SNP and Plaid Cymru Anger over TV Debates

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8560022.stm

The leaders of the SNP and Plaid Cymru are angry that they won't be invited onto the televised live debates in the run up to the general election with the leaders of the Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative parties.

I can understand Salmond wanting to allow his party a platform to air their policies, BUT

1. Salmond is not standing as an MP in the forthcoming election.
2. The SNP could never win an overall majority at Westminster, so even if he was standing he could never become PM.

The 3 main parties represented in the debates will have candidates in every constituency of the UK, the SNP and Plaid will not. I think Salmond is being very petty here.

[Hibs Class]

I agree Salmond is being petty; as soon as the idea was raised it was obvious that a) smaller parties, including PC and SNP would be excluded and b) those same parties would milk the entire thing for as much extra publicity as possible. I had heard that there may be separate TV debates in Scotland and Wales, but haven't yet seen it confirmed.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I agree Salmond is being petty; as soon as the idea was raised it was obvious that a) smaller parties, including PC and SNP would be excluded and b) those same parties would milk the entire thing for as much extra publicity as possible. I had heard that there may be separate TV debates in Scotland and Wales, but haven't yet seen it confirmed.

That would make more sense.

Where does Salmond want to draw the line? If you ask the SNP and Plaid on, you then have to ask the Greens, UKIP etc etc

[Hibs Class]

That would make more sense.

Where does Salmond want to draw the line? If you ask the SNP and Plaid on, you then have to ask the Greens, UKIP etc etc

& BNP, who (if being completely objective) have a greater case for inclusion in a UK-wide debate than SNP or PC. Part of Salmond's thinking is that he was aiming for 20 SNP MPs and felt that in a close outcome the SNP may have greater influence in a hung parliament (or, as he put it, would be dancing to an SNP tune - if I remember his quote correctly)

[steakbake]

& BNP, who (if being completely objective) have a greater case for inclusion in a UK-wide debate than SNP or PC. Part of Salmond's thinking is that he was aiming for 20 SNP MPs and felt that in a close outcome the SNP may have greater influence in a hung parliament (or, as he put it, would be dancing to an SNP tune - if I remember his quote correctly)

"Dancing to a Scottish jig".

It's not going to happen. It'll be Tory majority of around 30-40.

I think Salmond has to accept that the bird has flown on this. He can turn this round to playing the part of the "victim", or being on the side of the victim: something which Labour to great effect in the recent by-elections in Glasgow. (They've took awa' oor GARL!)

PS: I'm not saying he's wrong - because he is not! I'm just saying that the media narrative which is so important as we see around us every day will forever record that Salmond is being a "chippy jock". That will do him damage in the short term, but in the medium to long...??

[ancienthibby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8560022.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8560022.stm)

The leaders of the SNP and Plaid Cymru are angry that they won't be invited onto the televised live debates in the run up to the general election with the leaders of the Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative parties.

I can understand Salmond wanting to allow his party a platform to air their policies, BUT

1. Salmond is not standing as an MP in the forthcoming election.
2. The SNP could never win an overall majority at Westminster, so even if he was standing he could never become PM.

The 3 main parties represented in the debates will have candidates in every constituency of the UK, the SNP and Plaid will not. I think Salmond is being very petty here.

Disagree on this one, GH!

The SNP have as much right as the Fib-Dems to participate in any UK-wide election debate. This matter is not at all about who the leader is, or who is seeking what seat, instead, it's about the voters that each of these so-called leaders represent!

The SNP (whoever their leader is) represent, in UK elections, more of the voters (in % terms) than the voters of the Tories and the Fib-Dems in Scotland. Yet the broadcast is also being made to Scotland (I'd have no issue if this broadcast was to be made to the UK excluding Scotland!) and all its voters, and this point is not being recognised.

So full credit for the SNP standing up again for all the voters in Scotland!

[J-C]

The SNP have the power in the Scottish Parliament and as such the leader should be part of this debate, as they represent the Scottish people from the last Scottish elections.

[Beefster]

Disagree on this one, GH!

The SNP have as much right as the Fib-Dems to participate in any UK-wide election debate. This matter is not at all about who the leader is, or who is seeking what seat, instead, it's about the voters that each of these so-called leaders represent!

The SNP (whoever their leader is) represent, in UK elections, more of the voters (in % terms) than the voters of the Tories and the Fib-Dems in Scotland. Yet the broadcast is also being made to Scotland (I'd have no issue if this broadcast was to be made to the UK excluding Scotland!) and all its voters, and this point is not being recognised.

So full credit for the SNP standing up again for all the voters in Scotland!

A recent poll had the Tories and SNP on 21% with Lib Dems on 15%. The SNP's vote in the Scottish Parliament won't hold up in the UK general election.

---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------


The SNP have the power in the Scottish Parliament and as such the leader should be part of this debate, as they represent the Scottish people from the last Scottish elections.

Salmond's getting to take part in a regional debate on the BBC AFAIK. Seems reasonable to me - if any Scottish voter is that bothered about it, they can ignore the main debates and just watch the regional one.

[RyeSloan]

Disagree on this one, GH!

The SNP have as much right as the Fib-Dems to participate in any UK-wide election debate. This matter is not at all about who the leader is, or who is seeking what seat, instead, it's about the voters that each of these so-called leaders represent!

The SNP (whoever their leader is) represent, in UK elections, more of the voters (in % terms) than the voters of the Tories and the Fib-Dems in Scotland. Yet the broadcast is also being made to Scotland (I'd have no issue if this broadcast was to be made to the UK excluding Scotland!) and all its voters, and this point is not being recognised.

So full credit for the SNP standing up again for all the voters in Scotland!

Strange, so you are saying that it's OK for the 3 main party leaders to have a debate about the shape of a future UK Goverment as long as it is NOT broadcast in Scotland!?!

I aslo think you are being fooled if you think this is the SNP standing up for anyone...it is simple political grandstanding.

I'll will admit they are actually very good at this type of thing, doesn't endear me to them however and think it relfects Salmonds great ability to shout and wave about anything no matter what it may be to ensure they get some air time.

Quite how they can demand that a leaders debate for the Westminster elections should contain a person that is not even standing to be an MP is beyond me.

It is quite clear that the 3 parties involved are the only true UK national parties and to NOT allow such a debate simply because you can't include every party that might stand for election would be a strange way of protecting voters....the vast majority of whom acrosss the UK will vote for those 3 parties.

The regional debates and extended local BBC coverage of these is an excellent make weight to the national debates, of course the SNP know this but as ever they simply can't resist making a stooshie if there is one to be made, especially if it can be painted to be 'anti Scottish'.

As for Salmonds 'dancing to a Scottish jig' comment....:bitchy::bitchy:

[ancienthibby]

Strange, so you are saying that it's OK for the 3 main party leaders to have a debate about the shape of a future UK Goverment as long as it is NOT broadcast in Scotland!?!

I aslo think you are being fooled if you think this is the SNP standing up for anyone...it is simple political grandstanding.

I'll will admit they are actually very good at this type of thing, doesn't endear me to them however and think it relfects Salmonds great ability to shout and wave about anything no matter what it may be to ensure they get some air time.

Quite how they can demand that a leaders debate for the Westminster elections should contain a person that is not even standing to be an MP is beyond me.

It is quite clear that the 3 parties involved are the only true UK national parties and to NOT allow such a debate simply because you can't include every party that might stand for election would be a strange way of protecting voters....the vast majority of whom acrosss the UK will vote for those 3 parties.

The regional debates and extended local BBC coverage of these is an excellent make weight to the national debates, of course the SNP know this but as ever they simply can't resist making a stooshie if there is one to be made, especially if it can be painted to be 'anti Scottish'.

As for Salmonds 'dancing to a Scottish jig' comment....:bitchy::bitchy:

You destroy your own argument when you assign arguments to another poster, when they were never made!! :grr::grr::grr:

[steakbake]

A recent poll had the Tories and SNP on 21% with Lib Dems on 15%. The SNP's vote in the Scottish Parliament won't hold up in the UK general election.

Equally, there was a recent poll - with the full research carried out in Scotland - which showed the SNP on 31% for westminster and 34% for holyrood. Both in second place, but certainly not the 21% which I believe, was a data set of around 200 people as part of a wider UK poll.

[Hainan Hibs]

There should be a seperate debate for Scotland IMO. The unionists crack one off about the SNP being an irrelavance but I'd like to know what the Tories are in Scotland with a fantastic 1 seat.

Can see Salmond's position though. He'll try to push the referendum through knowing it will be blocked and he will continue to push the fact the SNP are not in live TV debates to bring across a sort of "victim" look and then if the Tories do win the election I believe the want for independence will increase.

[Bookkeeper]

There should be a seperate debate for Scotland IMO. The unionists crack one off about the SNP being an irrelavance but I'd like to know what the Tories are in Scotland with a fantastic 1 seat.

Can see Salmond's position though. He'll try to push the referendum through knowing it will be blocked and he will continue to push the fact the SNP are not in live TV debates to bring across a sort of "victim" look and then if the Tories do win the election I believe the want for independence will increase.

:agree: You better believe it!

[lucky]

UK elections should be for UK parties. If we accept the Nationalist view then the TV debates will include all including the Northern Ireland parties and the BNP.

The reality of it two parties can win , Labour and Tories, the Lib Dems will be the 3 biggest party by a long way. In the event of a hung parliament they will help form a Government.

As for Wee Eck he will playing no part in the westminster debate cos he is not standing. In other words its more hot air from this slavering jambo. (is that allowed cos the Nat's on here only use that for fatty Foulkes)

[marinello59]

There should be a seperate debate for Scotland IMO. The unionists crack one off about the SNP being an irrelavance but I'd like to know what the Tories are in Scotland with a fantastic 1 seat.

Can see Salmond's position though. He'll try to push the referendum through knowing it will be blocked and he will continue to push the fact the SNP are not in live TV debates to bring across a sort of "victim" look and then if the Tories do win the election I believe the want for independence will increase.

I don't think you will be calling the Tories irrelevant in Scotland if they do indeed win the General Election.:greengrin

[Hainan Hibs]

I don't think you will be calling the Tories irrelevant in Scotland if they do indeed win the General Election.:greengrin

Aye true:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

You destroy your own argument when you assign arguments to another poster, when they were never made!! :grr::grr::grr:

Sorry don't get you ire here....

You stated


(I'd have no issue if this broadcast was to be made to the UK excluding Scotland!)

I asked


Strange, so you are saying that it's OK for the 3 main party leaders to have a debate about the shape of a future UK Goverment as long as it is NOT broadcast in Scotland!?!

I continue by suggesting that contrary to your point I don't think the SNP were standing up for anyone and then the reasons why I thought this....not sure how this is assigning arguments to another poster?? :confused:

[An Leargaidh]

[/URL][url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8560022.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8560022.stm)

The 3 main parties represented in the debates will have candidates in every constituency of the UK, the SNP and Plaid will not. I think Salmond is being very petty here.

I will reply to the the original post in the thread although I have read all the other posts too :dizzy:

Alex Salmond may well be being petty but what he is saying is nevertheless correct by the rules of common logic and equality.

If SNP and PC are allowed to participate in the Westminster elections, which they are, then all other arguments aside it still remains the fact that if you live in the Scottish or Welsh TV areas you will see the three British/English parties get to debate their policies twice and the two respective nationalist parties get to debate their policies once.

For those people in those areas this is an imbalance of coverage and the winners in the imbalance are the English/British parties. I think this is what Alex Slamond and Ieuan Wyn Jones are complaining about. For the Unionists or non-Nationalists reading this then let me put it in context. Would you be happy if Labour/Conservative/Liberal got to be heard in one debate and the British National Party got to be heard in two?

What SNP / PC are complaining about is that in their respective countries the English/British parties get to speak twice and their own parties don't. It seems a fair point to be made, just maybe they didn't make it all that well but if you were fortunate to hear the BBC Radio 4 Newsnight article last night about it then you would have enjoyed the BBC presenter being totally impartial and hounding the Head of Economic and Political Affairs at the BBC about it. His arguments in defence of the current imbalance were no better than Alex Salmond's.

It reeks of jingoism and colonialism IMHO. The Westminster Parliament in England should just ban SNP and PC from taking seats in it and in return let the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly ban British political debates from being broadcast in England and Wales. But I somehow don't think this will happen as it would be letting go of the final threads of empire. The bits with all that oil revenue and all the military bases... :cool2:

[marinello59]

I will reply to the the original post in the thread although I have read all the other posts too :dizzy:

Alex Salmond may well be being petty but what he is saying is nevertheless correct by the rules of common logic and equality.

If SNP and PC are allowed to participate in the Westminster elections, which they are, then all other arguments aside it still remains the fact that if you live in the Scottish or Welsh TV areas you will see the three British/English parties get to debate their policies twice and the two respective nationalist parties get to debate their policies once.

For those people in those areas this is an imbalance of coverage and the winners in the imbalance are the English/British parties. I think this is what Alex Slamond and Ieuan Wyn Jones are complaining about. For the Unionists or non-Nationalists reading this then let me put it in context. Would you be happy if Labour/Conservative/Liberal got to be heard in one debate and the British National Party got to be heard in two?

What SNP / PC are complaining about is that in their respective countries the English/British parties get to speak twice and their own parties don't. It seems a fair point to be made, just maybe they didn't make it all that well but if you were fortunate to hear the BBC Radio 4 Newsnight article last night about it then you would have enjoyed the BBC presenter being totally impartial and hounding the Head of Economic and Political Affairs at the BBC about it. His arguments in defence of the current imbalance were no better than Alex Salmond's.

It reeks of jingoism and colonialism IMHO. The Westminster Parliament in England should just ban SNP and PC from taking seats in it and in return let the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly ban British political debates from being broadcast in England and Wales. But I somehow don't think this will happen as it would be letting go of the final threads of empire. The bits with all that oil revenue and all the military bases... :cool2:

Really? Would you care to expand on that?

[An Leargaidh]

Really? Would you care to expand on that?

As to jingoism I meant in the sense of the definition "flag waving: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions", simply that certainly up until the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly the British newspapers based in London used to openly belittle and make fun of the SNP and PC parties for one, and still to this day leaders and other members of the main Westminster based parties still make comments now and then about the SNP and PC to the effect "they're not going to ever be in charge of anything anyway". I have always taken this attitude to mean that "we (i.e. Scottish and Welsh) are better off being part of the United Kingdom, now run along and be quiet little children."

As for colonialism I meant in the sense of the definition "exploitation by a stronger country of weaker one; the use of the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger country", from their point of view I think allowing these two political centres to be established was a major mistake. It merely allowed a bigger platform for nationalism in the two respective countries which would appear to be at odds with the desired aim of keeping the two countries within the union of the UK. One particular issue that comes to mind would be the issue of oil revenue from the North Sea. Once the Scottish Government was created this gave a bigger and louder poiltical platform for this issue to be raised, i.e. that the revenue from the oil fields in Scotland should go only to Scotland.

If the Westminster Government wanted to allow Wales and Scotland to seek and achive independence from the UK then IMHO they could have "arranged" it years, if not decades, ago through funding (even back door funding) and arranged favourable media coverage. I honestly believe that they do not wish this to happen however so I do not understand or I should say am unable to reconcile the two. By this I mean give the two countries their own political forums yet still want them to be part of the UK. I don't understand why the Westminster Government gave the two countries the orange box to shout from but yet is not interested in what they are shouting about?

I suppose there are other construable definitions or sub-definitions of jingoism and colonialism but I was meaning the main stream definitions as per above :agree:

[An Leargaidh]

Actually, perhaps that would be a good thread topic? As follows:

Why did the Westminster Government allow the creation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government when surely the end aim of these two institutions would be indpendence or full devolution within the existing UK, these outcomes being the very antithesis of the United Kingdom?

I'll let someone else start it for real, but it might bring a good debate on as unless I am missing something obvious (could well be :rolleyes: ) it doesn't make sense :no way:

[marinello59]

Actually, perhaps that would be a good thread topic? As follows:


Why did the Westminster Government allow the creation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government when surely the end aim of these two institutions would be indpendence or full devolution within the existing UK, these outcomes being the very antithesis of the United Kingdom?

Why would that naturally be the end aim? The SNP might see it as a stepping stone but the other parties will see it as as means of Governing locally.
I'll let someone else start it for real, but it might bring a good debate on as unless I am missing something obvious (could well be :rolleyes: ) it doesn't make sense :no way:

Labour hoped that Devolution would kill off the demand for full independence once and for all. That hasn't happened but the appetite for full Scottish independence hasn't exactly grown dramatically either.

[Peevemor]

Labour hoped that Devolution would kill off the demand for full independence once and for all. That hasn't happened but the appetite for full Scottish independence hasn't exactly grown dramatically either.

Also it was only a couple of years previously that the regional councils were scrapped, only to be replaced by what is effectively Scotland regional council.

Even as a nationalist I never got too excited about the whole thing.

[marinello59]

As to jingoism I meant in the sense of the definition "flag waving: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions", :

Thank goodness Salmond isn't stooping to that level.:greengrin

[An Leargaidh]

Labour hoped that Devolution would kill off the demand for full independence once and for all. That hasn't happened but the appetite for full Scottish independence hasn't exactly grown dramatically either.

Thanks Marinello, I didn't realise this was what the plan was but it makes sense when you mention it. I am guessing the Welsh Assembly idea was along the same plot lines? :hmmm:

[allmodcons]

It's obvious that the logical way to deal with this is for the BBC not to broadcast the debate between Clegg, Brown and Cameron in Scotland but, sadly, that won't happen.

The BBC is a public service funded by licence fees. Why should I pay for the 'privilege' of listening to 3 men debate issues concerning the education system and the NHS in England & Wales when, in Scotland, these matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

With regard to the issue of the UK economy, how it's run has a huge effect on Scotland. At the last 2 elections (Holyrood & Europe) the SNP won the highest percentage share of the vote, so it would appear that there are large numbers of people who want to hear what they have to say in response to the policies of, in particular, Cameron and Brown.

On final a note, I recall recently watching an episode of Question Time broadcast from down south when one of the audience asked a question about the release of Al Megrahi.

There was zero SNP representation on the panel that night, so the 3 Unionist guests (all brothers together) got tore into the SNP and gave them a right good public kicking.

If there is nobody on the panel to defend the SNP's policy/position, what's to stop that sort of thing happening again?

[Beefster]

It's obvious that the logical way to deal with this is for the BBC not to broadcast the debate between Clegg, Brown and Cameron in Scotland but, sadly, that won't happen.

The BBC is a public service funded by licence fees. Why should I pay for the 'privilege' of listening to 3 men debate issues concerning the education system and the NHS in England & Wales when, in Scotland, these matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

With regard to the issue of the UK economy, how it's run has a huge effect on Scotland. At the last 2 elections (Holyrood & Europe) the SNP won the highest percentage share of the vote, so it would appear that there are large numbers of people who want to hear what they have to say in response to the policies of, in particular, Cameron and Brown.

On final a note, I recall recently watching an episode of Question Time broadcast from down south when one of the audience asked a question about the release of Al Megrahi.

There was zero SNP representation on the panel that night, so the 3 Unionist guests (all brothers together) got tore into the SNP and gave them a right good public kicking.

If there is nobody on the panel to defend the SNP's policy/position, what's to stop that sort of thing happening again?

Just pretend that you'll only be paying for the Scottish debate that the BBC will be hosting and broadcasting. Or pretend that your licence fee only pays for the BBC output that you actually want. Simples.

I don't like Eastenders and don't watch it but that doesn't mean that I question why my licence fee goes towards paying for it.

[An Leargaidh]

If there is nobody on the panel to defend the SNP's policy/position, what's to stop that sort of thing happening again?

AllModCons, this is what I was meaning about jingoism earlier :agree: I am old enough to remember the days before the Scottish Parliament. Sometimes in a political debate someone would mention Scotland or the SNP and the English poiliticians would just sneer or laugh as if the SNP was a joke. In the 1970s and early 1980s the peer pressure / peer influence that emanated down from the Westminster based Con/Lab/Lib parties meant that even Scottish people thought it was cool or acceptable to laugh at people who were daft enough to vote or support SNP. I have always wondered how many of those people who laughed outwardly at the SNP would actually have voted for or supported SNP given a totally unbiased upbringing and a peer pressure free environment in which to mature their political beliefs?

[Hainan Hibs]

AllModCons, this is what I was meaning about jingoism earlier :agree: I am old enough to remember the days before the Scottish Parliament. Sometimes in a political debate someone would mention Scotland or the SNP and the English poiliticians would just sneer or laugh as if the SNP was a joke. In the 1970s and early 1980s the peer pressure / peer influence that emanated down from the Westminster based Con/Lab/Lib parties meant that even Scottish people thought it was cool or acceptable to laugh at people who were daft enough to vote or support SNP. I have always wondered how many of those people who laughed outwardly at the SNP would actually have voted for or supported SNP given a totally unbiased upbringing and a peer pressure free environment in which to mature their political beliefs?

I wonder that too. Even now people think they are being "cool" by putting the SNP down and describing anything they do as petty or say things like they are "obsessed with Braveheart". Voting intentions for Scotland show that the SNP are 2nd for Westminster election but even still Ian Gray and Annabel Goldie tell us they are an irrelevance.

The SNP are disadvantaged by every newspaper wrapping themselves in the Red White and Blue of the Union Flag also and unfortunately people are dragged in by the things they write. The Sun was nothing short of a complete and utter disgrace on voting day for the last Scottish election.

[allmodcons]

Just pretend that you'll only be paying for the Scottish debate that the BBC will be hosting and broadcasting. Or pretend that your licence fee only pays for the BBC output that you actually want. Simples.

I don't like Eastenders and don't watch it but that doesn't mean that I question why my licence fee goes towards paying for it.


1) You're obviously taking the piss with the use of the word pretend.

2) These debates are about who'll govern the country for the next 5 years. Your analogy with Eastenders is, presumably, also an attempt to extract the Michael.

[Beefster]

1) You're obviously taking the piss with the use of the word pretend.

2) These debates are about who'll govern the country for the next 5 years. Your analogy with Eastenders is, presumably, also an attempt to extract the Michael.

I wasn't taking the piss but never mind.

The bit in bold - The SNP have zero chance of governing the UK so surely it's right that that only get to take part in a regional debate?

[allmodcons]

Why did the Westminster Government allow the creation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government when surely the end aim of these two institutions would be indpendence or full devolution within the existing UK, these outcomes being the very antithesis of the United Kingdom?


One word springs to mind 'appeasement'.

The main reason for any move towards devolution by the Unionist parties has always been their fear of a surge in support for the SNP. The rigged Devolution Bill of the late 1970's was drawn up as a consequence of the SNP's strong showing at the 2 General Elections in February 1974 and October 1974 and a substantial increase in SNP support in the early/mid 1990's was, without doubt, a major factor in the Labour Party deciding to support the current devolution settlement.

George Robertson once famously said that Devolution would kill the Nationalist cause stone dead. Of course, we all know he was a numpty who failed to realise that if you give people a little of what's good for them (i.e. - autonomy) they'll, invariably, look for more.

[allmodcons]

I wasn't taking the piss but never mind.

The bit in bold - The SNP have zero chance of governing the UK so surely it's right that that only get to take part in a regionaldebate?

The 'bit in bold' as you put it was merely highlighting your absurd analogy with Eastenders.

[ancienthibby]

I wasn't taking the piss but never mind.

The bit in bold - The SNP have zero chance of governing the UK so surely it's right that that only get to take part in a regional debate?

Take out 'SNP' and put in 'LibDems' - and you might just get some understanding of the situation!!:devil:

[Beefster]

[/B]

Take out 'SNP' and put in 'LibDems' - and you might just get some understanding of the situation!!:devil:

I wouldn't have Clegg in the debates either but they're likely to be part of the government in a hung parliament so I suppose a case can be made for their inclusion.

[allmodcons]

I wouldn't have Clegg in the debates either but they're likely to be part of the government in a hung parliament so I suppose a case can be made for their inclusion.

Without Clegg the debates would be a complete waste of time.

Everybody knows that the differences between New Labour and Tory policies is wafer thin.:wink:

Brown and Cameron would have nothing to debate:yawn:

[ancienthibby]

I wouldn't have Clegg in the debates either but they're likely to be part of the government in a hung parliament so I suppose a case can be made for their inclusion.

Which takes you precisely to the Eckmeister's valid point!!:agree::agree:

[Beefster]

[/B]

Which takes you precisely to the Eckmeister's valid point!!:agree::agree:

I was talking about Lib Dems possibly being in a coalition Cabinet and therefore directly having a say in governing the country. Even in the hung parliament, the SNP would be very minor players and certainly wouldn't have any ministers.

At the moment, there are more DUP and independent MPs in the Commons than either of the SNP or Plaid Cymru. They've more of a right to a place at the debates, despite the fact that none of them have a chance of governing the country.

[heretoday]

I don't know why The SNP and Plaid are getting so uptight. We'll learn nothing of substance from these debates and it might actually be to their advantage to steer clear!

[allmodcons]

I don't know why The SNP and Plaid are getting so uptight. We'll learn nothing of substance from these debates and it might actually be to their advantage to steer clear!

Even as a Nationalist, I think that's fair comment.

I only wish Beefster would up his game he's tying himself in knots:wink:.

[ancienthibby]

I was talking about Lib Dems possibly being in a coalition Cabinet and therefore directly having a say in governing the country. Even in the hung parliament, the SNP would be very minor players and certainly wouldn't have any ministers.

At the moment, there are more DUP and independent MPs in the Commons than either of the SNP or Plaid Cymru. They've more of a right to a place at the debates, despite the fact that none of them have a chance of governing the country.

And there are at least SIX TIMES the number of Labour or Tory MPs in Westminster compared with the Fib Dems!!

So why do the Fib Dems get credence from the BBC (et al) and the DUP, SNP and Plaid do not??

Answer: They are a London-centric Party and so fit the bill for London-centric broadcasters!!

[Beefster]

Even as a Nationalist, I think that's fair comment.

I only wish Beefster would up his game he's tying himself in knots:wink:.

No knots here, I don't think. I've yet to hear a coherent argument why regional political parties should be allowed to take part in the main debates, rather than regional debates.


And there are at least SIX TIMES the number of Labour or Tory MPs in Westminster compared with the Fib Dems!!

So why do the Fib Dems get credence from the BBC (et al) and the DUP, SNP and Plaid do not??

Answer: They are a London-centric Party and so fit the bill for London-centric broadcasters!!

And there's NINE TIMES as many Lib Dems MPs as SNP so, unless you're making the case for only Labour and the Tories being allowed to debate, I'm not sure your point.

As I've said, they're the only party, outwith the Conservatives and Labour, with a realistic change of having Cabinet Ministers in the next parliament. I don't necessarily agree with them taking part but I can see the logic behind it.

Anyway, this is where I bow out as we're going around in circles and I'm starting to repeat myself now.

[RyeSloan]

And there are at least SIX TIMES the number of Labour or Tory MPs in Westminster compared with the Fib Dems!!

So why do the Fib Dems get credence from the BBC (et al) and the DUP, SNP and Plaid do not??

Answer: They are a London-centric Party and so fit the bill for London-centric broadcasters!!

Or could it be possible that it has nothing to do with London-centric broadcasters and be down to the fact that they are a national party that will be constesting the vast majority of seats just like Labour and the Tories but unlike any other party...or does that not fit into your narrow nationalistic arguement?

[steakbake]

...or does that not fit into your narrow nationalistic arguement?

You can tell you're a party man. Page 8 of Scottish Labour "phrases to use in a debate against a Nat"?

[Hainan Hibs]

You can tell you're a party man. Page 8 of the Scottish Labour "phrases to use in a debate against a Nat"?

:faf::thumbsup:

[ancienthibby]

And there are at least SIX TIMES the number of Labour or Tory MPs in Westminster compared with the Fib Dems!!

So why do the Fib Dems get credence from the BBC (et al) and the DUP, SNP and Plaid do not??

Answer: They are a London-centric Party and so fit the bill for London-centric broadcasters!!

Or could it be possible that it has nothing to do with London-centric broadcasters and be down to the fact that they are a national party that will be constesting the vast majority of seats just like Labour and the Tories but unlike any other party...or does that not fit into your narrow nationalistic arguement?

So whose the one using 'narrow nationalistic arguement' (sic) when you say that 'they' (FibDems) are a national party??

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------


[QUOTE=SiMar;2384488]

You can tell you're a party man. Page 8 of the Scottish Labour "phrases to use in a debate against a Nat"?

Sorry, BS, never been a member of any political party in this country in my life!!:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

[QUOTE=SiMar;2384488]

So whose the one using 'narrow nationalistic arguement' (sic) when you say that 'they' (FibDems) are a national party??[COLOR="Silver"]

Eh? I meant it in the term the cover the nation as in the UK..that's clear enough I think but don't let that get in the way of you answering the point that they are the only other party that will contest seats across the UK.



Sorry, BS, never been a member of any political party in this country in my life!!:greengrin

Me neither but can you or BlackSaltire explain how a desire to stop a national debate or ensuring it would not be broadcast in Scotland (because that is what you said is it not?) by the three main parties in an upcoming UK election cannot be considered narrow minded or based on a nationalistic view point of the politics involved.

[RyeSloan]

You can tell you're a party man. Page 8 of Scottish Labour "phrases to use in a debate against a Nat"?

I like a party but certainly not a political one :greengrin

I happen to think that the SNP view on this is narrow and rather parochial.
I think they are missing the point and the benefit of a UK wide debate regarding the Westminster elections by the three main parties and seem to have conveniently glossed over the regional aspects that will also be an important part of this process.

[allmodcons]

I like a party but certainly not a political one :greengrin

I happen to think that the SNP view on this is narrow and rather parochial.
I think they are missing the point and the benefit of a UK wide debate regarding the Westminster elections by the three main parties and seem to have conveniently glossed over the regional aspects that will also be an important part of this process.

You're at again Simar.

Not 'narrow minded' anymore, only 'narrow and rather parochial' .

The 'regional' aspects as you put it are irrelevant in Scotland. Issues such as transport, the health service, the justice system, housing, etc, are all dealt with by the Scottish Parliament and only relevant when members are being elected to Holyrood.

Answer me this:-

1) Why would anyone in Scotland want to hear Clegg, Cameron and Brown discuss their policies on transport, health, justice and housing when they've no control over these affairs in Scotland.

2) Why can't the BBC agree not to televise the debate in Scotland?

3) Why are none of the debates being held in the region that (in your opinion) is Scotland?

[RyeSloan]

You're at again Simar.

Not 'narrow minded' anymore, only 'narrow and rather parochial' .

The 'regional' aspects as you put it are irrelevant in Scotland. Issues such as transport, the health service, the justice system, housing, etc, are all dealt with by the Scottish Parliament and only relevant when members are being elected to Holyrood.

Answer me this:-

1) Why would anyone in Scotland want to hear Clegg, Cameron and Brown discuss their policies on transport, health, justice and housing when they've no control over these affairs in Scotland.

2) Why can't the BBC agree not to televise the debate in Scotland?

3) Why are none of the debates being held in the region that (in your opinion) is Scotland?

At what again? :wink:

Narrow minded / Narrow
Parochial / Nationalistic arguments

I don't consider these statements significantly different in this context to be honest so hence why I chose to vary them :greengrin


1) Fair point, the 1st debate will cover a number of areas that are devolved powers. However it would be somewhat disingenuous to say that Westminsters approach to such subjects has zero influence on the Scottish approach nor has any impact on Scotland and it's citizens.

2) Why should they. As stated this is a debate of the leaders of the three main parties in the UK Houses of Parliament, a parliament that still has massive control and influence on Scotland. On what grounds should Scotland be blacked out of this debate and if so how would this be serving our democracy?

3) What does it matter. There is specific Scottish and Welsh debates being held in these countries. I believe the main debates are not being held in London either...bit strange considering ancient hibbies assertion that the Lib Dems are only being included becuase they are London-centric I would say.
Therefore as I previously stated there has been consideration taken of the differing political landscape in Scotland and Wales and specific debates been created to account for this.

The whole idea that because Scotland and Wales have a number of Nationalist MP's that no UK wide debate can take place without their (and every other political party it would seem) input is simply flawed. To attempt to stifle debate simply because not all views could possibly be included would, to take it to it's logical conclusion would prevent any debate at all.

[Hibs Class]

You're at again Simar.

Not 'narrow minded' anymore, only 'narrow and rather parochial' .

The 'regional' aspects as you put it are irrelevant in Scotland. Issues such as transport, the health service, the justice system, housing, etc, are all dealt with by the Scottish Parliament and only relevant when members are being elected to Holyrood.

Answer me this:-

1) Why would anyone in Scotland want to hear Clegg, Cameron and Brown discuss their policies on transport, health, justice and housing when they've no control over these affairs in Scotland.

2) Why can't the BBC agree not to televise the debate in Scotland?

3) Why are none of the debates being held in the region that (in your opinion) is Scotland?


As far as I'm aware there are three of these debates, one to be screened by each of BBC, SKY and ITV. It's therefore not as simple as saying that the BBC can refuse to televise in Scotland. It's also too simplistic for Salmond to focus on the BBC's lack of impartiality, when this is a multi-broadcaster deal.

If people in Scotland (or elsewhere) object to the arrangements they can decide to not watch, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be denied the opportunity to watch. If these debates help to address voter apathy then they surely cannot be a bad thing.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're at again Simar.

Not 'narrow minded' anymore, only 'narrow and rather parochial' .

The 'regional' aspects as you put it are irrelevant in Scotland. Issues such as transport, the health service, the justice system, housing, etc, are all dealt with by the Scottish Parliament and only relevant when members are being elected to Holyrood.

Answer me this:-

1) Why would anyone in Scotland want to hear Clegg, Cameron and Brown discuss their policies on transport, health, justice and housing when they've no control over these affairs in Scotland.

2) Why can't the BBC agree not to televise the debate in Scotland?

3) Why are none of the debates being held in the regionthat (in your opinion) is Scotland?

I, for one, do.

Despite devolution, a lot of legislation that relates to these areas remains UK. It might be done in agreement with the devolved adminstrations but nevertheless goes through Westminster and applies to us all. And where it doesn't, it's fair to say that there's not a great deal of difference. The issues we face around healthcare in Livingston and Lochaber aren't really different from the issues in Leicester or Llanelli. And the work needed to resolve those issues is also the same. Usually this is reflected in the fact that social policy legislation tends to be of the same ilk and towards the same end, north and south of the border. Same challenges, same identified solutions.

Occasionally one side might make a step-change a bit quicker than the other (Scotland's incapacity and mental health legislation in the early 2000s perhaps being a good example) but essentially there's little difference between Scotland and England in these matters and it seems nonsensical to pretend otherwise.

[allmodcons]

As stated this is a debate of the leaders of the three main parties in the UK Houses of Parliament, a parliament that still has massive control and influence on Scotland.

Thanks for that little gem.

:agree: Precisely why the party that most Scots voted for at the last 2 elections (Holyrood & Eurpoe) should be represented at these debates.

[allmodcons]

I, for one, do.

Despite devolution, a lot of legislation that relates to these areas remains UK. It might be done in agreement with the devolved adminstrations but nevertheless goes through Westminster and applies to us all.

That's just simply not true. This may be the case in Wales, but not in Scotland.

The issues I referred to in my earlier post are reserved to Holyrood.

Justice, Health, Housing and Transport DO NOT 'go through Westminster'.

[allmodcons]

As far as I'm aware there are three of these debates, one to be screened by each of BBC, SKY and ITV. It's therefore not as simple as saying that the BBC can refuse to televise in Scotland. It's also too simplistic for Salmond to focus on the BBC's lack of impartiality, when this is a multi-broadcaster deal.

If people in Scotland (or elsewhere) object to the arrangements they can decide to not watch, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be denied the opportunity to watch. If these debates help to address voter apathy then they surely cannot be a bad thing.

It would be simple for the BBC not televise the debate in Scotland. They do it everyday of the week with other programmes.

The reason Salmond is focusing on the BBC is because they get a licence fee and are 'supposed' to be impartial. We all know SKY and ITV aren't impartial, but they're not answerable to those of us who have to pay a licence fee.

As for just switching off your TV, that's just a nonsense argument. It's not a problem for me 'cos I know who I'll be voting for, however, those who are undecided are only going to hear one side of the debate and that'll be the Unionist view on running Scotland's economy.

[Mibbes Aye]

That's just simply not true. This may be the case in Wales, but not in Scotland.

The issues I referred to in my earlier post are reserved to Holyrood.

Justice, Health, Housing and Transport DO NOT 'go through Westminister'.

OK, to take one example. Where do you think housing benefit comes from? You do realise how much of an impact it has on housing policy, don't you?
Where is it legislated?

[allmodcons]

OK, to take one example. Where do you think housing benefit comes from? You do realise how much of an impact it has on housing policy, don't you?
Where is it legislated?

I know housing benefit is reserved to Westminster. It's handled by the Dept for Work & Pensions, but fact is the Westminster Government do not legislate on Scottish Housing Policy.

Actually, I don't know what impact UK housing benefit has on the Scottish Government's Housing Policy. I suspect you don't know either but, if I'm wrong, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

[Mibbes Aye]

I know housing benefit is reserved to Westminster. It's handled by the Dept for Work & Pensions, but fact is the Westminster Government do not legislate on Scottish Housing Policy.

Actually, I don't know what impact UK housing benefit has on the Scottish Government's Housing Policy. I suspect you don't know either but, if I'm wrong, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

It's not my speciality but I do know a wee bit. No expert though, so happy to be corrected.

Housing benefit legislation, in practice, helps shape how local authorities and registered social landlords go about their housebuilding programmes. Scottish Government funds, or part-funds affordable housebuilding, through the RSLs or the local authorities. Any changes to HB would impact on how the Scottish Govt strategises and funds housebuilding. It's all connected and to try and hide from that is silly.

[Beefster]

It would be simple for the BBC not televise the debate in Scotland. They do it everyday of the week with other programmes.

The reason Salmond is focusing on the BBC is because they get a licence fee and are 'supposed' to be impartial. We all know SKY and ITV aren't impartial, but they're not answerable to those of us who have to pay a licence fee.

As for just switching off your TV, that's just a nonsense argument. It's not a problem for me 'cos I know who I'll be voting for, however, those who are undecided are only going to hear one side of the debate and that'll be the Unionist view on running Scotland's economy.

Is that possibly because, after the UK General Election, only the three main parties could possibly have any direct say on how the UK Government deal with the UK economy?

This is a copy and paste job but it's still not been dealt with......

I've yet to hear a coherent argument why regional political parties should be allowed to take part in the main debates, rather than regional debates.

[allmodcons]

It's not my speciality but I do know a wee bit. No expert though, so happy to be corrected.

Housing benefit legislation, in practice, helps shape how local authorities and registered social landlords go about their housebuilding programmes. Scottish Government funds, or part-funds affordable housebuilding, through the RSLs or the local authorities. Any changes to HB would impact on how the Scottish Govt strategises and funds housebuilding. It's all connected and to try and hide from that is silly.

At the risk of sounding a little condescending (and not being so) I'm impressed you came back with any info on HB and will concede that, potentially, changes to HB legislation could effect Housing Policy.

That said, I don't think the 2 are intrinsically linked and stand by my earlier comments regarding issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

[allmodcons]

Is that possibly because, after the UK General Election, only the three main parties could possibly have any direct say on how the UK Government deal with the UK economy?

This is a copy and paste job but it's still not been dealt with......

I've yet to hear a coherent argument why regional political parties should be allowed to take part in the main debates, rather than regional debates.

You can copy & paste all day if you like! (you'll miss the match mind!)

My argument is, and always has been, that the BBC should not be broadcasting the debate in Scotland without SNP representation!

[Beefster]

You can copy & paste all day if you like! (you'll miss the match mind!)

My argument is, and always has been, that the BBC should not be broadcasting the debate in Scotland without SNP representation!

The BBC have dealt with that argument by offering the regional debate. The SNP will get a Scottish platform for their manifesto without affecting/degrading the debate between the men with a direct chance of running the UK after the general election.

Using your argument, the BNP, Solidarity, Greens, Scottish Socialists, UKIP and more should be included in any UK debate before it can be broadcast in Scotland.

[allmodcons]

The BBC have dealt with that argument by offering the regional debate. The SNP will get a Scottish platform for their manifesto without affecting/degrading the debate between the men with a direct chance of running the UK after the general election.

Using your argument, the BNP, Solidarity, Greens, Scottish Socialists, UKIP and more should be included in any UK debate before it can be broadcast in Scotland.

That's got to be your saddest post on this thread. Are you seriously suggesting that SNP representation would be degrading? I'm all for discussing the issue but that sort of comment is embarrassing.

The BBC haven't dealt with it, they've side stepped the issue by offering what is a sideshow debate featuring the SNP. Fact is the debate between the 3 'big' parties will still be broadcast in Scotland without SNP representation.

As for your second point, this is just nonsense and you know it. First of all you're not using my argument and, secondly, the SNP are the party of government in Scotland. At the last 2 elections they've won more votes than any other party. This makes them a major party in Scotland, none of the other parties you quote are considered to be major parties in a UK context.

[Beefster]

That's got to be your saddest post on this thread. Are you seriously suggesting that SNP representation would be degrading? I'm all for discussing the issue but that sort of comment is embarrassing.

The BBC haven't dealt with it, they've side stepped the issue by offering what is a sideshow debate featuring the SNP. Fact is the debate between the 3 'big' parties will still be broadcast in Scotland without SNP representation.

As for your second point, this is just nonsense and you know it. First of all you're not using my argument and, secondly, the SNP are the party of government in Scotland. At the last 2 elections they've won more votes than any other party. This makes them a major party in Scotland, none of the other parties you quote are considered to be major parties in a UK context.

I know it's difficult when your argument isn't holding up to scrutiny but try and avoid the petty insults.

I'm bored arguing the same thing over and over. The debates will go ahead, they'll be broadcast in Scotland and the SNP will get to take part in a Scottish debate (if they want to). Wasting more of our lives arguing the toss won't change that.

[allmodcons]

I know it's difficult when your argument isn't holding up to scrutiny but try and avoid the petty insults.

I'm bored arguing the same thing over and over. The debates will go ahead, they'll be broadcast in Scotland and the SNP will get to take part in a Scottish debate (if they want to). Wasting more of our lives arguing the toss won't change that.

You should know because that's exactly where you got to by suggesting SNP representation at these debates would be degrading.

As for you being bored, a couple of posts back you were complaining about nobody giving a coherent response to your posts. Funny how things change when someone takes the time (10 minutes tops - not exactly arguing my life away) to disgaree with the points you make.