Leadership debates, should the SNP take part?

[Undesired Walrus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8289367.stm

Quote:

The SNP may take legal action if Alex Salmond is not allowed to take part in a UK party leader TV debate ahead of the next General Election.

The BBC, ITV and BSkyB jointly proposed three live debates between the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders.

...
Mr Swinney said the SNP was prepared to be flexible, saying of the current arrangements: "It deprives the voters in Scotland of hearing the breadth of political choice that quite clearly exists here in Scotland about the input of Scotland into the UK General Election."

[gtc]

The problem is that at the last election they got fewer seats than the DUP and fewer votes than the UKIP.

If there was a debate for Scottish TV then they would have as much right to be there as anyone else, but they wouldn't be relevant for the rest of Britain.

[Francesca R]

I prefer the BBC to be politically impartial, hence the first minister for Scotland should not be in that debate. Sure there is a case for another debate with different scope and participants.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

I prefer the BBC to be politically impartial, hence the first minister for Scotland should not be in that debate. Sure there is a case for another debate with different scope and participants.

Indeed. There is no reason why a political debate should be open to people who aren't actually standing for election.

This happened in Australia in 1987. The Queensland premier tried to intervene in the Federal election despite not actually standing for a seat. The Joh for PM campaign backfired spectacularly but it did lead to the Alf for PM promotion in support of the popular sitcom.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8289367.stm

Just a question, what is the SNP:s view on immigration and multiculturalism?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Just a question, what is the SNP:s view on immigration and multiculturalism?

Pretty liberal generaly.

[geni]

Quote:

But the SNP has threatened to seek to block the screening in Scotland of any debate which did not include Scottish First Minister Mr Salmond.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8289367.stm

Heh usualy the SNP are fairly media smart but takeing a position that would involve censoring political speach? That's not something that's been tried since they stopped doing it for Gerry adams.

[funk de fino]

He should keep out of this farce.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by gtc

The problem is that at the last election they got fewer seats than the DUP and fewer votes than the UKIP.

If there was a debate for Scottish TV then they would have as much right to be there as anyone else, but they wouldn't be relevant for the rest of Britain.

nice spin

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by geni

Pretty liberal generaly.

What does this mean concretely? Would Ahmed and his family of ten be able to move to Scotland in the event of succession, even if they have no education and no way of getting a job?
Would they permit tax-payers money to be used in "immigrant schools"(if there are any).

Cant seem to find anything concrete on their website other than they want a "Green-card system" and "a fair immigration system".

[geni]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

nice spin

Not really. The various countries that have debates tend to decide who gets to take part based on:
Seats at the last election
Vote share at the last election
Projected vote share

None of which allow Mr Salmond to take part without hitting issues with UKIP or the northern Irland mob.

Of course if Mr Salmond wished to try and arange a debate between the leaders of scotish parties he would be free to do so. Equaly he is free to arrange a debate amoung minority parties in much the same way the greens and the libertarians in the US do. Of course this still presents the problem of what to do with the northern Irish parties and SNP vs PC would be a very strange debate indeed.

It could be done by vote percentage with UKIP vs SNP vs Green offering some serious entertainment value. Two pro-europe parties verses UKIP. Would be worth watching.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

nice spin

Snarky, aren't you?

Nothing I said was wrong.

[richardm]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

What does this mean concretely? Would Ahmed and his family of ten be able to move to Scotland in the event of succession, even if they have no education and no way of getting a job?

Depends on where Ahmed is moving from doesn't it? If he's moving from Leicester then I wouldn't imagine there'd be a problem. If he's moving from Abu Dhabi then I'd expect that the sort of rules that govern immigration into the UK at the moment would be adopted.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by geni

Not really. The various countries that have debates tend to decide who gets to take part based on:
Seats at the last election
Vote share at the last election
Projected vote share

None of which allow Mr Salmond to take part without hitting issues with UKIP or the northern Irland mob.

Of course if Mr Salmond wished to try and arange a debate between the leaders of scotish parties he would be free to do so. Equaly he is free to arrange a debate amoung minority parties in much the same way the greens and the libertarians in the US do. Of course this still presents the problem of what to do with the northern Irish parties and SNP vs PC would be a very strange debate indeed.

It could be done by vote percentage with UKIP vs SNP vs Green offering some serious entertainment value. Two pro-europe parties verses UKIP. Would be worth watching.

BS, spinning that the UKIP vote and the SNP vote are any way tied together or relevant when taken together is just pure crap.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by gtc

Snarky, aren't you?

Nothing I said was wrong.

Just irrelevant and meaningless use of voting figures.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by geni

It could be done by vote percentage with UKIP vs SNP vs Green offering some serious entertainment value. Two pro-europe parties verses UKIP. Would be worth watching.

Unfortunately, slightly less entertaining without Farage though. He appears to have enough self awareness to realise how ridiculous much of politics is. And certainly had enough 'savvy' (for want of a more ad hom term) to get onto the gravy train and take it for all it's worth, all the while criticising it.

[Reginald]

Have a Scotland only one. SNP, Labour, Libs and whatever passes for a conservative up there these days.

Same for Wales and the same for NI.

I don't see it as a big problem. I shouldn't think that the SNP would be very worried about what those south of the border think.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Reginald

Have a Scotland only one. SNP, Labour, Libs and whatever passes for a conservative up there these days.

Same for Wales and the same for NI.

I don't see it as a big problem. I shouldn't think that the SNP would be very worried about what those south of the border think.

I agree, unfortunately Salmond's ego dictates otherwise.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

I agree, unfortunately Salmond's ego dictates otherwise.

I've got to ask...what IS the perception of Alex Salmond in Scotland?

I don't know, but whenever he's on national TV he always comes across to me as Smugs McSmug, the smuggest man in Christendom. I don't know if this is a genuine reflection of the man or just my rabidly anti-Scottish bile rising.

[geni]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

BS, spinning that the UKIP vote and the SNP vote are any way tied together or relevant when taken together is just pure crap.

It's a UK debate not a specificaly scotish one. Thus the only meaningful vote totals are the UK wide ones. If Mr Salmond managed to arrange a scotland only debate I would assume it would be based on seat totals or vote totals within Scotland alone.

If you do try and argue that the reduced number of seats the SNP runs in should be taken into account then you are back with the issue of the Northern Irish parties.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Reginald

Have a Scotland only one. SNP, Labour, Libs and whatever passes for a conservative up there these days.

Same for Wales and the same for NI.

I don't see it as a big problem. I shouldn't think that the SNP would be very worried about what those south of the border think.

You don't see the problem with holding such a debate in Northern Irland?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by geni

You don't see the problem with holding such a debate in Northern Irland?

What? Peter Robinson gets a 'throat infection' and asks a senior DUP member to stand in? Step forward the Reverend Dr. Ian Richard Kyle Paisley.

[Architect]

Let me play devil's advocate. Legislation is intended to ensure that each political party gets an equal say; because of the London domination of the UK media, however, it is inevitable that this event will get much more widespread coverage than a Scottish event and hence the "national" (i.e. UK) parties will get proportionately more publicity. It skews the system, but in a very subtle way.

This does not happen to the same extent in the newspapers which, north of the Border, continue to be dominated by Scottish publishers. TV buys in to the UK national (read "London") bulletins, however.

Note for non UK residents: The SNP is the party of Government in the Scottish Parliament, and hence comparisons to the nutters in UKIP isn't helpful. This does nevertheless throw up some interesting questions about NI.

[Reginald]

Originally Posted by geni

You don't see the problem with holding such a debate in Northern Irland?

Well it's not like we are talking about throwing them in a ring with the gloves off.

A well moderated debate could happen.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Just irrelevant and meaningless use of voting figures.

Because in a democracy who cares about votes won, percentage of votes won or seats won, right?

I've already said that the SNP has as much right as anyone to participate in a debate for Scottish TV (although it would be exceedingly odd for someone like Salmond to participate when he wasn't actually standing for the election).

However, if we are talking about a debate for British TV then including one minor party without including other minor parties with similar voting figures would be biased.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Architect

Note for non UK residents: The SNP is the party of Government in the Scottish Parliament, and hence comparisons to the nutters in UKIP isn't helpful. This does nevertheless throw up some interesting questions about NI.

And yet we are not talking about an election for the Scottish Parliament. So the fact that it controls the Scottish Parliament is irrelevant.

So comparisons to the UKIP (in terms of votes won) or the DUP (in terms of seats won) are relevant.

However, if you want to bring in representatives in other venues then the UKIP has, according to wikipedia, around 100 parish, district and town councillors, 2 members of the House of Lords and 13 Euro MPs. The SNP has 47 MSPs, 2 Euro MPs, 7 UK MPs and 364 councillors.


I'm wondering whether, if Ken Livingstone was still the independent Mayor of London, he ought to insist on participating too.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I've got to ask...what IS the perception of Alex Salmond in Scotland?

I don't know, but whenever he's on national TV he always comes across to me as Smugs McSmug, the smuggest man in Christendom. I don't know if this is a genuine reflection of the man or just my rabidly anti-Scottish bile rising.

I am an SNP supporter and he is a very clever man, but his ego is slightly running amok IMO.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by gtc

Because in a democracy who cares about votes won, percentage of votes won or seats won, right?

I've already said that the SNP has as much right as anyone to participate in a debate for Scottish TV (although it would be exceedingly odd for someone like Salmond to participate when he wasn't actually standing for the election).

However, if we are talking about a debate for British TV then including one minor party without including other minor parties with similar voting figures would be biased.

It is either seats or number. You use both.

I have never said he should be involved in the UK debate, try again. Your use of differing standards for deciding he could or could not, were spin.

How many Tory MP's are there in Scottish constituencies?

[gtc]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

It is either seats or number. You use both.

Why either/or? Why shouldn't we look at both? This makes no sense.

Originally Posted by funk de fino

I have never said he should be involved in the UK debate, try again.

You didn't make your position clear at all. It was the natural interpretation of what you wrote.

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Your use of differing standards for deciding he could or could not, were spin.

I had no way of knowing that this was your point. It is an exceedingly odd argument to mount. Why shouldn't we look at both votes won and seats won?

Originally Posted by funk de fino

How many Tory MP's are there in Scottish constituencies?

They received 1 seat and 15.8% of the Scottish vote. The SNP received 17.7% of the vote and 6 seats. However, this is completely irrelevant* to whether the SNP, let alone Alex Salmond, ought to participate as the fourth party in the UK wide debate.

As I have already said, it would be odd if the SNP didn't get to participate in a debate for Scottish TV. Given their percentage of vote I would think it would also be odd if the Tories didn't get to participate.

*Another reason why it is irrelevant is the SNP won no seats in England, Wales or Northern Ireland and the Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems won no seats at all in Northern Ireland.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Architect

The SNP is the party of Government in the Scottish Parliament, and hence comparisons to the nutters in UKIP isn't helpful.

1) Some nutters who want Britain out of the EU
2) Some nutters who want Scotland out of the UK

Same difference, no?

[Lothian]

I am coming round to the view that there should only be a Tory in the 'debate'.

Now they are staring to come out with policies the other parties will feel the swing coming back their way.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by gtc

Why either/or? Why shouldn't we look at both? This makes no sense.

You use one or the other. Yoiu either use seats won or you use votes won. I could say that they won more seats than the UKIP or that their percentage vote was greater than hee haw McGraw. I could have spun it.

Originally Posted by gtc

You didn't make your position clear at all. It was the natural interpretation of what you wrote.

Let me see, how can you not be clear on this reply

Originally Posted by FdF

He should keep out of this farce.

Originally Posted by gtc

I had no way of knowing that this was your point. It is an exceedingly odd argument to mount. Why shouldn't we look at both votes won and seats won?

Why not mention seats and votes for both then?

Originally Posted by gtc

They received 1 seat and 15.8% of the Scottish vote. The SNP received 17.7% of the vote and 6 seats. However, this is completely irrelevant* to whether the SNP, let alone Alex Salmond, ought to participate as the fourth party in the UK wide debate.

As I have already said, it would be odd if the SNP didn't get to participate in a debate for Scottish TV. Given their percentage of vote I would think it would also be odd if the Tories didn't get to participate.

*Another reason why it is irrelevant is the SNP won no seats in England, Wales or Northern Ireland and the Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems won no seats at all in Northern Ireland.

So the Tories are irrelevant for Scotland? At a pinch they may get two in total next year while the SNP may gain considerably.

Did the SNP contest seats in other places? Did I say he should be in the debate?

Think carefully before you answer this time.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

1) Some nutters who want Britain out of the EU
2) Some nutters who want Scotland out of the UK

Same difference, no?

Yes, if you are deluded enough to think that right wing and left wing are the same.

Wouldn't get you very far in the USA.

How about this

3. Some nutters who want Scotland IN the EU.

[gtc]

funk de fino,

I can't make sense of your posts. The points you are trying to make are not at all obvious.

The SNP are a minor party at the UK level when you look at either the number of seats won or the number of votes won in 2005.

If the SNP was allowed to participate then it would be unfair not to allow the UKIP and the DUP to also participate. Sinn Fein (who won 5 seats at the last election to the SNP's 6) might also claim that it would be unfair if they weren't allowed to participate. Even the BNP and the Greens might gripe (although with less reason) as they both won more votes than the SNP at the last European Parliament elections.

The reverse is true in Scotland. If a debate were held in Scotland then it would be unfair to allow the Tories to participate but not the SNP. Just as it would be unfair not to allow Plaid Cymru to participate in a debate in Wales.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

I am an SNP supporter and he is a very clever man, but his ego is slightly running amok IMO.

It's not that, the SNP reaction is quite understandable given their usual filter of "What will help move us closer to creating a new country?" He will play this as "another" example of Scotland being so-called "marginalised" by the English.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by gtc

funk de fino,

I can't make sense of your posts. The points you are trying to make are not at all obvious.

The SNP are a minor party at the UK level when you look at either the number of seats won or the number of votes won in 2005.

If the SNP was allowed to participate then it would be unfair not to allow the UKIP and the DUP to also participate. Sinn Fein (who won 5 seats at the last election to the SNP's 6) might also claim that it would be unfair if they weren't allowed to participate. Even the BNP and the Greens might gripe (although with less reason) as they both won more votes than the SNP at the last European Parliament elections.

The reverse is true in Scotland. If a debate were held in Scotland then it would be unfair to allow the Tories to participate but not the SNP. Just as it would be unfair not to allow Plaid Cymru to participate in a debate in Wales.

Wait a minute, lets not get past this. Tell me this, was this clear enough to say I did not think Salmond should take part in this?

Originally Posted by FdF

He should keep out of this farce

[gtc]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Wait a minute, lets not get past this.

You ought to get past it as it is not addressing the thread

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Tell me this, was this clear enough to say I did not think Salmond should take part in this?

Since you asked, the meaning behind your posts in this thread has not been at all clear.

You have posted one suggestion that the event is a farce and Salmond should not participate. The rest of your posts appear to be saying that the SNP is important enough to participate (although the reasons why are not clear).

The only interpretation that I can could place on your posts is that you think Salmond shouldn't participate because the event itself is a farce but that the SNP deserves to participate because it is somehow important enough to do so.

Now to the actual topic.

This is what I have said:

Quote:

The SNP are a minor party at the UK level when you look at either the number of seats won or the number of votes won in 2005.

The reverse is true in Scotland.

You seem to disagree. Do you care to explain why?

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by gtc

You ought to get past it as it is not addressing the thread

Its addressing your false claim. Is it clear enough from that, that Salmond should avoid this debate?

PS Thread title = Leadership debates, should the SNP take part?

[gtc]

I have said that your point was not clear, now move on.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by gtc

I have said that your point was not clear, now move on.

So, my saying that Salmond should avoid the debate was in fact making the case for him taking part?

You need to help me on this one.

My other points were not related to anyone taking part they were purely about you cherrypicking data.

Do you think the fourth party in any debate, in any location, should not take part, and is this based on seats or votes?

Or how far down the list do you want to go?