I hope that the Scottish settlement negotiated over the next year will satisfy the wishes of the people of Scotland. If it does not I hope that there will be a democratic movement to achieve such an accommodation, resulting on another Parliament elected on a devolution/independence platform.
You, on the other hand, wish to set in stone a vote on independence (but denied on Devo max) that was quite possibly achieved on a false prospectus.
Now which seems more democratic?
Strange then that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are all on board with Brown’s timetable:
Smith Commission up and running within days
Outline by St Andrews Day
White/Green/Cmnd paper by Burns Night
Legislation after the UK general election.
Pretending this is not happening will not make it go away.
A nightmare for the three main parties- the votes of the SNP MPs may be needed to support a minority Westminster government and keep UKIP away from any reins of power.
Well, my views do. Obviously. 
The referendum represents the settled will of the Scottish people - the result was clear and unambiguous.
It is you that wish to interpret it to be otherwise with hand waving ifs and buts. Nice post **Njtt **by the way - I was wrong to try to close down the debate. Pjen needs to be exposed for what he is.
The fact that he refuses to comment on the SNPs breaching of Edinburgh Agreement is itself revealing.
The forum that will decide what the settled will of the Scottish people is are the Scottish people as represented in Holyrood.
They will take this decision in 2016. At that point they will be able to assess the results of the referendum in the context of the promises that were made to achieve it.
Note: If five percent (200,000 people had changed their vote (?because of the Vow) the result would have been Yes. We now know from recent polling that most Scots want a massive transfer of powers to Holyrood. Very few want the status quo.
Wow! So all bets are off then, in your view?
You really have no shame do you? Rarely have I seen an agreed democratic process discarded so casually just because it did not deliver the outcome you wished. Again you ignore the previous agreement your party signed, the Edinburgh Agreement, which is what defined how you should be treating the outcome of the referendum. You really are not a democrat.
Further devolution, let alone another Referendum, is a reserved power. The Scottish Government is not the decision maker and does not have a veto. You lot are shameless…
Should the SNP be required to support the next UK government, they will have the whip hand, especially if (as is likely) they once again form a majority administration after the 2016 election on a manifesto that complains of failure to keep the Vow.
That is hoe democracy works.
Of course if the Scottish people do not re-elect them, or if Westminster keeps the Vow, then there will be no need for action.
Just to remind you, democracy is government by the people, not government by their previous views.
I have been responsible for this thread going off topic, but it has been an interesting excursion around different views of democracy.
Back to the OP:
How could a UK Bill of Rights be promulgated by Westminster where it covered matters devolved to Holyrood? That would involve Westminster going back on agreements about devolved powers, or for Scotland having a different Bill of Rights?
Lead story on Reporting Scotland tonight- implementing the Vow, assurances from Cameron. Agreement that initial Smith proposals will be placed before Parliament in Westminster next week.
Federalism, just as the US has a Bill of Rights which also applies to matters devolved to the states (although the states can offer additional rights through their own constitutions).
You’ve answered your own question. Either the UK will take back its powers over Scotland, or it won’t, and there won’t be a bill of rights from Westminster that binds Scotland on issues that are currently devolved.
It’s unlikely to matter, though, as Scotland seems to want more rights than the current UK government, so the proposed bill of rights wouldn’t cause any issues there.
That might not be the best model. Federal courts spent decades upon decades working out the question of if and to what extent the Bill of Rights binds the states. (Parts of it still don’t, although now that the Supreme Court has ruled that states can’t infringe the right to bear arms, I don’t think anybody cares about the parts that are left. As far as I know, nobody is bothered by states that don’t have grand juries, or whatever else hasn’t been incorporated.)
But supposing the Bill of Rights chosen by Westminster gave additional rights to corporations over citizens and this was contrary to the EConHR and to Scottish wishes in devolved matters.
Alternatively consider what would happen if such a Conservative Bill of Rights gave legal rights to a foetus.
One of the proposals in the Vow is that Devolution will become irrevocable.
Certain 'rights (see above) might conflict with Scottish needs.
That’s unlikely to be possible without massive constitutional change, as a basic principle of UK governance is that no parliament can bind a later one. How do you expect them to achieve that? Passing a law wouldn’t do so - although it would mean that the law would have to be explicitly repealed rather than simply superseded.
It can be entrenched- essentially making it like a treaty that would be difficult but not impossible to revoke. This would be similar to there red lines such as five year parliaments, limits on the powers of the Lords, not going to war without support of the Commons etc. All of these would be very difficult to overturn politically but still possible as Parliament is supreme. For instance it might make it a guarantee to the people of Scotland that Home Rule was irrevocable, and on time this would become very difficult to go back on- see Irish history from the Easter uprising to the creation of the Republic of Ireland. Here Free State as a UK dominion was created as a form of Home Rule. It would have been difficult to revoke such a condition, and in time Ireland decided to become a Republic and leave the Commonwealth.
A reminder of the Vow and a reminder that failure to implement it might result on loss of Labour and LibDem seats in Westminster (the Tories have only one to lose)
The people of Scotland want to know that all three main parties will deliver change for Scotland.
WE ARE AGREED THAT:
The Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September.
And it is our hope that the people of Scotland will be engaged directly as each party works to improve the way we are governed in the UK in the years ahead.
We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen.
And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
We believe that the arguments that so powerfully make the case for staying together in the UK should underpin our future as a country. We will honour those principles and values not only before the referendum but after.
People want to see change. A No vote will deliver faster, safer and better change than separation.
David Cameron
Ed Miliband
Nick Clegg
PJen’s petty grudges with her fellow English people (in this case, a certain type of “Tory” who doesn’t even exist anymore) are THE most important thing going on in Scotland, you see. Besides, she knows the natives better than they know themselves (turns out that whole “No” voting business was just a huge misunderstanding)
My concern is with the will of the people. Most people want much more devolution and possibly even home rule. I am not currently saying that we should strive for independence, but given how the referendum was won by the last minute Vow, we can only expect considerably more devolution over the next year and probably more to come after that if a Government in favour of home rule is elected in 2016. That is what democracy is about- the will of the people.
Funny, before the vote I kept hearing about how the “Vow” was a horrible miscalculation that would surely lead to a Yes vote.
I think the “Vow”'s influence on the vote is totally overrated anyway. Scottish culture (sadly) has numerous examples of people being more oppressed by their fellow Scots than by Londoners.
It is not about repression but about democratic choice. It seems that most Scots want much more devolution but are not ready for Independence. It looks like both are likely in turn over the next few years and decades.