In error I initially entitled this post 'The Live Leaders' Debates' - perhaps that may have been more appropriate!
Gordon Brown has now stated he would condescend to brighten our screens and take part in live television debates with the other leaders. Of course the 'other leaders' are called Dave and Nick with no place reserved for Alex, who quite rightly, has taken umbrage.
The blogosphere has plenty to say about our First Minister's demand to be included with Iain Dale saying 'Alex Salmond thinks he should be in the arena too. How strange. I thought the SNP wanted nothing to do with the Westminster Parliament.' Poor Iain, he doesn't do bitchy too well does he?
A full and equal partner is what another blogger writes and I would agree with that although I'm tempted to agree with the writer of A cunning plan.. too.
Iain MacWhirter has written the transcript suitable for any debate - to save us the inconvenience of tuning in.
There is a serious point here of course. The SNP have been sidelined for years both in the MSM and the UK broadcasting services, although a few of the dead tree press are now recognising the professional and efficient manner in which they are governing Scotland. One in particular springs to mind and that is the independently owned Dundee Courier but neither of the national Scottish papers report without bias (Robbie Dunwoodie excepted).
Therefore I support the SNP's actions because all they're asking for is a fair and equal say in the future of the UK which, in case Westminster politicians have forgotten, includes Scotland.
Posts
22 comments:
"professional and efficient manner in which they are governing Scotland."
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Not in the least Thomas. They're head and shoulders above the last lot and they have the cream of the talents in Holyrood.
Doesn't say much for the other parties does it.
Rosie,
Airports make you write stuff like I am about too.
So here goes.
Rosie I can not agree with you.
The reason being and I am a strong and poroud SNP supporter is the SNP is in no position to run the UK.
Its a UK debate.
Reagrdsless of what or who scots want to govern them its what constitutionally we have that is the point here.
And that is Westminster.
Big Eck can not become leader of Westmionster under CURRENT constitutions.
The same goes for Plaid Cymru.
They should not be at the debate either.
It is based on National as a whole constituents.
However yes the banana skin is that UKIP, The Greens, dare is say it Monster Raving looneies as they can all field candidates from bottom of Eng to North of Scotland to the West side Wales.
SNP can not do that.
Have UKIP not said they are trying to put a candidate in every constituency????
Now lets have a Scottish leaders debate on TV, A welsh leaders debate.
OMG on second thoughts, Iain Gray errrr no .
No being serious now I think its a constitution thing, change that first and lets us go alone.
Rosie,
Did AS not failt to go to the last leaders debate????????
I meant fail
God my spelling is grim
I agree to all the other party's having equal time the minor party's have a right to put their views just as much as the major party's.
Not to allow them is a form of censorship and gives the Electorate the impression their is only two or three party's which to choose from.
As for Alex he does have a profound personality flaw megalomania perhaps..the person who should take part in any debate for the Westminster elections is Angus Robertson.
In fairness SR I have to agree with you and on top of Salmond, so should a representative of any party who will be contesting the next GE.
This is why the idea of 'televised debates' is a non-starter from the outset. Why should the 'big three' assume that only they matter and the broadcasters go along with that. It amounts, in effect, to a form of censorship!
I do not believe it improbable that 'minor parties' will have a profound effect on the outcome of the next GE and that whilst not gaining many MPs, will be the reason that a hung Parliament results.
I have to say Thomas Byrne pre-empted my reaction.
They may well be better than Labour (who isn't?) but their handling of matters concerning lifestyle (of which I tend to keep well abreast) has been laughable in the extreme. They seem to have never heard of the term 'unintended consequences'.
Re: the debate. Yes, let 'em in if they squeal enough, but if so, the Greens, BNP and UKIP are then entitled too.
LotF, hope you've not had to wait too long for your transport.
I do understand where you're coming from and of course the present Scottish government would never 'rule' the UK. Neither would the greens, UKIP, etc unless there was a massive swing towards them.
It's all part of the problem of this devolved settlement isn't it LotF, when we're neither one thing or another.
Take care.
LotF, I truthfully can't remember whether he attended or not. If not I would have thought Nicola Sturgeon represented the SNP although I've no recollection. Sorry LotF, put it down to age please. :)
Oh Niko, don't we all have a personality flaw? I can think of mine, can you think of yours or are they too dreadful for you to consider? :)
Hope you're still on a high after your results and being terribly kind to that lovely woman in your life.
The comments by David Cameron, David Cairns and Tavish Scott about Alex Salmonds request for impartial treatment are illuminating.
David Cameron:
"Alex Salmond is not standing for Westminster. Alex Salmond is not standing to be UK Prime Minister, This is a British general election. Alex Salmond should get on with being First Minister and if he wants a debate he can have it any time with Annabel Goldie and the other political leaders in Scotland."
He sounds just like the School Bully from "Tomkinson's Schooldays" which is not surprising with his Eton background.
"Know your place you little SNP tick, this is a debate for the Sixth Formers".
David Cairns, the former Scotland Office Minister, said:
"The SNP's sinister threat to go to court to ban Scottish viewers watching these debates is a bully-boy tactic unbecoming of a democratic party. Voters in Scotland will see through it in an instant."
And Tavish Scott, the Scottish regional Lib Dem leader, said:
"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. They do not represent opinion outside Scotland and have no role to play in these televised debates that take place across the United Kingdom. I hope that for once broadcasters will stand up to typical SNP bullying."
The thing to remember is that It 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 Lib-Dems and Labour have gone to court before to ensure impartiality in political broadcasting in Scotland and now they are squealing that the SNP is threatening to do the same.
Thanks to Montague Burton for the link.
David Cairns, the former Scotland Office Minister, said:
"The SNP's sinister threat to go to court to ban Scottish viewers watching these debates is a bully-boy tactic unbecoming of a democratic party. Voters in Scotland will see through it in an instant."
I find the use of the word sinister strange coming from this man. He is after all, a known Toom Tabard. He turned his back on his ministry. Then assuming the coat of a christian socialist turned his back on the people and his voters in order to support Blair and Broon in their wars and econmic carnage. Now he wants approx 1/3 of the nation to be denied when it comes to freedom of representation and expression of our views when applied to a UK context. There's only one thing sinister here and that's David Cairns.
Lots of good arguement here.
If the debate with the Big Three goes ahead perhaps some Scots will watch it hoping that that will be all the information they require to make a decision on voting day.
If parties are excluded from this, will they lose votes?
Another thought is that the 20 minutes or so each that the London paries get could be deducted from their alloted broadcast time for Party Political Broadcasts.
Many thanks for your comment Dug, enlightening right enough.
Isn't it particularly eye opening that the unionists are more scathing about the SNP than the SNP are about them?
I still support the SNP's legal challenge.
I was about to say that to Dug Dram, then I noticed you have. The use of sinister from David Cairns says so much more about him I feel and you're right enough.
Tris, what are the chances that Brown only attends one debate and one in which he refuses to have Alex Salmond present? Fairly high I should think.
Maybe, as Iain MacWhirter says, all this will backfire on the unionists. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Meanwhile I'm happy for the SNP to question the legalities of it.
Dick, you know I support you about most of the Scottish government's interference about lifestyle but my point was not about particular policies, it was about style, transparency and openness - although all could be improved.
I think SR that if the idiot Brown had to be on stage with the First Minister, he would probably be unable to control his rage, and we'd get another taste of the idiot trying to strangle himself with his mic as he stomped off to find a Nokia that needed throwing..
Good luck to him I say.
Actually Tris, someone said that very thing to me earlier today. He said Brown would do anything to avoid having to be in the same room with Alex Salmond.
So you're in good company Tris, my friend is usually spot on with his observations - as you are.
I agree that the SNP should be represented in at least one of the leadership debates, after all the polictical landscape is completely different here than it is down south. I suppose that if the SNP run their Westminster campaign as a referendum on the union, this will seriously backfire on the remaining pro-union parties left in Scotland.
By the way, congratulations to the comentators above for not falling into the gutter like some of the coments on Iain Dale's post.
On behalf of my readership Allan, here we have rather more courtesy and intelligence than many on Iain Dale's blog.
You could well be right Allan, it will be interesting to see how the SNP handle the general election. Of course much will depends on how much money they have.
Post a Comment