Good thing absolutely no-one has suggested it’s likely to be reneged on, then.
But even if it is, that doesn’t mean you get another vote. If a politician breaks his campaign promises, you don’t get another vote. Scotland voted to stay in the Union, and that result isn’t conditional. Just like “the Vow” isn’t conditional. It’s strange how you are only willing to accept real world politics when it meshes exactly with your views.
But, as I’ve repeatedly said, the promises will be substantially kept, but as this is the real world there will be some changes, and some concessions on each side. Said concessions will include Scotland giving up some of its power over the rest of the Union, in exchange for the Union giving up much of its effective power over Scotland.
Surely what is envisaged is not that Scotland will give up any power over the Union, as that the Union will give up power over England in the same way that it has given/will give up power over Scotland?
I may have worded that badly, but I specifically referred to Scotland giving up some power over the rest of the Union, rather than just England, as a devolved Scotland, in my opinion, has no more right to vote on Welsh or Northern Irish issues than English. They could certainly vote on issues to do with the Union as a whole, indeed they should be doing so.
This is a good example of why negotiation and clarification of these matters will be so important, so that both sides know exactly what they’re agreeing to.
ETA - I don’t expect the Union to give up power over England in the same way at all, there seems to be no desire for an English devolved parliament, and in my opinion there’s no need for one.
Well, indeed. When Westminster votes on English matters, that’s not Scotland exercising power over (part of) the Union; it’s the Union exercising power over part of the Union. The Westminster Parliament is an organ of the Union, not of Scotland, and this remains so even if some of its members are returned by Scottish constituencies. The Scots MPs at Westminster do not act on behalf of Scotland; they act on behalf of the Union, and they have as much right (and responsibility) to do so as English, Irish or Welsh MPs.
You can’t square this particular circle. If matters of purely English interest are within the competence of the Union, then they will be dealt with by the organs of the Union, and as Scotland is part of the Union the Scots will (and should) have the same involvement in this as the English, the Welsh and the Irish.
If England feels that matters of purely English concern should be dealt with by England and not by the Union, then England does want devolution; that’s pretty much what devolution means. If it’s true that there is “no desire for an English devolved Parliament” the corollary seems to be that English wants English matters - at least, English parliamentary matters - dealt with by the Union. It’s a contradiction in terms to demand that English affairs be dealt with by the Union, but with no Scots, Welsh or Irish involvement. It’s only the Union because the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish are involved.
It’s entirely reasonable for the English to want their affairs dealt with by a body representing England. It is not reasonable to demand that the Union parliament should be, or become, that body.
There was a right to roam on uncultivated land but no right to roam on enclosed land such as large estates. Scotland like Sweden (which also has an historic right to roam) has much uncultivated land. What changed over the past few years was that the exceptions were removed and now only the reasonable domestic garden areas are private and people can no longer fence in estates or parks against walkers. There were a series of cases confirming this in the last decade, one involving the Coach running Gloag family who attempted to have a many acre "“domestic garden”.