David Maddox: Is the SNP trying to suppress democracy?
Interesting developments today over the great TV debate debate, if you get my drift.
Gordon Brown finally accepts, if somewhat reluctantly, to have one in principle. To be fair on him this is further than any of his predecessors have gone, even if he did have to be harried into accepting the idea.
Then, rather sinisterly, the SNP announce they will go to court to block any Scottish viewing of such a debate if they are not allowed to participate.
The Nationalists' argument is obviously that as arguably the best supported party north of the Border they would be unfairly disadvantaged if Alex Salmond or Westminster leader Angus Robertson were not part of it.
No doubt they still believe in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s that separation from the UK is the most important issue to discuss - most people in Britain might disagree.
If this were a Scottish election then they would have a point, but it is not. It is a UK election and this is the opportunity for people to see who they would rather want as Prime Minister - Gordon Brown or David Cameron.
There is just about enough moral justification to include Nick Clegg as leader of the Lib Dems, even though nobody but himself actually seriously believes he will be resident in Number 10 any time next year.
It would be a nonsense for tens of millions of non-Scottish voters to have to listen to a party they cannot vote for and a subject (Scottish independence) for which they care little and have no real say.
And where do we draw the line? Should we have the Greens, UKIP and the BNP who have more supporters across the UK than the SNP? Should we have all the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the various Northern Irish parties?
No we should not. The whole thing would become a joke.
So what the SNP want, essentially, is to make sure that Scots are the only voters who cannot watch these debates and take a view on who would be the best PM for Britain. It would be Scots, thanks to the SNP, who would have their democratic rights undermined.
The one compromise that seems reasonable here is the suggestion that there should be debates involving other cabinet ministers and their shadows.
If this were to happen Messrs Salmond or Roberston could take on Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, David Mundell of the Tories and Alistair Carmichael for the Lib Dems in a specific Scottish edition on STV or/ and BBC Scotland.
However, we know from previous occasions that Mr Salmond's ego is too big to debate with mere Scottish secretaries or ministers. He refused an offer to take on Mr Murphy at a conference about 10 days ago and famously was mocked by Jeremy Paxman when he refused to engage with David Cairns.
It will be interesting to see how this all resolves itself. But my guess is that it may not be Gordon Brown's reluctance that stops these debates but the SNP's hubris.
Gordon Brown finally accepts, if somewhat reluctantly, to have one in principle. To be fair on him this is further than any of his predecessors have gone, even if he did have to be harried into accepting the idea.
Then, rather sinisterly, the SNP announce they will go to court to block any Scottish viewing of such a debate if they are not allowed to participate.
The Nationalists' argument is obviously that as arguably the best supported party north of the Border they would be unfairly disadvantaged if Alex Salmond or Westminster leader Angus Robertson were not part of it.
No doubt they still believe in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s that separation from the UK is the most important issue to discuss - most people in Britain might disagree.
If this were a Scottish election then they would have a point, but it is not. It is a UK election and this is the opportunity for people to see who they would rather want as Prime Minister - Gordon Brown or David Cameron.
There is just about enough moral justification to include Nick Clegg as leader of the Lib Dems, even though nobody but himself actually seriously believes he will be resident in Number 10 any time next year.
It would be a nonsense for tens of millions of non-Scottish voters to have to listen to a party they cannot vote for and a subject (Scottish independence) for which they care little and have no real say.
And where do we draw the line? Should we have the Greens, UKIP and the BNP who have more supporters across the UK than the SNP? Should we have all the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the various Northern Irish parties?
No we should not. The whole thing would become a joke.
So what the SNP want, essentially, is to make sure that Scots are the only voters who cannot watch these debates and take a view on who would be the best PM for Britain. It would be Scots, thanks to the SNP, who would have their democratic rights undermined.
The one compromise that seems reasonable here is the suggestion that there should be debates involving other cabinet ministers and their shadows.
If this were to happen Messrs Salmond or Roberston could take on Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, David Mundell of the Tories and Alistair Carmichael for the Lib Dems in a specific Scottish edition on STV or/ and BBC Scotland.
However, we know from previous occasions that Mr Salmond's ego is too big to debate with mere Scottish secretaries or ministers. He refused an offer to take on Mr Murphy at a conference about 10 days ago and famously was mocked by Jeremy Paxman when he refused to engage with David Cairns.
It will be interesting to see how this all resolves itself. But my guess is that it may not be Gordon Brown's reluctance that stops these debates but the SNP's hubris.
Labels: Alex Salmond, Alistair Carmichael, David Cameron, David Maddox, David Mundell, Gordon Brown, Jim Murphy, Nick Clegg
posted by Administrator at
18:06
24 Comments:
On the contrary David, the TV debate would be suppressing democracy in Scotland. The SNP could well have the biggest share of the vote in this country.
You say:
"If this were a Scottish election then they would have a point, but it is not. It is a UK election and this is the opportunity for people to see who they would rather want as Prime Minister - Gordon Brown or David Cameron."
We don't elect the Prime Minister. This is not a presidential election. We already have a head of state. We elect MPs in local constituencies and GB and DC will be two such MPs. We didn't get the opportunity to see if we would like GB as PM in 2007 because the governing party decided that for us. Why is it any different now?
Your headline is altogether outrageous, somewhat arrogant, and faintly partisan.
I mean, would this even be televised in Northern Ireland where they will have no say on who becomes PM? Twisted logic.
"It would be a nonsense for tens of millions of non-Scottish voters to have to listen to a party they cannot vote for and a subject (Scottish independence) for which they care little and have no real say."
So the tens of millions of "Non-Scottish"(Why can't you say "English"?) outvote the millions of Scots, Irish and Welsh voters.And they will have to listen to a debate on health and education that doesn't affect them.
When the Court of Session in Edinburgh banned a TV interview with then Prime Minister John Major a week before local elections in Scotland, It was 'sinister' wee Georgie Robertson and the Lib Dems who tried to 'suppress democracy' squealing from the rooftops that it was unfair to broadcast. He sattacked the BBC for their "outrageous display of petulance . . . in dragging judges from their homes to hear an appeal with just minutes to go before transmission."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scots-judge-bans-major-interview-1614120.html
David Maddox: Is the SNP trying to suppress democracy?
Suppressing democracy is when the right to vote is taken away or the right a party has to stand in an election is taken away.
Suppressing democracy also occurs when one party or parties gain unfair advantage by the use of the media to put their polices and parties to the electorate while other parties are specifically excluded from that media and platform.
This unfair media advantage is exactly how Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems are trying to suppress democracy in Scotland. They want a high profile debate with their party leaders to go out at prime time and they don't want the SNP to get a look in, or any other party for that matter.
I'm not entirely sure how the SNP's demand to be treated fairly and impartially became, "sinister", but it appears to be based on the idea that anything the SNP do must be bad.
No doubt they still believe in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s that separation from the UK is the most important issue to discuss - most people in Britain might disagree.
The SNP's platform is independence for Scotland. They won control over the Scottish Parliament with that as the central plank in their manifesto. Is the suggestion here that parties only get airtime if the broadcasters or media hacks agree with their manifestos? That way lies dictatorship.
This is not a presidential election with only two candidates. A General Election is a multi-party election and other parties cannot be excluded or treated with bias because they will not form the next government. On the flawed premise that the debate should be between the leaders of the only two parties who could form a new UK government the inclusion of the Lib-Dems is wrong. Could you explain why, in terms of forming the next UK government, the no-hopers of the Lib-Dems have a "moral" right to be on that platform when the SNP, PC, Greens and all the rest don't?
The people furth of Scotland may have no interest in the policies of the SNP but the SNP will have a huge impact on them if they gain independence for Scotland. It's also disingenuous to assume that the debate between the Lib-Dems, Labour and the Tories will have any relevance to Scotland. As an example, in the huge raft of policy announcements that Brown made at the Labour Conference as a starting gun for the General Election very few mattered to Scotland as the rest referred to devolved matters handled by the Scottish Parliament
The idea that there should be a Lib-Lab-Con debate across the UK with Scotland having another sub-debate is biased nonsense. In that case the Lib-Lab-Cons would get two party broadcasts in Scotland and the SNP one. It also downgrades the status of the SNP as Alex Salmond doesn't get to debate with the other party leaders he gets to debate with two regional lieutenants and an MSP group leader if it's Goldie, Scott and Gray on the platform, the monkeys not the organ grinders.
Should we have the Greens, UKIP and the BNP who have more supporters across the UK than the SNP? Should we have all the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the various Northern Irish parties?
Yes we should. Every party should be treated impartially and no party should get an unfair advantage on the media whether it has a chance of forming the next UK government or not.
The whole idea of a UK wide "leaders" debate in addition to Party Election Broadcasts is based on metropolitan parochialism. The idea that there are parties outside London who matter and who also have to be treated impartially with a right to airtime on the media is only now surfacing in the minds of the Tarquins and Jocastas who thought this debate up. Of course in Scotland the rampant parochialism of the metropolitan media is treated as gospel by the SNP bashers.
Is David Maddox trying to suppress democracy?
Are the cybernats trying to suppress Maddoxery?
Do you agree with him Al?
Not for the first time I am left with the impression that Maddox doesn't actually have a clue about how politics works in the post devolution days.
To have a national debate in a devolved structure is actually very difficult to do.
The terms of the debate would need to be defined to ensure that the subjects under debate were those for which Westminster had responsibility.
What Maddox appears to be advocating is that Scotland, Wales, and Ireland somehow absent themselves from the ''national' debate because they are too wee to count, and it would be confusing.
Presumably if we all just pretend that we are English for the day that will resolve the issue, and democracy can triumph in his strange world.
Interestingly the Labour line is that the SNP signalling that they might go legal over this would Labour described the SNP's is described as a "sinister threat".
David Maddox uses the phrase in his peice.
C'mon David come clean, you've been offered a media role within Scottish Labour haven't you?
Don't you think readers deserve better than this sort of tripe?
I am not surprised that David Maddox believes that it is fair to deny the SNP a chance to take part in these debates.
Clearly it is his view that only the status quo should be promoted.
His peculiar view of 'democracy' is on a par with D. Milliband who said that ' the democratic voice of 26 nations had been given on the Lisbon agreement' ?
Where is my democratic choice on this issue?
I have the impression that Mr Maddox resides in the cloud cuckoo land that the status quo group of self delusionists appear to inhabit.
I would like to address is this strange allegation (Observer) that I don't understand devolution.
On the contrary I would suggest that anybody who thinks Alex Salmond should be forced on millions of voters down south are the ones who don't undertand.
This is not a devolved election, it is one for Westminster. The concept also reflects a growing presidential style of politics, which, like it or not, is becoming the reality of parliamentary campaigns (in response to Andrew BOD).
Essentially we are looking at who we hope would make the best PM, which could not include Alex Salmond.
Whilst I know it is dear to the hearts of a significant minority of Scots, independence is a fringe issue in a UK-wide election and not one which even commands majority support north of the Border.
The SNP bring nothing else to the table. The party is essentially a single issue one as the number of dropped manifesto promises from the 2007 election is increasingly showing.
For this reason the only TV debate worth having including the SNP would be one of the Westminster spokespeople on STV and/ or BBC Scotland.
-David M
On the contrary I would suggest that anybody who thinks Alex Salmond should be forced on millions of voters down south are the ones who don't undertand.
An odd misunderstanding of the issue. The SNP want to join the debate in Scotland and be treated with parity by the broadcasters in Scotland. They do not want to broadcast to the UK.
This is not a devolved election, it is one for Westminster. The concept also reflects a growing presidential style of politics, which, like it or not, is becoming the reality of parliamentary campaigns (in response to Andrew BOD).
Forgive me if I'm wrong but as far as I know the SNP are also standing for Westminster seats. A growing "style" of debate does not release the broadcasters from their duty under the Communications Act 2003, section 320, for ITV section 6 of the OFCOM regulations and for the BBC their code of practice for election broadcasting. which require them all to be impartial when dealing with political broadcasts.
Essentially we are looking at who we hope would make the best PM, which could not include Alex Salmond.
So why is Nick Clegg in the line up? Under the broadcast impartiality rules a two party broadcast doesn't even fly in England.
Whilst I know it is dear to the hearts of a significant minority of Scots, independence is a fringe issue in a UK-wide election and not one which even commands majority support north of the Border.
The SNP are a lot less fringe than the Lib-Dems and the Conservatives in Scotland.
The SNP bring nothing else to the table. The party is essentially a single issue one as the number of dropped manifesto promises from the 2007 election is increasingly showing.
So the right of a party to election broadcasts is not based on its support but by the contents of its manifesto. Which is not the way that Party Election Broadcasts are worked out. It is also a dangerous route towards the broadcasters deciding who gets to make a political broadcast based on the contents of their manifesto.
For this reason the only TV debate worth having including the SNP would be one of the Westminster spokespeople on STV and/ or BBC Scotland.
What you're saying is that the top party in Scotland should not be allowed on the same political program, broadcast in Scotland, as the second, third and fourth placed parties. This idea will be thrown out by the courts without a minute's hesitation as it breaches the law and all the broadcast guidelines.
I'm sure you'll all equally enjoy my column on this subject in tomorrow's paper. - David M
Hi David
Clearly it is absolutely crucial that journalists hold political parties to account but surely there should be some balance and fairness? You have very little good to say about the SNP and your work always seems to mirror the Nat-bashing interpretation of events frequently spun by the unionist parties and in particular the Labour party.
I buy the Scotsman most days of the week. However, given the almost constant, blatant anti-SNP interpretation which is prevalent in your work I am thinking of buying The Courier or The Herald instead. These papers by no means shy away from criticising the SNP but at least there is balance and impartiality in their coverage.
If it has become the Scotsman's official position to be an anti-SNP paper then fine. However, surely it is right to grant your readership the courtesy of letting us know? At least the Sun is up front with its readership!
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Well we'll see who doesn't understand devolved politics if this debate takes place - because if it concentrates, and I think it will, on the current ''buzzes'' like anti-social behaviour, the NHS, etc then it will have very little relevance in Scotland.
Do you think this ''Westminster'' debate will focus wholly on issues for which Westminster has sole responsibility? I think not.
I said that having a ''national'' debate in a devolved structure would be very difficult.
I predict that if this debate takes place a large amount of it, indeed the majority of it, will focus on issues about which neither Cameron nor Brown will have any say, because Holyrood has responsibility in Scotland.
I didn't say you didn't understand devolution - but I maintain that you don't seem to understand how it works, and I will add to that, that you seem confused about what this debate will actually involve.
We'll see who's right.
Correction to previous post - I meant to say that DM understands the concept of devolution, but I still don't think he understands how it works.
Mind you he's not alone in that.
"The SNP bring nothing else to the table. The party is essentially a single issue one as the number of dropped manifesto promises from the 2007 election is increasingly showing."
Wow. Way to abandon even the slightest pretence of journalistic impartiality there, Dave. I don't know if you've noticed, but (1) the SNP are a minority government without the ability to force through their manifesto, particularly when Parliament deprives them of a huge chunk of their intended budget by spending it on other things against their will; and (2) since the SNP were elected Labour has driven the UK into a serious recession, with implications which force adjustments on everyone's outlook and policies.
Labour have abandoned plenty of their manifesto promises too - electoral reform springs to mind - so are they also a "one-issue party"?
David/administrator how does your opinion sit with Mark Lazarowicz's comments?
"I see that there's been quite a bit of media coverage today and over the last few days about the issue of whether or not Alex Salmond should be given equal billing as the three other main party leaders in the leadership debates which are likely to be held in the run up to the UK General Election.
To me, the issue is pretty clear cut. Like it or not (and I don't!), the SNP is a major party in Scotland and there really is no sustainable excuse for leaving their leader out of any leadership 'head-to-head'. I think that to try and do so might indeed lead to a successful legal challenge - and also encourage the SNP in its 'victimhood' complex.
On this at least, I tend to agree with Alan Cochrane in the Daily Telegraph (!); the SNP can't reasonably be kept out of at least the Scottish debates - and let them in there so their arguments can be met head on."
http://marklazarowicz.blogspot.com/2009/10/no-reason-to-run-from-debate.html
Montague Burton - Mark Lazarowicz is entitled to his view, as is Alan Cochrane, you and anybody else for that matter. I just happen to disagree - that's the basis of democracy, competing views.
Social Democrat - Last week I was accused of being anti-Labour for my column criticising Iain Gray for having no ideas and my blog calling one of their press releases an outrage.
It's all swings and roundabouts. I do not hold a flame for any party, I just say as I see it.
As mentioned above, I know there are competing views on every issue and I don't pretend to be always right.
Cheers David. You’re right. It's your job to scrutinise and I recognise that you do so with all the political parties. Sorry if I was too sensitive and thus unjustly critical. Perhaps politics geeks like myself do tend to disproportionately notice the criticisms levelled at our favourite teams so to speak! I think SNP sympathisers tend to also be a bit more sensitive given the blatant media hostility we frequently experience (the infamous Sun and Record front pages on election day 2007 probably being the ultimate example). Mind you I've never seen anyone at an SNP conference rip up a Daily Record!!! :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home