On the surface it’s a loss here, especially as they already told us we’d be getting more budget cuts, a loss except for the fact that it could be argued it builds on the first point as to right of expectation.

4. The powers were then guaranteed to be ‘extensive’. Still, they could give you the right to pick your nose in addition to those ‘janitorial services’, then they’d argue that was ‘extensive’ – it’s coin flip territory once more, except it again builds upon the umbrella impression of realistic expectation.

5. They agreed that the Scottish Parliament is ‘Permanent’, unless they try to abolish it, there’s no breach of promise there. Even failure to enshrine it constitutionally doesn’t breach that promise – effectively it’s been so declared. Once more it builds on that expectation thing.

6. They promised to improve government in the UK in the years ahead. This might be a ‘gotcha’ with the Alistair Carmichael thing. Arguably, not requiring or requesting resignation shows intent to abandon this pledge. It’s still too early to make a definitive point though. Getting rid of corrupt members could be claimed as showing good intent, avoiding the subject, not so much. Might be a solid argument in a decade, not today. Again it builds on the ‘right of expectation’ thing.

In short, with one exception, this was effectively a media publicity stunt, and that very important exception is the right of expectation.

It was explained to me like this, that if I buy a car, and I’m promised it will be red, three years old, with less than thirty thousand miles and in excellent condition both bodily and mechanically, with the reasonable anticipation of many thousands of happy motoring miles in front of me, then that’s what I should get.

If that car is delivered as described above, but I subsequently discover it’s had a governor fitted, or been ‘wheel clamped’ then the letter of the contract has absolutely been adhered to, however the right of expectation has been thoroughly trashed. The goods are not fit for purpose as one had been led to believe.

This falls under the fact that in law, and Scot’s law too, it isn’t actually necessary to define every detail, but broad expectations are enough. The folk simply need to be competent. Working through the result of the referendum to the landslide in May for the SNP, it’s almost an inescapable argument that many amongst Scotland’s electorate believed one thing, acted in one way (No Vote) and now believe they’ve been sold what would be commonly referred to as ‘a Lemon’, oddly enough, there’s laws against that too!

It would appear that in drafting this vow Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown had fairly good contractual advice, however it would appear they used English legal advice. However the offer was made through the medium of a Scottish Red-Top to the Scots electorate in such a way it could only be accepted in Scotland. Therefore Scots Law and NOT English Law would seem to apply and be the potential initiator of many problems for the “gentlemen” involved.

Effectively, using that massive vote swing as confirmation, it can be argued that a contract was offered, accepted and viewed as breached. In addition, that there was a poll showing a 51/49 vote split in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote with the ‘Yes’ vote steadily gaining momentum until that point at which the ‘Vow’ was made resulting a net six percent reduction in the ‘Yes’ ballot and a final 45/55 poll in favour of ‘No’ also speaks to the efficacy of the offer.

All aspects of this particular case say that, effectively, Scotland’s electorate was sold a wheel-clamped car.

On that, there is without doubt a case.

All that would remain to be answered would be if an unbiased judge heard the case, and on which side of the coin the result would finally land. Only the court itself could determine if it was a winning case.

As to other promises made during this time-frame, they could be viewed as ‘adjunct offers’ especially if not refuted in word or deed by the parties concerned before the vote took place.

One thing is certain, even if the case didn’t make it to court, even a moderately successful attempt at fundraising towards getting it there would prove intensely embarrassing to all the potential respondents.

Should the suit prove successful, and if properly worded, it could force anything from a re-run of the poll itself to utter upheaval in the constitution of the United Kingdom, for in an extreme case it’s entirely possible that a judge could (not would, could) order the establishment of a federalized governmental system.

Where it would go from there would be…..interesting.

David Cameron - The man with no Honour.

Even Maggie couldn’t truly be accused of being that shallow, but the current leader of the United Kingdom has this week categorically proven himself a snake oil salesman of the worst degree, a cad and a bounder in the Oxbridge parlance and utterly dishonourable.

David Cameron has taken the already low opinion of politicians that’s almost universally shared throughout the electorate of Britain, and flushed what little remained down Westminster’s porcelain bowl.

I had a look to see if any of this was libelous, so Cad is defined as a man (I think he might fit that description) who behaves dishonourably, especially towards a woman. In this UK Scotland is often portrayed the ‘wife’, Nicola Sturgeon was essentially promised the ‘VOW’ would be kept (look upon the Vow as a re-dedication of that marriage). So, by voting down the permanence of Holyrood, something enshrined in convention, and where supporting a vote would have been of no consequence or cost, especially after what was printed against his name on the Daily Record front page and which he affirmed through not denying or distancing then and has promised to keep since, Cad is entirely appropriate.

Dishonourable; per Google, has these synonyms; disgraceful, shameful, shameless, shaming, disreputable, discreditable, degrading, debasing, ignominious, ignoble, blameworthy, contemptible, despicable, reprehensible, shabby, shoddy, sordid, sorry, base, low, improper, unseemly, and unworthy. Consider the refusal of the Scotland office to release full details of the ‘Carmichael Memo’, ultimately the Scotland office reports to him, the minister in charge does anyway. Cameron was notable by his voice being absent for those calling for Alistair Carmichael to resign. This can only lead to speculation as to whether he himself was in that loop which authorized the release of the (at best) inaccurate details or (at worst) a fabricated smear. We weren’t told he was, but just like Mundell, we certainly weren’t told he wasn’t. The leader always carries the responsibility to act. He did or he didn’t, either way, it was without Honour.

A bounder; that popped up as ‘dishonourable, nothing but a fortune seeking man’, doesn’t really need elaborated on, does it?

The snake oil salesman bit? As his own back benchers are discovering over the EU thing, the man really can’t be trusted. He certainly is proving that he peddled ‘snake oil’ with that Vow.

The best that could probably be said for him, he’s taken these very despicable traits of human nature and absolutely exploited them to gain his best personal advantage – he is PM after all?

Jim Murphy made a statement recently; essentially he said that David Cameron is such an idiot that he’ll sleep-walk Scotland into another referendum – the implication being that now he’s quite categorically proved himself all of the above, then he’ll not win it this time. If that wasn’t the implication, why bother with the statement?

I found it quite sad that Jim left what is perhaps his one comment which was worthy of preserving for posterity until after the time when things he says are more irrelevant than ever. He too, it appears, might no longer be Cameron’s political opponent, but he’s arguably supporting these words.

Sadly, we certainly suspected this before the referendum, before the May election. The evidence was clear though not fully unqualified.

In the end, in a very small way, I suppose my hat’s tipped to Nick Clegg for just one thing; it is becoming clear you did try to keep Cameron honest, though for whatever reason you had not publicly displayed the intelligence to articulate that properly, or the moral fortitude to walk away from an apparent shyster in 2010, 2011 or 2012, by which time you could have no doubt of the character with which you were dealing. You could have walked away with honour and respect back then.

As for Labour? Well, in or out of power, they’re irrelevant, and by this week’s abstentions and voting patterns alone (there are many more examples to select as well, like their refusal to condemn the ‘bedroom tax’ and support of the bankers, stripping of national assets, etc, etc …) they’ve condemned themselves to perhaps an eternity in the wilderness.

Labour could recover; they could act with honour and principle, with integrity and solidarity. That’s the way forward for them, they know it works too – just look at what happened in GE2015 when they ran up against such in Scotland. And no, the SNP isn’t perfect, far from it, but all the media spin, lies and dissemination still couldn’t fool the majority of the voters.

David Cameron is a product of his party, his society and of the London elite. It looks like the next Labour leader will be too. Everything emerging during the current Westminster and EU debates is indicating that David Cameron probably isn’t fit to lick Alistair Carmichael’s boots, and that’s some achievement by any measure. Perhaps it’s not one to be so proud of though?

In Scotland however, we can analyse these self-serving party and individual personalities, where we find them, we need to root them out from positions of responsibility or authority, because gods forbid we’d ever emulate, admire or elect them again!

Holyrood needs to pass just one law. It’d be a good, fair and just law, and I’d love to see any Westminster dominated party argue against it.

Simply, what you as a party or individual promise to win a vote, must be delivered or face being recalled.

End of.

The Guillotine and the Noose.

The results are in, Tory Majority. Much of the UK will be asking itself how the polls got it so wrong.

Now that the election is over, we’ll be told that it’s just time to ‘heal the divisions’ and ‘suck it up’ because ‘democracy has spoken’. That’s if we’re told anything at all.

Consider; this was an election the outcome of which you couldn’t split with a guillotine. It was an election billed as the tightest of modern times. Polls hadn’t shifted in months. So what happened on the day?

Cameron’s noose – that object so beloved of hangmen, which strikes mortal fear into the condemned.

Human brains are funny things. We can be told all sorts of stuff, but we don’t believe it until presented with the news/act/fact that’ll bring it home. Two simple examples can be used to demonstrate this, the condemned and the smoker. The condemned usually manage not to think much about their future, or relative lack of it, until the final little while. Seeing the noose brings home everything, that last walk, the trepidation builds. For tobacco users, it will always happen to someone else, until it happens to them, then they usually wish they’d made different choices.

At this year’s GE, Middle England was presented with tales of an ‘Ajockalypse’, and in a comedic way it struck home, but wasn’t really taken seriously.

When many of Middle England’s swing voters walked into the booth however, they saw the horror of ‘Ajockalypse’ on that ballot paper – like the hangman’s noose, it was staring them in the face. For them though, there was an easy reprieve, just hold your nose and mark the paper somewhere else, praying that enough others would do the same that you’d be granted a permanent stay of execution.

It worked.

Middle England voted for the pain of five more years of ‘austerity’.

Middle England voted for ongoing demonization of the poor.

Middle England voted for disgraceful treatment of the underprivileged.

Middle England held its collective nose and voted for unfettered Toryism.

Middle England voted for Nuclear weapons; for bombs before bairns.

Middle England voted for ongoing creeping privatization of the NHS.

Middle England voted to go with the only significant party not promising constitutional reform.

Middle England voted to hurt itself.

Middle England did this because it was, quite simply, more afraid of ‘Ajockalypse’ than all of these issues combined.

Scotland must suffer it, because it’s what Middle England wanted. Faced with a perceived immediate disaster by ‘Ajockalypse’ and a more prolonged but incremental pain, Middle England chose unrestricted Toryism as the way to save itself from Scottish influence.

Middle England chose unidentified but certain and savage cuts. Cuts that have been guaranteed but not specified as to where they’ll fall, because it was convinced it was preferable to the certainty of ‘Ajockalypse’.

It really doesn’t matter how anyone examines the facts, at day’s end, both Labour and Tory campaigns were woeful, the polls told us this too. The only thing which really separated them was ‘Ajockalypse’.

On May 7th, 2015, Middle England decided it couldn’t suffer ‘Ajockalypse Now’, it didn’t realize that with that choice, it’s guaranteed it; it’ll just never acknowledge it as such.

David Cameron won an election – he squandered a state to do it.

History will teach, ‘Ajockalypse’ will be the word that finally condemned a union.

David Cameron will ultimately go down in history as the Prime Minister who won a referendum only to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It will only rate a footnote, if that, but the strategies Cameron pursued were designed by an American, Jim Messina, an American who has absolutely no concept of an already fractured Union, an American who doesn’t care for it. Jim Messina is an American who’s interest in his personal stock, in ‘chalking up another in the win column’. Anyone who doubts that only needs to look at his actions before and after the result.

Jim Messina won’t be the one to suffer though. He’ll just go home to America.

While David Cameron will rightly bear the blame, he employed the man after all, there’s a lesson in employing folk from outside the franchise to meddle within it.

David Cameron will try to heal the rifts, slap sticking plaster on the wounds. History will show he might as well have tried to put out the great fire of London using a teacup dipped in the Thames, for like that conflagration the firestorm of constitutional upheaval will now just have to burn itself out. As to Cameron, he might just find himself unaware he has already chained his legacy to the stake.

Vote for Labour, Get Maggie.

And she isn’t even running in this election, bit difficult, since she’s dead. But her policies and ideals are in the race, and they’re under Labour’s banner too.

As I went through my little exercise yesterday, I was shocked to discover that even UKIP are to the left of Labour?

Yes, surprising, isn’t it?

Personally, I’d always stereotyped the ‘Kippers’ as somewhere akin to the Monster Raving Loonies. How wrong was I? At least in part. That’d be the part that doesn’t deal with any policies of demonisation and racism. 

To try to sort my way through the confusion of the parties in this GE, it seemed fair to tabulate what they were offering, and what they stood or stand for. To that end, I rustled up the ten most important policies to me. I then looked to see where the parties and participants in last week’s debate stood on them. The fact that I was able to find a view from the seven parties on each of my preferred policies seems to support the fact that they might think they’re relevant too.

I use the phrase ‘stood or stand’ above and this is where we find some surprises. For as we know, times changes much.

Any newly adopted policies that might not generally agree with historical positions I marked as neutral - yellow. 

Where a party was in reasonably substantial support of the policy they got a green tick. 

If the opposed or did not support the policies they got a red cross.

Fairly straightforward.

If I couldn't make up my mind where the party specifically fell in regards to a policy, or no particular opinion was expressed, then I’d allocate two symbols. The poor Lib-Dem’s were the only party to get hit that way; you just can’t swear a vow and not keep to it. It’s also why the majority got nailed on this, but the Lib-Dem’s with student fees and a ‘federal UK’ effectively did it twice, so they get two black marks.

On a personal basis I believe politicians who lie like that (really no other word for it, is there?) should be jailed for electoral fraud. They made promises in return for votes, and didn’t keep them. No different to me selling you my ‘reliable car’ then you finding out the following morning it is only good for the breakers yard. The difference here is the big UK parties are asking you to buy another car, in the same condition, while telling you it’s all bright, shiny and new. There’s a fool someplace in that scenario, and judging by the reactions of Joe and Josephine public, it wasn't the big UK parties. On the other hand, with MSM spoon-feeding the public, what other options had they? From this point of view the internet and social media have been a great leveler.

Seems like it’s time for a change? There’s no shame in learning, just - for some - the effort is beyond them.

At least in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we've got that option, a nice bright shiny new vehicle in the form of the SNP. And so far, it has mostly done what it says on the tin. We’ll need to keep watching it though, just in case those attitudes it’ll be around are infectious. After all, there’s a track record there - just look at Labour?

Anyway, here’s the table, and based solely on policy, with my interpretation of the results, you really can see UKIP is probably a little to the left of Labour, which might account for some of their mass appeal in spite of being so poisonously radical and extreme in some areas of what they propose.



It transpires with these policies, UKIP is further LEFT than Labour.

Interestingly, the best correlation for everything might just be the referencing of 1950 Labour, because it does two things. It shows the popular appeal of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP to be based upon support of policies which Labour championed back then, and shows how far the current Labour Party has drifted from those values. In my world that’s a clear indicator of why the red rose is hemorrhaging support. It’s not that public values or what the public really wants that has changed. 

A glance over these two charts quickly reveals the true state of affairs. 

With nearly 50% of Scotland’s electorate readying to vote SNP on this platform, we can clearly and simply see that what those folk are in effect voting for was much, if not most of what Labour stood for in its prime. 

Scotland has not abandoned Labour. Labour has abandoned Scotland

By looking at this and examining current voting intentions then it follows, Scots still have much the same values they had after the Second World War. Moreover the form that we Scot’s desire our society to take hasn't really changed an awful lot. Does this in point of fact mean that we have not moved forward in 70 years, or is this indicative of our desire to retain a core value that is a foundation stone in our society which we choose to protect? 

The Labour party on the other hand..? Well, only the folks at the top of that tree and their financial backers in the City of London or perhaps the Unions can really answer that one, can’t they? Then again, it has never really been the Labour Party since before Maggie broke the Unions, has it? If it had been, perhaps she might not have been as successful in her aims as she was. I can say that because the Labour Party of the fifties was quite honourable, by comparison anyway, and what gave Maggie her toehold in 1979 was Labour’s reneging and twisting of the vow on Scottish devolution.

Simply put, in 1979 had there been no lie there would have been no Maggie. Now wouldn't that have been nice?

One thing that’s very clear, it’s not your father’s Labour Party, it sure as hell isn’t your grandfather’s, and for all the difference, you might as well vote Tory these days, or Lib-Dem, if you don’t mind backing a bunch of liars.

Then again, from what I’m seeing here, you really couldn't get a silken thread between them, could you?

Additionally, from what I now see when I look at where the Tories were in 1980, against where Labour is today, then it really should be:

‘Vote Labour – Vote Maggie’

Because right now, Labour’s proposing support for things like the creeping privatisation of the NHS and international treaties without looking to see if they’re compatible with our core values.

That’s stuff that even Maggie didn’t dare to put on the table!

No to Democratic Rule.

What else can we think. Honestly, what other interpretation can be drawn from the reaction of England’s London based media to the attempted perversion of the democratic process in the attempt to sway votes or the electoral process with lies, supposition and innuendo.

Again we see what is simply a repeat of previous elections or polls, it was evidenced very clearly in the Referendum.

This time the story runs amok, starting in the Telegraph, about Nicola wanting to see Cameron continue in Downing Street.

Look at the timeline – Story appears.

Nicola Tweets a rebuttal.

The French support Nicola’s position.

The following day there’s an awful lot of column inches and headline space devoted to the now discredited story, but it’s done in such a way, though accurately reported in the body of the article, as to lead those simply skimming headlines (which as the editors are aware is the majority of us) that Nicola Sturgeon wants David Cameron to remain as prime minister. Essentially they reported the earlier article with largely the same story, and tagged in the rebuttals.

What we should have seen in any honest and truly democratic system was a full page apology by the Telegraph, a naming and shaming of the (alleged) civil servant involved, and headlines in all the journals, TV and social media which screamed at us “Civil Servant suspended while investigation launched into Sturgeon memo”, or some sort of variation. The in depth story should then have been carried about how the Telegraph itself had suspended or terminated the journalists in question for not fully investigating and simply producing an unsubstantiated gutter press article. Unless the Editor could also have shown good cause why it was published, he should be looking at his P45 as well.

Even the Labour Party from Ed Miliband to Jim Murphy weighed in with comments – duly reported of course.

It’s not what we’ll see though. We all know it too, at least many of us do.

We’ll not see it, because the article has served its purpose.

It has ‘smeared’ Nicola Sturgeon, it’s planted a seed (hopefully) amongst some would-be SNP voters.

One thing we do know, from the BBC to the now gutter press that’s owned and originates in London, they don’t want a Scots voice in that town, not a politically vibrant one anyway. They only want our wealth and resources to ‘reallocate’ as they see fit.

I could be proven wrong, I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. If I am, I’ll print that apology, hell; I’ll scream it from the rooftops.

It’s easy to prove me wrong too, Ed, Jim, Guardian, Telegraph, et al. Just print that apology, big, bold, front page headlines.

As to the heads of the Political parties, adopt a pledge to make it a criminal offence to try to sway the result of any plebiscite by any political party or registered company if done with unsubstantiated rumour or the reporting of such. The person originating it and the editor allowing it room; five years minimum should suffice.

After all, surely attempting to pervert the course of an election is as bad as attempting to pervert the course of justice. Those who create that justice, who write the laws, in a democracy, are the people we’re electing, and although we've strict and strongly enforced laws against perverting justice, we've apparently few to none when it comes to deciding what laws will actually be passed – which happens in the electoral system. It seems if we do have any, nobody bothers much about enforcing them.

There’s really only one reason for that, it suits those already in power.

Think about it.

If it didn’t, right now, we’d see Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Farage et.al on the news tonight, all proclaiming this as a disgrace, promising a full investigation, after all, it could just as easily have happened to one of them, couldn't it?

Oh, wait a minute? Maybe not.