Home > Alex Massie

Monday 21 May 2012

Shock: the SNP are Right to Complain About the Debates

Sunday, 25th April 2010

No-one should be surprised that the SNP are going to court to try and change the terms and conditions of this week's final "Leaders' Debate". What may be more surprising is that the Nationalists have a point. A limited point perhaps but a palpable one nonetheless. The BBC would indeed seem to be abandoning its commitment (questionable at the best of times anyway, mind) to "balance" and "fairness" by broadcasting the debates in Scotland (and Wales) without any nationalist involvement.

It is not a satisfactory situation. Nor, however is the proposed SNP solution: include an SNP politician in the BBC debate. It is hard to see what value this would add for English viewers who do, after all, make up 85% of the electorate. I suspect, mind you, that the SNP's actual preference would be for the debate not to be screened by BBC Scotland but that they've pursued this other argument for fear of being "framed" as chippy wee buggers who want to deny you the right to see the leading (though not only!) candidates to be the next Prime Minister. Hence the argument that they should be included in this last talk-fest.

The problem with this is that including the SNP in these debates would be akin to including, in the American example, a candidate who was only on the ballot in five states. Even if he were able to command a plurality of the vote in those states, they'd still only be five states. Now you may object that we elect a parliament not a Prime Minister but that boat is already sailing - for better or for worse. (A bit of both, to be honest.)

Fortunately there is an obvious and easy solution to the Scottish Debate Problem: there should have been a fourth debate* in which the SNP (and Plaid Cymru) were also invited to participate alonside Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg. Debates between Jim Murphy, David Mundell and Angus Robertson are all very well but they're not quite the Champions League are they?

It's not as if there aren't plenty of issues worth discussing. Voters in Scotland and Wales could be forgiven for wondering what Cameron and Brown and Clegg think about post-devolution relationships, more powers for Wales, the future of the block grant and the West Lothian Question, plus the Calman Commission and a referendum on independence. Plus, you know, all the other issues that don't necessarily have anything to do with constitutional arrangements.

As I say, voters in Wales and Scotland have a good case for feeling ignored or overlooked by the BBC (and, for that matter, by much of the campaign too.)

The SNP have a valid complaint but their solution is equally flawed. An extra debate involving the party leaders and not their subalterns is probably the best of all possible answers. Something to remember if - as is not certain - these debates become a fixture of the British political scene.

For more on all this see Kenneth Roy and Joan McAlpine.

UPDATE: I should also have said that we do things oddly in this country. Take Canada for instance. There they managed to include five leaders in their debates including the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party. As best I can tell this caused little to no controversy. Then again, it's Canada...

Relatedly: has David Cameron even been to either Scotland or Wales yet? I know that he was unable to get a train to come to the launch of the Scottish manifesto but have not heard whether he's planning even a brief visit north of the border to "make up" for missing that glittering event and spectacle. Has Brown been here? Clegg? Not so one notices anyway... UPDATE: Commnters assure me that Dave has been spotted in Caledonia. Which is good.

*Shown on BBC1 in Scotland and Wales and on BBC2 in England.

Filed under: Debates (25 more articles) , Election 2010 (599 more articles) , SNP (218 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (11)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Will Patterson

April 25th, 2010 3:36pm Report this comment

Posting as a resident of England, I do grow tired of hearing that the SNP position is of no use or relevance to English voters. I find it slightly crazy that I have to remind everyone involved that this is a UK-wide election, electing members of the UK Parliament to handle UK-wide issues.

Now, regardless of the SNP's stance on the Union, they do engage with the Union Parliament and until dissolution, had seven votes within it. Even leaving aside the possibility of a hung parliament, a three-figure majority was reduced to just five over English university tuition fees in 2004, while 2008 saw Northern Ireland's DUP have what could effectively be called a casting vote on UK-wide terror detention.

If the DUP can find themselves in that position despite a Labour majority of ~60 seats in the Commons, there's no reason why the SNP can't end up affecting UK policy as the DUP did. Consequently, it's important for English voters to at least hear the opinions of people who could well affect the course of policy in the next Parliament - that includes the SNP.

Bob

April 25th, 2010 3:53pm Report this comment

Yes, Cameron has been to Scotland.

Rhoda Klapp

April 25th, 2010 4:37pm Report this comment

BNP and UKIP have a better and more valid complaint, in that they contest enough seats to at least have a hope of putting up a PM. The SNP could win every seat they contest and still would not get called to the palace. And then there's the Greens, or Plaid. These debates are not a required part of the electoral process, better if the participants are invited by the TV channels. Anybody who objects can put up their own debate show. Oh, and Salmond is an arse.

montanareddog

April 25th, 2010 6:25pm Report this comment

Alex would be right if this were not yet another transparent attempt by an identity politics-based organisation to play the victim card.

Wilhelm

April 25th, 2010 6:56pm Report this comment

''Salmond is an arse''

Name calling is childish and immature, Luv.

Rhoda Klapp

April 25th, 2010 10:54pm Report this comment

Wilhelm. Sorry, I didn't know there was anybody who was not aware.

ndm

April 25th, 2010 11:47pm Report this comment

A good reason to watch Armando Ianucci discussing viewers in Scotland.

another spectator

April 26th, 2010 12:16am Report this comment

The SNP would be delighted with any solution which met with standards of fairness in broadcasts during General Elections. The House of Commons Library and OFCOM's own documents describe what constitutes a 'main party' in each nation of the UK. This is not difficult, either the broadcasters should have found a way to substitute an election campaign with some 'TV Debates' that satisfied the needs for fair representation, or they should have let the parties figure out how to campaign for themselves.

The SNP are entirely correct to seek some representation in some way in these 'debates'. If they do not, the three 'main parties' as defined for England get more representation in Scotland than the party in (minority) government at Holyrood.
If viewers in England would be offended or irritated by having SNP (or Plaid) on their telly, that is matter for the broadcasters to figure out. The need for fairness is paramount - the debates oughtn't to have gone ahead simply because the broadcasters couldn't (or didn't want) to find a good solution.

The onus is not on them to dictate the solution.

Noa Zrk

April 26th, 2010 12:28am Report this comment

A debate to include SNP? Plaid? DUP?

Yes, it give exposure to the selfish shallowness of their willingness to trade national for provincial and sectarian interests.

UKIP, the BNP, EDL and even the Greens have a greater sense of national responsibility and honour.

I suspect the debate that you propose will convince English viewers that their best future is obtained by ridding themselves of the celtic crosses they have to bear.

David Bouvier

April 26th, 2010 10:00am Report this comment

Simply no case to answer. If the Scots Nationalists don't like the incoherence of their constitutional arrangements then they should change them, rather than want the rest of the UK to accommodate them.

Should should anyone with a realistic prospect of a few percent of the Westminster vote get to be included?

Fairness in elections does not mean giving equal airtime to every eccentric and obsessive, or every minority party.

The SNP were given a chance to comment on the debates afterwards for a few minutes. Sounds about right.

If there is going to be a fourth debate, why not make it about Greater London - which is larger than Scotland and also has its own issues - and invite random politicians elected through unrelated regional elections - e.g. Boris. That makes as much or more sense.

(PS - this is intended to be a reductio ad absurdem arguement - not a plea for another debate)

JohnMcDonald

April 26th, 2010 11:35am Report this comment

"Should should anyone with a realistic prospect of a few percent of the Westminster vote get to be included?"

If only it was sophistry, you could credit some of these silly comments with intellectual merit.

The SNP has a case and tomorrow, in an Edinburgh court, we will see if it has a legal case.

I don't want to see the debate blacked out in England and I don't even necessarily want to see the SNP included in a debate broadcast in England.

But it just doesn't stand any logical examination that the SNP should be excluded from the debate shown in Scotland. To do so would be the most appalling attack on democracy and plain, simple fairness.

Post comment