Nationalists could go to court over debates

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I expect UKIP to kick up a rumpus about this too, especially after their showing in the Europeans. Perhaps the solution is to have the three debates as planned for the major national parties, and then four satellite debates: once for Scotland (SNP, Lab, Con, Lib), one for Wales (PC, Lab, Con, Lib), one for NI (DUP, SF, UUP, SDLP), and then one for the national "minor" parties (UKIP, Green, Monster Raving Loony, and maybe even the BNP).

It is ludicrous to think that a debate regarding the UK General Election could be transmitted in Scotland whilt precluding the leader of the party that is in Government in the Scottish Parliament. Any right minded person who believes in Democracy must surely see that is not a tenable position to take. The SNP is likely to be the most popular party in Scotland at the next election, they must be given equal footing in any debate shown in Scotland. If not the BBC will be left open to a strong criticism of political bias.

Alex Salmond is reminding all who'll listen

Can't say I care for your tone Nick, as demonstrated by the rather flippant line I've quoted. Maybe it's paranoia on my part due to the relentless SNP-bashing in the Scottish media, but you sound like you think the SNP are being a bit petty. Lest we forget, it was not so long ago the Conservatives totalled exactly ZERO MPs in Scotland, and still only have the one now. Also, bearing in mind their status as the fourth party in the Scottish Parliament, the Lib Dems can hardly claim to be powerhouses on the Scottish political scene. How could anyone seriously suggest either of these parties have more right to such a massive platform for their policies than the party of Government in Scotland?

Obviously it would be silly to have a party with no candidates in England being given a place on a show that will be dominated by English issues, but no more ridiculous than completely excluding the party that may very easily end up returning more Scottish MPs than anyone else. But this is the thing: these debates will cover health, education, justice... Matters that are devolved in Scotland. So to show these debates in Scotland would not only give an undemocratic disadvantage to the SNP (and thus give SNP supporters yet more reason to think the media is fundamentally biased against them), but it would be misleading voters, who might not realise the promises Cameron or Brown make on health or education are not even applicable up here.

The only solution is also the most obvious one: don't show these debates in Scotland, replacing them instead with ones including Salmond. These would need the UK party leaders rather than their Scottish dogsbodies however - if nothing else, it would be nice to see the First Minister sparring with decent politicians, rather than the inept glorified councillers he deftly sweeps aside every week on FMQs. More importantly though, it would show respect to the Scottish electorate, whose votes could so very easily determine whether the next parliament is hung or not. Anything else would be to show nothing but contempt for the Scottish people, which would play into the SNP's hands almost as much as the unionist blocking of the independence referendum will. Unless they're just scared of facing Salmond, of course...

Who'll be paying the lawyers' fees? And will we be told the value of the sums changing hands? Go on, make me laugh.

"See you in court." That's the message coming from the nationalists

Let's ignore your use of the term 'nationalists' instead of the more appropriate SNP - 'nationalist' or even 'nats' are terms that have become more prevalent at the BBC as the SNP have grown.

The message coming from the SNP is that they wish to be part of the election debate, they would rather the BBC started to reflect the vary changing landscape of this UK. I believe that they are seeking to be represented only when the debate is broadcast in Scotland.

The BBC (and others) have consistently failed to appreciate that the UK is not one nation but a collection of nations. The SNP cannot form the next UK government because Scotland is too small.

This unequel partnership has now led to the dominance of English political parties at the expense of those popular elsewhere.

If tomorrow, an English Independence party attracted enough support then it could theoretically form the next UK government and would participate in the debate. It needen't be active in Scotland or Wales (or NI) but Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish would have to listen to their arguments.

How are the very important, but devolved matters like the NHS to be discussed? What about the Calman proposals and Labour's interpretation of them? What about an independence referendum earmarked for 2010?

Let's not forget that in Scotland the opposition to the SNP is a Unionist alliance of Labour/Tories and Lib dem, together with the media. It is simply a charade to present all four as being somehow an open and honest 'debate' and transmit this into Scottish homes.

Who will defend those of us who seek significant constitutional change when the leaders of each of these parties make their attacks on the SNP?

Real and open democracy would not be frightened of hearing what Alex Salmond has to say - it may even be relevant to others in this UK even if he will not be the next PM.

Size, or is that 'might', should not be the determining factor over who can be heard.

The SNP are a significant party, the largest party, in one of the nations who is a signatory to the Act of Union - there is no question that they ought to be included in any debate for Westminster.

I am really looking forward to the SNP explaining to a judge that the voters of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, the only people in the country who have ever or will ever vote for Gordon Brown, should be legally prevented from seeing him in a debate.

I am also intrigued by the logic of Alex Salmond taking part in a Westminster debate when he has no intention of standing. Surely we should have Boris Johnson and Lord Mandelson in the debate; they're not standing for Westminster either.

It's ludicrous and anti-democratic to exclude the SNP from the leader debates in Scotland.
The SNP are the biggest party in Scotland, as was shown in both the last Holyrood and Euro elections.
Seems many politicians and indeed the media at large have not come to terms with devolution. Poltically Britain has changed, it's time this was recognised and accepted.

Glassfet.

''I am also intrigued by the logic of Alex Salmond taking part in a Westminster debate when he has no intention of standing. Surely we should have Boris Johnson and Lord Mandelson in the debate; they're not standing for Westminster either''

It's a national debate,not a Westminster debate, and on that basis the democratically elected goverment should be present.


Wansanshoo.

Why not let the debate be restricted only to those matters such a health, care of the elderly, tuition fees etc, that are important to the majority of the UK but devolved to Scotland.
I would be interesting to hear what Salmond's manifesto for the whole of the UK might contain.
He would have to produce one wouldn't he? After all he would be taking part in a debate about the governance of the UK for the next five years, so no point in him being there if he is only going to restrict his contribution to one area of the UK to which Westminster has relinquished many powers.

SNP is calling fowel and claiming the broadcasts are anti-democratic!

Is this the same SNP who stated last month that if their is a hung parliment their votes are for sale to the highest bidder.

Is this the sams SNP who voted for english students to pay top up fees despite their manefesto stating NO TOP UP FEES (incodently all the labour MP's (who voted) in scotland also voted to top up fees).

POT KETTLE BLACK springs to mind

The BBC, ITV and SKY have announced that they will be holding a series of leaders debates for the forthcoming UK general election.

The leaders of Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will participate in all three debates to be broadcast across the UK.

Despite being major parties in Scotland and Wales both the Scottish National Party and Welsh Plaid Cymru have been omitted from these debates.

What is your opinion:

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Wansanshoo

"It's a national debate,not a Westminster debate"

Last time I checked the National Parliament was in Westminster. Unless you mean it's a Scottish debate, in which case Brown, Cameron and Clegg would not be there.

I think the snp are push over’s it’s not enough to threaten court action I think it about time they take on the British media head on, one they should call for non payment of the TV licence in Scotland. They should call in there members supporters and voters to boycott the Scottish newspaper industry.
They should ask there members and supporters to end there subscriptions to sky well they refuse to provide Scotland with a dedicated Scottish and international news service like Ireland.

The snp has a wider duty and its to champion a wider Scottish democracy not just for them self’s but for the range of option which the bbc have set out to exclude. When will the snp get it into there heads the bbc are not nice people

#10 Zydeco

On the flipside, whats the point lsitening to Broon, CMD and Nick debating those issues when they have no relevance to those in Scotland?

"so no point in him being there if he is only going to restrict his contribution to one area of the UK to which Westminster has relinquished many powers."

Get them to relinquish the rest and we'll call it quits! :)

Until then it is only fair and democratic that the largest party and the current government in Scotland be heard in a national debate broadcast to the Scottish electorate debating the relevant issues. The current proposed debates only encompass the political dynamic of England and not the UK as a whole.

This current constitutional setup within the UK has to be taken into consideration, no use pretending it isn't what it is, the political landscape in each of the UK constituent nations are not the same, and the establishment should not force this 'one size fits all' solution onto the UK as a whole.

It will be interesting to see what the other proposed debates in Scotland, Wales and NI will encompass, as this was not divulged with the original broadcast.

I wonder if these were planned or a rush job to cover themselves legally in fulfilling their duty to be impartial during a GE? If they were planned, why was this omitted in the original broadcast? Very curious.

Welsh/Scottish/Basque/Kosovan etc nationalist leaders should be given the same important status as other party leaders - in their own countries.

I have not the slightest interest in hearing from them in my country.

Hmm...the SNP complaining again. Hardly news is it?

Personally I wish we'd just let them have their referendum and get it over with.

#11 icewombat

"Is this the same SNP who stated last month that if their is a hung parliment their votes are for sale to the highest bidder."

No, I don't think they did. They did state that in the event of a hung parliament they would use their votes to obtain the maximum benefit for Scotland on an issue by issue basis.

With regards tuition top up fees, Scottish students don't pay them, so I'd reckon in that case they did stick to their manifesto commitment.

As someone who lives in Gordon Brown's constituency and has the opportunity to vote for or against him, I do want the debates to be shown in Scotland. I don't understand why the SNP aren't happy with debates in Scotland - they don't field any candidates outside Scotland, they don't vote on any issues which don't relate to Scotland at Westminster, and Alex Salmond isn't even standing as a Westminster candidate.

The Scottish debate could have Jim Murphy, David Mundell, Alistair Carmichael and Salmond. It could even be broadcast nationally if it's shown on Sky News or BBC News. It would allow a clear and close examination of issues in Scotland which are relevant to the Scottish people - or is that what the SNP want to avoid?

The three main debates are for the leader of the UK parliament.Is it too late for Mr.Salmond to put himself forward as a candidate? Why not,it would really upset the apple cart.If elected by a combination of Scottish nationalists and English regionalists, he could dissolve the union and go his own happy way.

In the probable event of a conservative government for the UK,pressures for Scottish independence will grow, so it will be politic for Mr.Salmond to postpone the referendum until after the general election.The English conservatives have still not been forgiven for the de-industrialization wreaked by Mrs.Thatcher.

Hate to point out to the moaners, but these debates are with regard to an election for westminster, not the Scots Parliament or the Welsh assembly

I think the media organisations, by offering local debates in Wales and Scotland, which would be far more pertinent to the SNP and PC, have made a good or indeed even balanced call.

Perhaps one additional thought though - at the first debates, have one question tabled at the three party leaders from SNP and PC - could be something as simple as "what would you do for Scotland/wales if elected" but could be something far more involved - that would be up to the SNP/PC

But, as I said - this is an English parliament in the main - so let it be dominated by the English

I believe Brown has no intention of debating but anticipated this furore from the main nationalist parties, which I agree should be given an opportunity in these debates, as if there is an hung parliament they might hold the balance of power.

It gives him a nice 'get out of gaol' card without losing face.

What's the betting on Brown getting the job of UN Head of the Climate Change fund? He has been lining himself up, with his posturing and save the world impression, along with his 'impeccable' fiscal management skills, that only he believes in.

The situation is serious. The 'Big 3' of British politics seeks political advantage over potential rivals.

The Scottish National Party, unless as part of a coalition, could never form the British Government. However, the Liberal Democrats are never going to be in a position either and UKIP even, UKIP is offering enough candidates that there is possibility of being elected Government.

So, someone explain why the situation as it is?

I even understand Alex Salmond will not be standing for Westminster, but Alex Salmond is LEADER of the Scottish National Party and has every right to take part in a LEADERS debate with others who are also LEADERS of their parties.

"19. At 08:42am on 22 Dec 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:
#11 icewombat

"Is this the same SNP who stated last month that if their is a hung parliment their votes are for sale to the highest bidder."

No, I don't think they did. They did state that in the event of a hung parliament they would use their votes to obtain the maximum benefit for Scotland on an issue by issue basis."

ScotInNotts, he stated that his parties votes would ONLY be given if there was a benefit in it for scotland otherwise he would vote against the bill. In at least one interview he indicated that the extra benefit could well include extra funding or new projects in scotland. IE he wanted scotland to receive payment or benefit in kind for his parties votes.

Alex Salmond really is doing the main national parties a huge favour by focussing his objections on only one of the major constitutional issues raised by these mooted debates.

You see, the real issue is the constitutional change that these debates imply. For centuries, we have adhered to the principle of voting in a Member of Parliament to represent us at Westminster. But the only reason to exclude Plaid or the SNP is that their leaders can't be PM. So now, it seems, we are voting for a Prime Minister, a directly-elected head of Government. Either the constitution should be changed to reflect this new reality, or the debates are a farce, of relevance to voters in only 3 out of 650-odd constituencies. The fact that one of these is in Scotland, making Scotland in fact over-represented, is an ironic footnote.

KL,

#20.

Gordon Brown will be debating issues that are UK-wide, but also issues that are English-only.

If Gordon Brown can debate English issues (regardless of the fact that we Scots won't have anything to do with those issues) then Alex Salmond can, and should be allowed to take part in any debate that will be broadcast in Scotland.

This whole debate business, and the fact that it excludes smaller parties, stinks of political orthordoxy and the two party dicatatorship at Westminster (I apologise to the LibDems but I think they're only invited due to their ability to attract national votes).

Once again, they're saying vote for who you like as long as the parties are ideology similar (freemarket, liberal interventionists, averse to challenging corporate interests).

The smaller parties should take them to court and challenge them all the way to the European Court if necessary.

As for our free and fair press, well your weak blog just doesn't convince me, Mr Robinson.

Surely this is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the election is to choose a governemnt for the country so why the restriction imposed by the media.

The media are trying to create the agenda and drive politicians towards their (media) goals. Surely the agenda should be set by the people who put themselves up to run the country and not the ones that comment on the failings of the politicians.

The difficulty we have in finding out the real news is testimony to the merging of politics and media. If the media only reported what was actually said and not what the spin doctors leak then we might be able to divorce the fourth estate from the government.

Let SNP, Welsh Nationalist, Ulster Unionist, Sinn Fein, Uncle Tom Cobley and all speak, the press/media must not be allowed to censor free speach. They should report it.

"20. At 08:47am on 22 Dec 2009, KL wrote:
As someone who lives in Gordon Brown's constituency and has the opportunity to vote for or against him, I do want the debates to be shown in Scotland. I don't understand why the SNP aren't happy with debates in Scotland - they don't field any candidates outside Scotland, they don't vote on any issues which don't relate to Scotland at Westminster"

They voted for top up fees, which did not effect ANY scotish child. My children will leave university with a predicted 20k of debt (more if the current review takes the fees up to 5 or 7k a year)!

#25 icewombat

"ScotInNotts, he stated that his parties votes would ONLY be given if there was a benefit in it for scotland otherwise he would vote against the bill."

Think you'll find that was what the SNP MP's would have been elected to do, to represent their Scottish constituents interests, and if possible, to improve their lot if possible.

"IE he wanted scotland to receive payment or benefit in kind for his parties votes."

Keep the derogatory remarks to a minimum will you. They would be the same 'parish' votes that in the hypothetical we're discussing could be the difference between legislation being passed or not.

#20 KL

"they don't field any candidates outside Scotland"

Why would they, they are the Scottish National Party, does what it says on the tin.

"they don't vote on any issues which don't relate to Scotland at Westminster"
Are you suggesting that like your Labour party that they should, to the rightful indignation of the English electorate?

"Alex Salmond isn't even standing as a Westminster candidate."

One of the joys of the mess that is the current constitutional settlment. He is the leader of the political party, we are talking about a leaders debate, right...?

Are you suggesting that the Scottish debate should be relegated to a side show? Why should the leader of the largest party in Scotland not debate with the national leaders of the other 'main parties'?

Icewombat,

#30.

Everyone in that University must pay the fee's, that includes Scots.

If you seek the same benefits campaign, if you want the English to have the same benefits as Scots in Scotland, campaign, but don't get on our backs in Scotland about it. Campaign yourself!

"The three main debates are for the leader of the UK parliament."

No, they're not, they're debates between party political leaders.

"so it will be politic for Mr.Salmond to postpone the referendum until after the general election"

The three 'main' unionist parties are the ones currently blocking the referendum that then SNP wishes to hold next year.

17 john 112uk

But you do hear them in your own country, the parliament of the United Kingdom where Welsh, Scots and N irish MP's make decisions affecting English only laws.

21. Bryhers you might want to check facts first, during 18 years of Thatcher, industry as part of economy declined by 9% but under 12 years of Labour has declined by 12%, now most would gather from those statistics that it is Labour that de-industrialised UK

I never really believed that this debate was ever going to happen. I wonder if Gordon Brown had a cunning plan all along: to agree to the debates, but in a form that the SNP would be likely to challenge in court. Let's face it, it does seem that showing these debates in Scotland would be an egregious breach of electoral fairness.

When the debates are stopped after being mired in legal action from the SNP, Gordon Brown can claim that he was up for a debate and didn't bottle it, but doesn't actually have to answer any tough questions about the mess he's made of the country.

And who said he was stupid?

BTW, in the event that the debate does go ahead, please can we start a campaign for all the politicians to be connected to a polygraph for the duration of the debate.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

democracy demands all to be given a fair chance to be heard, NOT what the failures who sit in Westminster deem fit to let us be told, is it not ironic that we have an ex PM who will be in front of the hearing about Lies ? same as the current PM , same as the leader of the supposed opposition, meantime the regulator has let it be know that banks will not be pursued for overcharging of fees, and that a couple of ticket companies that were first deemded to be anti competitive are now competitive , quick slip more news out whilst trying to split the populous
You showed your hand a long time ago Nick so as part of the Biased corp your article does not suprise me with its one sided tone

It would appear that some are arguing the warped logic that as the SNP cannot form the next majority Westminster government (and never could even in the unlikely event of the whole of Scotland voting for the SNP), and therefore should be excluded from any such leader debates.

If this is the case where is the democracy when the Scots, Welsh and NI, according to such posters, shouldn't even bother to vote at all, of course unless they vote for one of the 'main' three parties.

The fact is in that case you may as well substitute UK leader debate for English leader debate, as it will be the English electorate that will always determine the Westminster government.

The political reality in Wales and Scotland is that such debates cannot be aired in either country in their current format without falling foul of impartiality rules during a GE.

Either they are aired only in England as it stands, they include the national leaders in a UK wide debate, or they air separate debates in each of the respective constituent nations of the UK.

That is the state of affairs in the modern UK.

16. At 08:36am on 22 Dec 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:
#10 Zydeco

On the flipside, whats the point lsitening to Broon, CMD and Nick debating those issues when they have no relevance to those in Scotland?

"so no point in him being there if he is only going to restrict his contribution to one area of the UK to which Westminster has relinquished many powers."

Get them to relinquish the rest and we'll call it quits! :)

****************************

Couldn't agree more. I really cannot see the point of having these debates anyway.
The Courts have already decided that any 'promise' made by a political leader has no standing in law, therefore they can offer, promise or pledge anything they like to win our vote, but are not obliged to honour such undertakings once elected.
So, if any leader were to make a manifesto pledge to give every man, woman and child in the UK £1 million pounds, they would certainly win our vote. Would we ever get that £1m? I doubt it. ( Incidentally, that would have been cheaper than bailing out the banks)

So, let them have their debate if they want. Anything they say will have to be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt (preferably not from my local council though - they don't seem to have any for the roads round here 8o)
It will be a posturing, even embarassing event. Enjoy!!

I'm Scottish and want Scotland to get a bit more power but Salmond is making an idiot of himself. These elections are for the UK Parliament and more specifically who will become UK prime minister. The SNP simply don't field enough candidates for Salmond to be British PM. UKIP & the BNP could theoretically have more seats in Westminster than the SNP. The only way to make this 'fair' will be to have the 'leaders' of the dozen or so parties that will stand all invited to the debate. This of course will turn the whole thing into a farce..... as usual.

#35 Scottish, Welsh & N.Irish politicians DO vote on English only laws however I didn't hear many English complain when Thatcher used her English majority to use Scotland as the testing ground for her worst excesses. It works both ways but the English only seem to complain when they're on the rough end.

Surely all MPs are elected to represent their constituency, that is the way of the British Parliament. We elect a parliament and the leader of the party that can command a majority is asked by the Queen who is Head of State to form a government. As someone else commentedif we are to vote for a PM then the whole constitution must be changed.

As far as I recall Scotland is part of the UK and should be represented. Because Blair and Brown gerimandered a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly doesn't mean that the Union has been disolved, until it is Westminster is not an English Parliament it is a British parliament.

32#

Sorry mate, thats exactly what it is. It IS a sideshow, as it is in Cardiff and at Stormont. Just another talking troughing shop for fellow egotists who cant get arrested in any other form of employment.

The devolved parliament does not yet have the authority to raise its own broad spectrum of taxes necessary to support the nation (more the idea is to go from being a subsidised region in one union to a subsidised region in another, the EU, but so long as its not under the yoke of those English toffs anymore, huh?), is not charged with sorting out its own foreign policy or defence matters, or its own NHS or its own social security, beyond deciding local eligibility for access to services - like it or not and I'm afraid at this precise moment, I dont care one way or the other how much it might stick in the scot's craw - thats the way it is. Get over it or hold the damn referendum now and see what happens.

The man is an irritating floater that wont flush.

#22 and others

I think we should separate a few issues here. This whole thing is not a Scotland v England situation.

What it boils down to is that a high profile leaders debate involving only the three major parties in England, whilst the election pertains to the whole UK, necessarily gives the parties those leaders represent an unfair advantage in those areas of the UK where they are not the leaders of the biggest parties.

In the first instance, it is completely unacceptable from the point of view of democracy in Scotland that this kind of unfair advantage can take place.

But I think we need to look at the implications of this in relation to England which, naturally, can be directly affected by the way that elections play out in Scotland.

Scotland's vote may well be the deciding factor for a Tory victory or a hung parliament, not to ention the fact that Scotland is in the UK and that, in the event of Scottish independence, the whole UK is affected to some extent.

Therefore, the existence and role of the SNP does have a distinct bearing on democracy affecting the whole of the UK, including the biggest portion of the UK, England.

And, really, I think that people in England need to be more exposed to the debate in Scotland in order to get a better understading of it. The SNP are actually a very effective government and an inculsive party who get totally misprepreseted in England.

They do not (and, indeed, whole-heartedly refuse to) campaign on an anti-English agenda, as many people would have you believe. The fact of the matter is that politics in Scotland has become divided between the pro-independence and pro-union camps where the main areas of contention revolve around Scotland's economic potential as an independent country. Many English people living in Scotland are now supporters of independence because they reckon that it will benefit them because they live there. This is not a partisan Scotland v England issue any more. It's about securing the best form og governance for a nation that has its own needs and its own priorities which are often different fro those of the UK.

This particular situation, the leader's debate, merely highest the democratic imbalance in the UK, which is a result of the demographic imbalance between the constituent nations. It is merely another example among many that Scots have been exposed to since the union began. I, for one, refuse to accept that my country should be subjected to this kind of democratic imbalance. It's outrageous and no one in Scotland should accept it if they value there democratic rights.

And nor should anyone in England accept the current democratic imbalanaces now affecting England as a result of devolution. But I urge you to remember that the people to blame are not the Scots but the Labour party/government. It is Labour who insist, for their own conveience, in having Scottish MPs voting on English-only matters. Note that the SNP refuse to vote on English-only matters in recognition of the anti-democratic absurdity that involves.

The bottom line, though, is that no party in the UK is permitted a dispropotionate and advantageous use of the media, which is exactly what a leader's debate without the SNP amounts to.

And people should also remember that while Salmond himself is not standing for Westminster, he is the leader of a party who are and, therefore, his presence is valid without question.

Seems that Scottish MP can have a vote and make decisions about things relevant only to England but english MPs cannot do the same for issues handled by the Scottish Parliament. Seems a bit unbalanced giving Scotland a greater say in England than the other way round.

And now we have to include the SNP in these debates, and then the Greens, etc. and then the BNP and imagine the outcry when that happens. We need to be sensible or rather Samon (sic) needs to be sensible. Fine, he can arrange some debates in Scotland for Scottish TV coverage and see if he can get the Labour, conservative and LibDems along. But such a debate only really works with a few participants (in fact I would argue that Clegg turning up is a bit of a waste of time, but others would argue differently and it is not for me to dictate who can and cannot turn-up).

Interesting point! There are a number of parties excluded from these debates; they could all argue that this is unfair to them. I am wondering if Brown is calculating that they will resort to the law and create sufficient difficulties for the debates to be abandoned.

TG

27. At 09:04am on 22 Dec 2009, Tom wrote:


If Gordon Brown can debate English issues (regardless of the fact that we Scots won't have anything to do with those issues) then Alex Salmond can, and should be allowed to take part in any debate that will be broadcast in Scotland.

*******************

Agreed. But only if Alex Salmond is prepared to state his intentions regarding policy for the WHOLE of the UK.

On the other hand we could change the title to the UK National Leaders Debate.
Thus paving the way for only the Leaders of Parties that are represented throughout the UK to take part.

Peter_Sym:

#41.

"I'm Scottish and want Scotland to get a bit more power but Salmond is making an idiot of himself."

I hope to read why, if you fail to explain why you feel thats the case you really should raise the debate instead of calling name, it's not about power, devolution or independence but about representation and ensuring these debates take into regional differences.

In Scotland the Conservative have less relevence to Scotland compared to the Scottish National Party. However we are expected to listen to Cameron and Co?

"These elections are for the UK Parliament and more specifically who will become UK prime minister."

Ridiculous, totally ridiculous. If it were the case the Liberal Democrats would not be apart of the debates.

"The SNP simply don't field enough candidates for Salmond to be British PM."

I suggest you search through history. I know of a certain Lloyd George relied on a mixture of different parties to remain Prime Minister. Alex Salmond, in theory, could become Prime Minister, however unlikily.

NOw what is that word???
Ah yes ! Impartiality!
Part of the contract with the people is it not Mr Robinson?

I believe that the BBC has broken that contract and as such should not be funded by the public or the public purse.

I doubt Mr Brown would be capable of holding his own against Mr Salmond , I doubt he's capable of holding his own against Mr Cameron.
I don't care whether he can against Mr Clegg , whom I consider an irrelevance.

In fact I strongly suspect that Mr Brown will be " unwell"
" elsewhere" " otherwise engaged" and one unelected chappie will step in.
Were that to happen , I hope that every TV in the land would instantly change chanels.

I find myself changing channels from the BBC on a regular basis, particularly when you allow unchallenged opinion to be broadcast and when you allow ministers to indulge in a class war unchallenged.

Such a pity that those in power use "inconvenient untruths" and no interviewer seems to have the wit or the will to challenge.

The Scottish National Party is the largest party in Scotland , it should indeed have a voice in these debates.
We would not inflict that voice on English viewers , and would like the same respect.
As for the suggestion that the SNP vote on English only matters , that is incorrect and untrue.
The media has had a happy time spreading lies and obfuscations.
If you know only what you read in the papers or hear on TV about Scotland , then consider yourselves ignorant and kept in the dark - in the nicest possible way !

#41

Let's make this clear.

This is nothing to do with the fact that Salmond, unlike the others, can't become the UK PM.

This is about proper democratic practices and representaiton via the media.

The rules in the UK state clearly that no party can possibly be permitted an unfair advantage via the media. It is simply not allowed.

If Labour/Tories/LDs are given a platform in the leader's debate, an extremely high profile publicity venture, it presents them with a massive publicity opportunity they can use to campaign for votes in Scotland while the SNP are uterly excluded form the smae platform.

If Labour/Tories/LDs are given this platform and the SNP are not, this completely contravenes the electoral rules of the UK so long as they apply to Scotland.

Or are we now admitting that UK rules can be completely flouted where Scotland, Wales or NI are concerned?

Are we now seeing the implicit admission of the UK establishment that, yes, the Scots and Welsh are disadvantaged and excluded from democracy as a result of their place in the UK?

Unacceptable.

#41 Peter_Syn

"These elections are for the UK Parliament and more specifically who will become UK prime minister."

This is the oft repeated misconception. The GE is not primarily to elect a PM, but to elect a constituency MP, usually form a particular political party that the majority feels best represents their interests.

To exclude whole swathes of the electorate on the basis that their leader wil never become PM of a majority government is undemocratic, and narrows the number of parties to two that realistically could fulfill this stipulation.

If anything its displaying just how ingrained the two/three party system has become in 'UK' politics, where no national movement (unless and English independence movement gained enough support) could ever achieve parity in election campaigns.

Thank goodness there is legislation that covers this!

Nick you mention the John Major interview, what the SNP seem to forget is that in the mid 1990's there was only one way that interview could have been seen, i.e. on BBC1's terrestrial signal. Now the broadcasting scene is totally different, if the SNP succeeded in blocking the debate in Scotland all any Scot who wanted to watch it would need to do is to go to Channel 971 on their Sky box and watch it on one of the BBC regions, or News 24/BBC Parliament and then of course there would be the live internet stream.

A Leader's Debate is totally different from a set piece interview with a PM, the SNP could look churlish if they blocked the transmission, if Salmond is his usual canny self then he'll make himself out to be the wronged party but will let the debate go ahead.

Journalists and the media connive with politicians to create the impression that the only way for the people to find out about politicians is through gladiatorial contests - firstly this is wrong, but if we are to see this on out TV screens (and it will most probably be a big turn off and inconclusive!) why can't we see everyone including the nationalists, the greens and (I hate to say it UKIP)?

Why can we also not be presented with other non-political groups, such as the leaders of various religions too - they sit in the house of lords but we are never able to see and hear their views on political matters - and indeed what about the crossbenchers?

Why do we only have to suffer the views of the press barons and why can't these people be forced to justify their views? Why should Rupert Murdoch's view be crucial to who wins the election and why can we actually hear what he says too - Rupert Murdock should be made to appear in a debate too and face cross questioning too and to have to justify his views to the public - (afetr all he is the one whose paper wrote 'it is the Sun what won it'.)......

Tom:

#27.

"Agreed. But only if Alex Salmond is prepared to state his intentions regarding policy for the WHOLE of the UK."

The Scottish National Party does have policies concerning UK-wide issues, however, you can't and shouldn't expect the Scottish National Party to create policies on education and health for the people of England.

I could be elected MP on the basis of offering free beans on toast for the people of North East Scotland, I don't have to include anyone else in my policies.

The debates will consist of English issues and UK-wide issues and Alex Salmond has the right to take part in what is UK-wide issues.

"On the other hand we could change the title to the UK National Leaders Debate.
Thus paving the way for only the Leaders of Parties that are represented throughout the UK to take part."

It won't happen, or it would be the case now. It won't happen because regional divisions DO exist, the Conservatives in Scotland are practically non-existence for example, so David Cameron and Co would struggle to claim that they are actually supported throughout the UK, while having such little Scottish support.

Those who are familiar with my comments will know that the comments posted are unlikely to have broken house rules.

Indeed one comment posted, the online poll, has been posted many times on BBC Scotland blogs.

What are the BBC afraid of?

Comment #54 is directed at Zydeco, not myself.

I would like to have seen the UKIP and BNP included in the debate. My support is with labour, but would still like to have seen a broader amount of politicians in the debate.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Just a point but if the SNP and Plaid Cymru are entitled to a voice what about

1) the Greens
2) the BNP
3) the English Nationalists
4) the Monster Raving Loony Party

All four of which are likely to field more candidates than the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

35. At 09:18am on 22 Dec 2009, alhjones wrote:

17 john 112uk

But you do hear them in your own country, the parliament of the United Kingdom where Welsh, Scots and N irish MP's make decisions affecting English only laws.
==============================

True - but not by my choice.

The sooner we can declare independence from scottish rule the better.

"Are we now seeing the implicit admission of the UK establishment that, yes, the Scots and Welsh are disadvantaged and excluded from democracy as a result of their place in the UK?

Unacceptable."

Disadvantaged and excluded from democracy???

Good grief, stop being such a damned drama queen! This is 21st Century UK, not apartheid era South Africa! Disadvantaged and excluded my @rse. With your own elected assembly?

Pathetic.

No chance of granting Scotland independence before the debate is there?

I cannot see any point in Salmond taking part in a debate about a Countries' governance when he has stated he does not want his Nation to be part of that Country.
He has no interest in running the UK only Scotland.

#43 Bill_De_Zas

The rest of the UK may be an insignificance to you, not so to those that live there.

A majority of Scots want change from the status quo, while some remain to be convinced of full independence the majority do want full fiscal autonomy i.e. power over all revenue and natural resources.

The 'subsidised' issue is for another debate (and I do not accept your assertion), save to say the intention is to become independent and a full member of the EU, making a full and meaningful contribution whilst representinf our interests.

Finally, "Get over it or hold the damn referendum now and see what happens."

We're trying, the three 'main' unionist parties are currently prevenitng the referendum from taking place. If you feel that strongly perhaps you could lobby your chosen party at Westminster to rectify the situation post haste!

50. At 09:45am on 22 Dec 2009, parisfrance wrote:


.......Or are we now admitting that UK rules can be completely flouted where Scotland, Wales or NI are concerned?

***************************

Why not? It works the other way round.

What is Salmond worried about? Does he really believe the electorate are going to be swayed by three discredited party leaders trading soundbites? He may do his party great service by seeming to be above the normal political fray.

More to the point do the party leaders and their advisors really believe that the vast majority of voters will even bother to tune into their 90 minute borefests. To watch the "clunking fist" and Blair's Mark2 and 3 expend hot air without saying anything of note? Come on be realistic. The only people really interested are a few thousand political nerds and a few hundred media pundits who make their living reading the runes. The rest of the electorate will shrug their shoulders, mutter about useless politicians and get on with their lives.

So we can either exclude the largest party in Scotland, or let all small parties across the UK into the debate and watch it become a farce.

I don't really have a solution to this, but I would say that this is just another symptom of the hasty way in which devolution was introduced. Whether you are for or against devolution there can be no doubt that the process of its introduction was a mess.

Yes - unfair for so many reasons. I'm no fan of the SNP, but I AM a fan of democracy.

The problem is simple - if there is a separate Scottish debate it will be IN ADDITION TO and not instead of the main debate. Therefore, the Tories, Labour and the LibDems will appear in two debates for Scottish viewers, unlike the party of government. Ridiculous.

Sky cannot block their debate to viewers in Scotland.

14 Glassfet.

I fail to see how a national debate without the democratic elected goverment of Scotland could be classified national.

Is devolution only relative when it's suitable?

Wansanshoo.

54. At 09:49am on 22 Dec 2009, Tom wrote:

re: *47*

"On the other hand we could change the title to the UK National Leaders Debate.
Thus paving the way for only the Leaders of Parties that are represented throughout the UK to take part."

It won't happen, or it would be the case now. It won't happen because regional divisions DO exist, the Conservatives in Scotland are practically non-existence for example, so David Cameron and Co would struggle to claim that they are actually supported throughout the UK, while having such little Scottish support.

***********************

That's why I deliberately used the word 'represented' not 'supported'.

Zydeco:

#61.

"I cannot see any point in Salmond taking part in a debate about a Countries' governance when he has stated he does not want his Nation to be part of that Country.
He has no interest in running the UK only Scotland."

So?

It is not about a Countries' governance, it will be about English issues that Gordon Brown will take part in and about UK-wide issues that the Scottish National Party has policies on too.

#44 parisfrance

excellent post!

Colin Taylor,

#66.

Your bang on, besides people will be encouraged to support the 'Big 3' while the nationalists will not have a chance to air their opinions.

The idea of 'main' debates alongside side shows will give the impression that both nationalist parties are not main participants in the elections, which is not the case.

Zydeco,

The Conservatives represent one constinuency out of fifty nine.

If you claim that to be enough representation to qaulify then something if wrong ;-)

I have a better idea, don't have the debates on TV at all, they will, in the end, be meaningless since none of the participants will be bound by anything that they say.

#51 I know how the general election works. These debates however concern the three leaders of the party only. i.e the three men who are most likely to be PM. If the debate was to choose a local representative in parliament then my local MP would be on it and as the SNP aren't standing in Nottingham there wouldn't be an issue.

Remember too that are electoral system is barely democratic and results in party that gets less than 40% of the vote often having 70% of the MPs. If we had a proportional system (not something I support as its clumsy in practice) then the minority parties would matter more. As it is we DO effectively have a two party system. In its way I agree with #48 that Nick Clegg will not become PM, however its not 'ridiculous'... its mathematically possible. The Lib Dems field enough candidates that a majority COULD happen. The SNP do not. However there are not enough small parties standing for the SNP to be the biggest party in a coalition. That suggestion is far more ridiculous than the Lib Dems winning a clear majority. Salmond himself is not standing for any Westminster seat at all so CANNOT be PM in 2010, unless he resigns his Scottish seat and stands for a Westminster one.

It's absolutely right that Alex Salmond and the SNP are excluded from the NATIONAL leaders debate. This is a UK wide election, not a regional one. Scotland only has a similar population to Yorkshire and is therefore quite insignificant in terms of a UK election. If Mr Salmond wants a debate, let him do it on Scottish television. His politics are absolutely irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the UK.

I have, in theory, no problem with SNP or Plaid (who seem to be mostly forgotten in these comments) being represented in the debates as a fraction of the electorate but I would resent Mr Salmond attempting to hijack the debates for the purpose of a)bringing every issue back to Scottish (rather than UK)requirements and b)promoting his referendum on independence which he would no doubt do. As Scots represent just under 10% of the UK population Salmond should be given 10min of every hour to discuss Scots issues and then five min of debate should be given over to Welsh issues again as a proportion of the electorate.

Alex Salmond should also only be accepted on the agreement that he not discuss the referendum as its a sideshow designed to detract attention from genuine issues and is not a manifesto issue as ultimately the decision is not with him.

72. At 10:12am on 22 Dec 2009, Tom wrote:
Zydeco,

The Conservatives represent one constinuency out of fifty nine.

If you claim that to be enough representation to qaulify then something if wrong ;-)

**************************

While the SNP represent 7 out of 635!
Use your own last sentence to complete this comment. 8o)

Just imagine, in the next Euro-Election, if there were 2 (or even 3) major party blocs in Europe that decided to stand in the UK (against the UK establishment parties).

Imagine further if their leaders were allowed to broadcast a debate to the entire UK (using the taxpayer funded broadcaster) that excluded the Conservatives, Labour and Liberals (on the basis that none of them would elect the President of Europe because they're not standing across Europe).

I can just see the BBC and the Westminster establishment accepting that one.

Fairness and democracy is a principle that should hold true whatever the size of the constituency.

If this debate goes ahead without SNP, Plaid or Stormont leaders then it should NOT be broadcast in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.

#74 - Excellent post

I think we should all decide to start up our own political parties, then as we are leaders of our respective parties we can then demand we take part in the debate as well.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

#11

The SNP in Westminster or Holyrood have NEVER voted on English only issues. They bar themselves from debates affecting England and Wales and abstain when they vote. Stop trolling and do some bloody research before you open your mouth and let your stomach grumble.

There are several ironies in this.

The first irony is that Gordon Brown, as a Scottish MP, has a very limited constituency responsibility - in theory - as the majority of issues previously handled by him are now handled by MSPs at Holyrood.

He's going to be debating issues on English matters, that he has no responsibility for. That's not democratic.

In fact, when you give his position consideration, he's nothing more than a political journeyman. A political career professional. And this really is something that English voters should find unpalatable; that decisions are being formulated and made, that effect their lives, by someone who really shouldn't be making them in the first place!

I will exaggerate to illustrate; it's like having President Nicolas Sarkozy of France (EU agreements aside) deciding on school class sizes in Essex, because there is a rail link between England and France.
Voters in England wouldn't allow this to happen, so why allow Brown to debate with Cameron & co and potentially then make decisions on English matters?

The other irony in all this, which voters in England (and Wales) may not be familiar with, is the lack of balanced reporting on this issue in Scotland. The media in Scotland is run like an arm of the Labour party; so much so, that you can predict newspaper headlines and the content of columns. The BBC in Scotland is also unbalanced, and to my knowledge, has generated many complaints. And irony on irony, you are actually quite lucky to have this opportunity to see the 3 English Party leaders debate, and to have debate on the debate; because it will be reported uaccurately and skewed towards a Labour viewpoint in Scotland!

Well, for once I'm happy about something that the Nationalists wish to do. Anything that can stop the charade of a leaders' debate should be welcomed.
I would imagine that the events are likely to have little consequence in terms of the national vote. It would appear that the only benefit will fall to the TV channels and journailsts who will have something to talk about and the additional opportunity to joyfully ridicule the politicians.

What's the problem?
one debate shown only in England (Lab, Tory, Lib)
one debate shown only in Scotland (SNP, Lab, Lib, Tory)
one debate shown only in Wales (Plaid, Lab, Lib, Tory?)
one debate shown only in NI. (SF, SDLP, assorted unionists)

Record them all in advance, and show them at the same time.

Simples!

I cannot conceive of a single reason why Alex Salmond should be represented in this series of televised debates. To be clear, I think the principle of such a debate is terrible. We now have a presidential system in outlook, scope and now, with this debate, in intent, but still maintain the vestiges of a truly independent parliament. The two cannot coexist. Either we have a directly elected president who is then kept accountable to, and scrutinised by, a truly independent and effective elected chamber, or we return to a parliamentary system in which a PM and the government are restrained by parliament. The current system has all the flaws of a presidential system but none of the advantages of a House of Commons.

But if we are going ahead with this leaders' debate then why would it include the representative of a Party which has no intention of forming the government of the United Kingdom? Indeed the Green Party and UKIP have more grounds to be aggrieved with the proposed debates since they are at least notionally attempting to win the United Kingdom general election. An election to the Scottish Parliament should, quite rightly, include Alex Salmond in any televised debate, but not so for an election to the United Kingdom Parliament.

Peter_Sym:

#74.

"In its way I agree with #48 that Nick Clegg will not become PM, however its not 'ridiculous'... its mathematically possible."

I don't know what mathematics your using but from the polls I am looking at, we have better chance of pigs flying then the Liberal Democrats forming the next British Government.

"The Lib Dems field enough candidates that a majority COULD happen. The SNP do not."

I see, your descriminating against a party based on the number of seats feilded. UKIP has feilded hundreds of candidates but are also not in the debates, so what excuse will you make up as to why there not apart of it?

"However there are not enough small parties standing for the SNP to be the biggest party in a coalition."

This is ridiculous. It totally depends on the number of seats the SNP has and the other party. If the other party needs the same amount of seats that the SNP has then yes, the SNP could be the laregst coalition partner.

"That suggestion is far more ridiculous than the Lib Dems winning a clear majority. Salmond himself is not standing for any Westminster seat at all so CANNOT be PM in 2010, unless he resigns his Scottish seat and stands for a Westminster one."

He does not have to give up his Scottish seat. It is noted in history that a Prime Minister has existed by being supported by the 'oppostion' and Alex Salmond in theory could be in the same boat, although very unlikily.

It's not a debate between possible Prime Ministers anyway, but with leaders of political parties.

Zydeco:

#77.

"While the SNP represent 7 out of 635!
Use your own last sentence to complete this comment. 8o)"

Yes, so?

I am against the debates being shown in Scotland, I couldn't care less if England does

#84 wyrtaliesin

I agree, however:

"What's the problem?"

Getting the 'main' three parties and the media (also a triumvirate) to agree. All shown at the one time could possibly mean only a single broadcaster, let the bidding war begin!

#60 and 63

If you care to look at my post at #44 you'll see that I also raise the point about devolution having an anti-democratic effect on England.

Aside from that, I think that you and I agree that the UK has become unsustainable and has actually reached a point where it is embarrassing for all of us.

The UK has always been necessarily anti-democratic where the less populated countries are concerned. Now, post-devolution, there are incongruities where England is concerned too.

It is a mess and is unsutainable and will eventually lead to Scottish independence, which cannot come too soon.

After that, I suspect we'll all be very good friends who get on spendidly because we won't have to enage in arguments like this.

#44

good post - a balanced and positive opinion. Certainly one I identify with.

It's an affront to democracy that Scotland should hear the musings of 2 increasingly irrelevant party leaders in a debate.

Nick Clegg and David Camerons parties form a fraction of the political landscape in Scotland - yet they'd promote themselves in a leaders debate in Scotland to swing votes thier way.

The SNP don't want to block the debate - they want inclusion. If you won't include the SNP in a debate on UK wide issues - then the debates should not feature in Scotland - because the big 3 do not represent devolved policies in Scotland.

Jim Murphy and Alasdair Carmichael are not party leaders - they are men in posts - posts which untill the SNP took power were largely irrelevant.

That should tell you all you need to know about where this union is headed.

It’s the usual tripartite stitch-up, which is only to be expected. The Tories are terrified of UKIP and Labour is terrified of the BNP.
As for the SNP, for purely personal and totally undemocratic reasons, I would support Alex Salmond’s inclusion. As an Englishman sick of domination by Scottish politicians at Westminster, anything that accelerates Scottish independence is fine with me.

#86. I suspect you just want an argument. THEORETICALLY the Lib Dems could win a majority. Its unlikely to happen and would need approx twice as many people to vote for them as happened last time but it does not violate the laws of physics & biology (such as flying pigs). It is highly improbable, but not impossible, especially given some of their promises towards those nearing retirement (my parents generation- the baby boomers). Many things happened in history. I would suggest that a man who does not have a seat in Westminster becoming a Prime Minister is as close to impossible as pigs flying.

As for my Maths. Scotland has 59 MPs in Westinster. That means a max of 59 SNP candidates. There are a total of 646 MP's in Westminster. To get a majority of 1 you would need 324 MPs from all parties. Minus 59 means 265 from other parties not from 'the big three'. For the leader of the SNP to be PM would normally require that they were the biggest single party present. I'd suggest this is also a damn site less likely than Nick Clegg being PM too but I look forward to your reply.

The SNP and PC are the victims of metropolitan carve-up wich ignores their status as major parties in Scotland and in Wales. The problem for the metropolitans is that their major party status is enshrined in the OFCOM guidelines not just in their share of the vote.

From the guidelines:
Meaning of "major party":
At present in the UK major parties are the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. In addition, major parties in Scotland and Wales respectively are the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The major parties in Northern Ireland are the Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Fein, Social Democratic and Labour Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party.

Let's look at this from a Scottish perspective.
Three of the four major parties in Scotland are going to be given a platform to showcase their leaders to Scottish voters and the SNP are going to be cut out. Not only this but many of the topics that the three leaders will debate, the NHS, education, the legal system and so on are actually under the control of the current SNP government in Scotland and the debate will apply only to England and in parts to Wales. Viewers in Scotland will see a debate where the party who run these areas of Government in Scotland has been deliberately excluded.

The metropolitan solution is to give the SNP time on a minor debate afterwards. This will mean that the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems will get a high profile three way election debate broadcast across the UK followed by a four way election debate with the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib-Dems and the SNP broadcast in Scotland.

In other words the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems get twice the election coverage of the SNP in Scotland with the SNP relegated to a second string debate which won't involve the other party leaders.

There is a lot of talk about how the SNP are not deserving of a place in the debate because they are not capable of forming a Westminster Government and because Alex Salmond is not standing for a Westminster seat but that is the mark of those who have not read the legislation which covers political impartiality during elections and the allocation of Politcal Election Broadcasts. Nowhere in that legislation or in the guidelines does it say that those parties who may form the next government get preferential treatment or that those who take part in these broadcasts have to be standing in the election.

If a Judge in Scotland looks at the rules and legislation on political impartiality covering broadcasting in Scotland and decides that the proposed debates break the rules he will not be "overturning" a deal he will simply be stopping politically partial broadcasting in Scotland. I've seen Jim Murphy the Scottish Secretary on the TV (and a few commenters on various blogs) saying that an injunction is too difficult and not workable because of all the different digital routes that broadcasts can now reach consumers. This is nonsense. In the event of a ban the Judge will say to all the broadcasters that the debate shall not be receivable in Scotland. If any of the Broadcasters make that program available by any means or route such as other Satellite channels, internet streaming or on terrestrial freeview then they wil have to face the court. The hoops the broacasters have to jump through to comply with his decision is not his concern and neither should it be.

#74

Again, with all due respect, you fail to understand the overriding issue here.

It's not about a leaders debate per se, it's about media representation in the build up to an election the outcome of which will be largely affected by media representation.

Indeed, this issue shows that, unlike the US, the UK cannot allow itself to have leaders debates because it means automatically breaking election rules regarding the use of the media.

I think this is one thing that peope in England have difficulty in understanding, probably because their country constitutes the bulk of the UK and, so, they tend to think of politics as Labour v the Tories with the LDs added for good measure.

The UK is far more complex than that. It involves four different countries with four different political landscapes which do not hinge on the English-style dichotomy of Tories v Labour.

This complexity means that a leaders debate involving only those people who, theoretically, can become PMs necessarily contravenes electoral rules in this country.

I'm afraid it's the same old story. The UK is top heavy. The Scots and Welsh cry foul and the English shake their heads and wonder what the Celtic fringers are whinging about.

It's a completely silly situation and I really don't understand why we persist with it. Our countries and our people would be much happier and on much better terms if they simply governed their own countries the way that all other countries do.

Unions are so passe'.

87. At 10:30am on 22 Dec 2009, Tom wrote:
Zydeco:

#77.

"While the SNP represent 7 out of 635!
Use your own last sentence to complete this comment. 8o)"

Yes, so?

I am against the debates being shown in Scotland, I couldn't care less if England does

**********************

At last we agree!! I don't care if the debates are shown either.

Enjoy your day :-)

A thorny one, this. Scotland is two things at the same time (under our current setup) and both of these things are true:

(1) It's quite an insignificant part of the UK in terms of population and number of Westminster seats.

(2) It's a country in its own right with a distinct (and peculiar to itself) political geography.

These Brown / Cameron / Clegg debates reflect number (1) and are reasonable if considered on that basis - the 3 parties they represent will poll about 90% of votes in the UK general election. All other parties are a sideshow in the UK context.

But the debates are NOT reasonable from the point of view of number (2) - they unfairly disadvantage the SNP in Scotland. The SNP are most certainly not a minor party as regards Scotland. Same point for PC in Wales. Northern Ireland not really an issue since ALL the parties there are different and so the "unfairness" doesn't apply.

On balance I'm prepared to let them go ahead and be shown across the UK, even though it may disadvantage the SNP. Course it may not hurt the SNP at all. Who knows? Any case I don't see it as an outrage, I more see it as an unfortunate (but not massively important) consequence of where we are with devolution.

Just one point though; the debates can include devolved issues (since we can trust to the informed intelligence of the Scottish viewers to ignore such content) but they must NOT include anything to do with the status of Scotland within the Union ... further devolution, independence etc ... since to have that sort of discussion without Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon present would be a nonsense of the first degree.

Lets get this straight: a party which is not contesting 600 out of the 650 seats at a Westminster election wants its leader, who is not even a candidate for the Westminster election, to take part in a Prime Ministerial debate with the main UK parties even though he does't want to be Prime Minister and doesn't want to be in the UK ?

Can I take part too ? I'm not standing for Westminster and I don't want to be Prime Minister either.

#93 Peter_Sym

Are you suggesting that unless you vote for one of the main parties 'UK' wide then you should not be represented. According to your logice the entire nation of Scotland could vote for the SNP and still not be allowed any representation in a political party leaders debate broadcast to the Scottish electorate.

Is that impartial, does that look like democracy in action?

This is not a Scotland/Wales/N Ireland versus England issue - it is one of democracy and principle.

Those advocating that only 'significant' parties be represented have thus far completely ignored the fact that the Tories are significant only in England.

The SNP are significant only in Scotland, Plaid Cymru are significant only in Wales.

The only parties that have significant presence throughout the UK are Labour and the Lib Dems(arguably).

The Conservatives are allowed onto this platform by dint of the fact that they are significant in the largest constituent part of the UK.

That Scottish/Welsh votes can be ruled insignificant in an election is an unfortunate fact that we can do nothing about until constitutional change is enacted.

However, to see the state broadcaster (as well as SKY and ITV) openly using the relatively small population size of Scotland and Wales in order to justofy silencing their national parties is unforgivable.

Democracy flourishes by having honest and open debate, this Union involves more than one nation and thus the differing political landscapes of its constituent parts should be acknowledged.

The parties of largest constituent part cannot be allowed to dominate and suffocate the voices of the others.

The SNP and Plaid do not seek to stifle debate, they wish to participate in it.