The latest take is that Alex Salmond is threatening to sue if he is not included in the debates in the run up to the election. They are also threatening to block any debate that does not include the First Minister. John Swinney has said:
"It deprives the voters in Scotland of hearing the breadth of political choice that quite clearly exists here in Scotland about the input of Scotland into the UK General Election."
I have in my previous posts above already discussed compromises, so I will not repeat them here. The action that Salmond is threatening is also denying the British people who live in Scotland the chance to hear the men who will be those that decide the shape of the next United Kingdom Government. The three men that the broadcasters have invited are those key men. Even if Salmond's army where to get a clean sweep across Scotland he would only have 59 MPs not one of them being Alex Salmond.
The people in Scotland are lucky to have a vote that can count towards the opinion
shakers in Westminster. Having just had my 40th birthday if I hadn't moved elsewhere I would have had 22 years of my adult life where I could never have voted for a party that held sway in the corridors in London (apart from when the UUP held up the slim Major majority). Yet in Northern Ireland we still get to see political discussion from the UK leaders through Question Time and the like, although there is a once monthly opt out for a local QT.
If Salmond had wanted to be at the big boys table he should have brought forward the one key promise he seems intent on keeping since the 2007. If he'd already had his referendum and had his desirous result this would all be a moot point. As it is what he should be doing is sitting down with broadcasters to come up with a compromise. I mean to take his point on board should the English Democrats have a place on the debate that is broadcast to Scotland, or the Cornish Nationalists. Surely supporters of such parties are being denied the full breadth of political choice? How about those that do vote Official Monster Raving Looney?
There are holes in his argument and he needs to be sensible and discuss these rather than bully or cajole.
I don't think as leader of the Scottish government Alex Salmond is bullying in the least. What's wrong with having the law confirm his position?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the Westminster government is seldom out of the courts, spending taxpayers money on needing to clarify laws which they themselves have made.
It could be argued that any party, anywhere in the UK which has a realistic chance of returning any MP (and so I include the Greens) should be represented in any debate. One MP could, in extremis, hold the balance of power, and this is possible given the current HoC.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest option of course, is NOT to hold any farcical debates. Who in their right minds thinks that we should gain any enlightenment from the current bunch of soundbiter-lites? (I bet that word sounds better in German)
Strange, Stephen.
ReplyDeleteIt was the Lib-Dems and Labour who stopped the broadcast of a John Major interview before the Scottish Local Elections in 1995.
Lord Abernethy's decision was based on the fact that the BBC's decision to screen it as the election campaign north of the border reached its climax, with no plans "to give similar air time to the leaders of the other parties", breached the corporation's duty of broadcasting impartiality that is enshrined in its licence and in its internal guidelines.
What's difference between one party out of four getting exclusive air time and three parties out of four getting exclusive air time in Scotland as far as impartiality is concerned?
The fact that the Lib-Dems are now on the other side of the fence seems to have changed their viewpoint. Not that that's a surprise.
The story is in the Independent.
(Thanks to Montague Burton for the link.)
Subrosa if at any point Alex had pleaded for UKIP and the Greens as prime examples like Spohia has said to be included in the debates as well it may have added more credence to his cause. As it is the SNP are all saying he should appear, when he isn't even standing in the next Westminster Election.
ReplyDeleteDougtheDog you'd bear with me as I wasn't in Scotland at the time. But it appears that this was a case of local elections, an interview with one leader and not the rest. It would appear to be a different scenario and breach equal reresentation on the National stage.
But it appears that this was a case of local elections...
ReplyDeleteThere is no differentiation in the impartiality part of the broadcasting legislation, the ITV OFCOM guidelines and the BBC impartiality guidelines between local and national elections.
The Lib-Dems went to court and blocked politically partial broadcasting in 1995.
Now the second, third and fourth place parties in Scotland want a party leaders' political debate broadcast in Scotland with the SNP who are the top party in Scotland cut out.
What did Tavish Scott say when the SNP threatened to go to court if it wasn't sorted?
"The SNP are quite entitled and should be part of debates in Scotland, but they should not be allowed to get away with bullying broadcasters."
The only way that the broadcasters could be "bullied" would be if the SNP had a good chance of winning in the courts. So Tavish must be aware that they have a good case.
It's good for the goose but it's not good for the gander in the Lib-Dem world.
And Doug I've said all along that there should be a Scottish debate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, should Salmond take part as he is not a Westinster Candidate in a debate is another question. The other three will be between the three party leaders standing in the election when UK-Wide opinion polls are showing will have the most seats is something else. The second and third have swapped places a few times in recent weeks.
Also by denying the people of Scotland who want a United Kingom the right to watch a debate of the three party leaders that will have most sway is denying a 'fair proportion of opinion', SNP's own words.
The fact that the SNP haven't supported the right of bigger parties in terms of votes to be in the debate shows it is egotistical. No mention of the Greens, UKIP and the BNP also having a place in the debate, or have I missed something?
I've yet to see any SNP supporter mention that it is all us, us, us.
ReplyDeleteAnd Doug I've said all along that there should be a Scottish debate. However, should Salmond take part as he is not aWestinster Candidate in a debate is another question.
ReplyDeleteActually it's not. There is nothing in the rules which say that the speakers in a Party Election Broadcast should be candidates in the election. A party leaders' debate is a new idea but it is very close to a PEB and there are no new rules which bar party leaders from the debate if they are not Westminster candidates.
The other three will be between the three party leaders standing in the election when UK-Wide opinion polls are showing will have the most seats is something else. The second and third have swapped places a few times in recent weeks.
You should read the legislation and guidelines. The broadcasters have to be impartial and who is first, second, third or fourth in the polls has nothing to do with it. If you stand for 1/6 of the seats in the UK you get a UK Party Election Broadcast. If you stand for 1/6 of the seats in Scotland or Wales you get a PEB in Scotland or Wales. This is not a Party Election Broadcast, it is a joint debate between party leaders and if it is broadcast in Scotland it has to be impartial and include the SNP. The BBC guidelines make a special reference to Scotland.
We must ensure that: They (the editorial decision makers) are aware of the different political structures in the four nations of the United Kingdom and that they are reflected in the election coverage of each nation. Programmes shown across the UK should also take this into account. (My bold)
Also by denying the people of Scotland who want a United Kingom the right to watch a debate of the three party leaders that will have most sway is denying a 'fair proportion of opinion', SNP's own words.
The SNP do not want to deny the people of Scotland the right to watch a debate between party leaders broadcast in Scotland, they want the broadcasters to adhere to the principles of political impartiality and include the SNP on the platform. Your language again betrays the fact you have not read the legislation and guidelines on impartiality. It has nothing to do with who has the, "most sway", and in Scotland that would cut the Conservatives out for a start in a three way debate.
The fact that the SNP haven't supported the right of bigger parties in terms of votes to be in the debate shows it is egotistical. No mention of the Greens, UKIP and the BNP also having a place in the debate, or have I missed something?
Oh boy. The Lib-Dem mindset comes to the fore. You want to deny the right of the SNP to take part in a high profile political debate broadcast in Scotland and when they complain you accuse them of being "egotistical" because they haven't complained on behalf of the other parties as well. With all the Lib-Dem emphasis on equality I would have thought that the Lib-Dems would have been fighting for the right of the SNP, the Greens and if you apply the PEB criteria, any other party with candidates in 1/6 of the Scottish seats to get on that platform and share a joint party leaders' political broadcast but it's just hot air isn't it?