The spokesman said the SNP would not tolerate "the London parties ganging up to deny First Minister Alex Salmond the right to speak for Scotland" on television in the run-up to the General Election.Moving on from the right of the leader of a minority administration, which has the votes of somewhat less than the majority of the electorate, to speak for all of that electorate, the reason behind the SNP outburst is this inoffensive-sounding offer:
Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have written a joint letter to the First Minister, calling on him to accept their invitation.
The move comes amid a row over a televised UK debate ahead of the General Election.
Mr Salmond wants to join any televised debate with UK leaders David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, and has threatened to take legal action to stop any debate featuring only the UK leaders being shown in Scotland.
But now, his opponents say he has "refused" to accept their own offers.
Well, not quite accurate:
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said he welcomed the debates and had received the letters from the various parties.
OK, it is accompanied by a rant that's almost Chavez-esque in its manufactured indignation and punctured self-importance, but that still looks very much like a "Bring it on" to me.
13 comments:
OK then, so if Alex can speak in the UK leaders' deabate, will all the NI party leaders be invited and Plaid Cymri as well? I think Alex has got just a wee bit up himself. He is not the leader of a UK party, merely the minority government in Scotland. In fact, when one stops to think about it, the only UK leader is David Cameron, cos his is the only party represented in all 4 countries of the UK. Is it worth putting this to Master Salmond?
It's not the post of First Minister that gives him equal billing with Brown, Cameron and Clegg, it's the fact that he is a party leader for one of the main party's in Scotland and that salient point means that he has a right to be on the platform with the other three party leaders in Scotland for a broadcast in Scotland. Goldie, Clegg and Gray don't count as they are not party leaders. This is a Westminster election. What you would have in a Scottish debate is Alex Salmond as a party leader debating with Goldie, Scott and Gray, two regional managers and an office manager, on matters reserved for Westminster. Only Alex Salmond has the authority and party position to guide and to develop the Westminster policies for his party. Goldie, Scott and Gray would be debating on matters they have absolutely no authority to influence.
I've watched Annabel Goldie's statement on the offer and her knowledge of the political impartiality requirements for broadcasting in both Scotland and the UK is lamentable. Especially for a regional leader.
The three important pieces of legislation and guidelines are the Communications Act 2003 ,the OFCOM and the BBC guidelines.
The OFCOM guidelines define the SNP as major party in Scotland along with the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems. For any political broadcast broadcast in Scotland unless they are all treated on an equal footing then it will be illegal under the guidelines.
In the BBC guidelines, point 3, they acknowledge that they must take into account the different governmental and political situation in Scotland in their editorial decisions:
To achieve this we must ensure that:
3. they are aware of the different political structures in the four nations of the United Kingdom and that they are reflected in the election coverage of each nation. Programmes shown across the UK should also take this into account.
There are some fundamental misunderstanding about the SNP case to be included in a party leaders' TV debate. The first one is that the SNP are demanding to be allowed onto the debate. It's actually the other way round. The broadcasters are desperately casting around to find legal ways to disallow the SNP from being on the broadcast because the SNP have the law on their side. Despite the guidelines the broadcasters are trying to impose a partial political broadcast on Scotland.
The second is that the SNP want to be part of a UK broadcast. What the SNP want is to be part of any party leaders debate broadcast in Scotland.
The third misunderstanding is that a second debate broadcast with the leaders in the Scottish Parliament would make up for the lack of representation on the party leaders' debate. This wouldn't make the first SNP-less debate legal under the broadcast rules. It would still be a partial political broadcast. It also would mean that the Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and the Labour party would get two bites at the cherry. Their representatives would get airtime on two broadcasts but the SNP only on one.
The party leaders of the four major parties in Scotland are Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond. Unless they all get on a TV debate together that debate will be illegal if broadcast in Scotland.
The offer from Goldie, Clegg and Gray is just a distraction from the LibLabCon alliance to try and keep Alex Salmond off the party leaders' debate in Scotland.
I've noticed two typos in the first and last paragraphs in my previous post. I wrote, "Goldie, Clegg and Gray", when I should have written, "Goldie, Scott and Gray".
The golden rule being never to post when you're in a hurry.
he golden rule being never to post when you're in a hurry
As you can tell from my 2 day delayed reply, nothing has been happening in a hurry on here recently, so feel free to take your time in future;)
Couple of points I want to make to your first post, I'll try to do so in more detail tonight.
It's not the post of First Minister that gives him equal billing with Brown, Cameron and Clegg, it's the fact that he is a party leader for one of the main party's in Scotland and that salient point means that he has a right to be on the platform with the other three party leaders in Scotland for a broadcast in Scotland. Goldie, Clegg and Gray don't count as they are not party leaders.
Your first sentence is more subjective than objective as is my reply. This is a Uk-wide debate which also just happens to be shown in Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland involving the 2 candidates, Brown and Cameron, who are in the running for the Prime-Ministership of the United Kingdom. Salmond (and admitedly Clegg) obviously is not in the running for that position. An argument against Clegg being involved and indeed the whole concept of such an US style media gimmick would be a stronger one than the point you’ve made here
Goldie, Scott and Gray would be debating on matters they have absolutely no authority to influence.
They have no influence whatsoever on the UK leadership and its policies? A rather sweeping statement surely? One of either Goldie or Gray’s parties will be the party of government of the UK after the next General Election- that, combined with the additional fact that they are the leaders of the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Labour party surely entitles them to the right to be allowed to a TV debate with either Salmond or one his minions?
The three important pieces of legislation and guidelines are the Communications Act 2003 ,the OFCOM and the BBC guidelines.
That is an objective point. If legally it can’t happen, then it can’t happen. In that case do you think Salmond will grant Goldie and Gray the luxury of a TV debate solely to be broadcast in Scotland?
The second is that the SNP want to be part of a UK broadcast. What the SNP want is to be part of any party leaders debate broadcast in Scotland.
Ah right. So, they want Salmond to participate in a debate with the UK’s two PM candidates about issues arising from a UK general election, but they’re happy enough for that to be only broadcast in Scotland, not the whole UK? In the bigger UK picture, how do they envisage this all working? There’ll be a Cameron and Brown TV Roadshow touring the UK popping into a different regional TV studio every night to chew the cud with the local worthies?
The third misunderstanding is that a second debate broadcast with the leaders in the Scottish Parliament would make up for the lack of representation on the party leaders' debate. This wouldn't make the first SNP-less debate legal under the broadcast rules. It would still be a partial political broadcast. It also would mean that the Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and the Labour party would get two bites at the cherry. Their representatives would get airtime on two broadcasts but the SNP only on one.
As I said before, the legal question is the objective one. However, if the law does come down on Salmond’s side, but Cameron and Braown decide to continue with the debate regardless, given modern technology (eg You Tube) it’ll be impossible for the SNP to prevent the Scottish electorate from seeing any debate broadcast elsewhere in the UK. Loss-loss-loss for the nats; whether you consider it entirely fair or not the headlines will be of “intolerant SNP censorship”, whilst the public, if they really want, will still get to see the debate anyway and finally Salmond will be left to argue the toss with the regional managers, as you describe them- or face the charge of running from debate.
The Dug
Masterful. The Unionists prefer hyperbole to facts.
Oneil
Strawmen arguments don't really substitute for substance.
The first sentence is objective. A debate billed as a leaders' party debate in Scotland would have to involve the leaders of the four main parties in Scotland to make it legal. These four main parties are the SNP, Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Conservatives and are defined as such in the OFCOM guidelines. Their leaders are Salmond, Brown, Clegg and Cameron as Goldie, Scott and Gray are not party leaders.
A one-on-one between Brown and Cameron is obviously what the broadcasters want as these are the two who have the possibility of becoming PM but they had to invite Clegg as they had a vague idea that the impartiality legislation and guidelines required this. What none of the broadcasters did was actually read the legislation and guidelines which treat Scotland, Wales and NI as being covered by separate requirements.
Alex Salmond is leader of the SNP. Goldie, Scott and Gray are not party leaders. There are no Scottish Conservative, Scottish Labour or Scottish Lib-Dem parties and non-parties can't have leaders. Have a look in the Electoral Register's register of political parties. You won't find them. For a party leaders' debate broadcast in Scotland they don't count and unlike Alex Salmond they have no authority over their parties' MP's in Westminster. Alex Salmond debating with Goldie, Scott and Gray would be pointless in a Westminster election as none of the three non-party leaders have any authority outside the Scottish Parliament and the devolved powers given to it.
The SNP only have the legal right within Scotland to insist that they are treated as equal to the other big three and what would be the point in broadcasting to the UK? For other coverage during the election the impartiality requirements will still require equal airtime for all four main parties in Scotland whatever "roadshows" Brown, Cameron and Clegg do.
If the courts ban a program from being shown in Scotland then any internet company, broadcaster or individual will have the Scottish courts after them if they broadcast that program and make it available in Scotland. The courts don't like their authority being flouted.
The last time a program was banned from being shown in Scotland was when the Lib-Dems and Labour went through the courts to ban an interview with John Major from being shown before the Scottish local elections in 1995. The BBC shut off the transmitters in Scotland, NI and Northern England because the knew the consequences of anyone in Scotland receiving the program in defiance of the court ban.
It's not the post of First Minister that gives him equal billing with Brown, Cameron and Clegg, it's the fact that he is a party leader for one of the main party's in Scotland and that salient point means that he has a right to be on the platform with the other three party leaders in Scotland for a broadcast in Scotland. Goldie, Clegg and Gray don't count as they are not party leaders.
The first sentence is objective. A debate billed as a leaders' party debate in Scotland would have to involve the leaders of the four main parties in Scotland to make it legal.
No, two reasons why it’s subjective. You’ve stated it will be a billed as a leaders’ party debate which presumes that the TV companies’ lawyers are as ill-informed as you say Ms Goldie is about the legal position. Does every current affairs/political programme broadcast in Scotland include representatives of all four parties (genuine question)? Secondly Goldie, Gray and the whomever the LD bloke is may not be leaders of separate Scottish parties but they are their party’s regional leaders in Scotland. Semantics perhaps, but you haven’t given conclusive evidence as to whether Ofcom does or would see their position in exactly the same way as you do.
For a party leaders' debate broadcast in Scotland they don't count and unlike Alex Salmond they have no authority over their parties' MP's in Westminster. Alex Salmond debating with Goldie, Scott and Gray would be pointless in a Westminster election as none of the three non-party leaders have any authority outside the Scottish Parliament and the devolved powers given to it.
I see you’ve walked quietly away from the claim in your first post that they have no influence over affairs in Westminster...they clearly do. They are also perfectly capable of speaking about how their party’s policies may or may not affect the people of Scotland. With your use of the word “Pointless” there implies that, as Salmond often does, only the SNP have the right to speak for the Scottish electorate?
The SNP only have the legal right within Scotland to insist that they are treated as equal to the other big three and what would be the point in broadcasting to the UK?
It’s primarily supposed to be a debate about who will be the next Prime-Minister of the United Kingdom and the citizens of the UK, even in Scotland may be interested in such a debate perhaps?
And your use of that "to the Uk" in the last sentence, are you implying that somehow Scotland has already left the UK?
If the courts ban a program from being shown in Scotland then any internet company, broadcaster or individual will have the Scottish courts after them if they broadcast that program and make it available in Scotland. The courts don't like their authority being flouted.
The last time a program was banned from being shown in Scotland was when the Lib-Dems and Labour went through the courts to ban an interview with John Major from being shown before the Scottish local elections in 1995. The BBC shut off the transmitters in Scotland, NI and Northern England because the knew the consequences of anyone in Scotland receiving the program in defiance of the court ban.
You’re being extremely naïve here. Technology has come on leaps and bound since 1995-to give but one example You Tube. If I can, by hook or by crook, get access to the debate rest assured I (and I guess at least dozens of other bloggers) will post it up asap. How exactly do the SNP or the courts then plan to stop my Scottish readers being able to access it? And by even trying isn’t it a bit reminiscent of the kind of behaviour practised by dictatorial regimes in places such as Burma, China, Saudi Arabia?
For a party so normally au fait with the potential of the various online media, the SNP must realise there is no way that they can prevent the Scottish electorate from getting access to the debate and in a democracy where theoretically we have free speech it could backfire on them dramatically from a PR pov if they even try.
Every current affairs/political program broadcast in Scotland doesn't have to include representatives of all four parties though the broadcasters have to be impartial over a series of programs however a single high profile multi-party debate broadcast during an election campaign is something entirely different.
As far as Goldie, Scott and Gray go, it looks increasingly likely that the SNP's request for the broadcasters to follow the guidelines and legislation and allow them on the debate will end up in court. At that point it will be the courts who will look at the legislation and the guidelines not OFCOM. For evidence of who is a party leader the courts will look at the Electoral Commission's register of political parties which also registers the party leader. Goldie, Scott and Gray are not in evidence anywhere in that register.
Goldie, Scott and Gray have no influence over affairs in Westminster as their status in their respective parties is minimal. There are "Shadow Teams" in the Conservative party for various areas of policy and Goldie isn't even on the Scotland Shadow team. Scott isn't on the Lib-Dems Federal Executive and Gray isn't on Labour's NEC. As the Scottish "leaders" they seem strangely absent in the power structures of their respective parties. Salmond does not have the only right to speak for the Scottish people but he's the only one out of the four leaders in the Scottish Parliament who can speak on Westminster policy.
It’s primarily supposed to be a debate about who will be the next Prime-Minister of the United Kingdom and the citizens of the UK
The "Presidential Debate" concept that the broadcasters dream about is where the "West Wing" dreams of the broadcasters hit the cold, hard daylight of the impartiality legislation. They might want it but it is not allowed.
If the broadcasters overide the legislation which was put in place to ensure that political parties got a fair share of broadcast time then that is a dictatorial regime and if the SNP stop the debate in Scotland it will be a PR coup because they have been refused the chance to debate with the other party leaders in Scotland. As far as the internet goes a court order against youtube to stop the broadcast of the English only debate is one possibility but as long as the broadcast is stopped across the usual broadcast media then that will probably be sufficent. Once the election has occurred it doesn't matter anymore.
Apologies once again for the delay in replying:
Every current affairs/political program broadcast in Scotland doesn't have to include representatives of all four parties though the broadcasters have to be impartial over a series of programs however a single high profile multi-party debate broadcast during an election campaign is something entirely different.
That would appear to leave the door slightly ajar, depending on how they decide to define of the programme
As far as Goldie, Scott and Gray go, it looks increasingly likely that the SNP's request for the broadcasters to follow the guidelines and legislation and allow them on the debate will end up in court.
Good, then hopefully we can get a definitive legal ruling, rather than the subjective guesswork which is taking place at the minute.
Goldie, Scott and Gray have no influence over affairs in Westminster as their status in their respective parties is minimal. There are "Shadow Teams" in the Conservative party for various areas of policy and Goldie isn't even on the Scotland Shadow team. Scott isn't on the Lib-Dems Federal Executive and Gray isn't on Labour's NEC. As the Scottish "leaders" they seem strangely absent in the power structures of their respective parties. Salmond does not have the only right to speak for the Scottish people but he's the only one out of the four leaders in the Scottish Parliament who can speak on Westminster policy.
Unless you’ve got the inside track on all three parties, you can’t tell for certain what influence they may have over affairs in Westminster...and isn’t Goldie a “a participative member” of the Shadow cabinet? And whatever their position in the “power structures”, they are all perfectly capable of speaking on Westminster policy.
If the broadcasters overide the legislation which was put in place to ensure that political parties got a fair share of broadcast time then that is a dictatorial regime and if the SNP stop the debate in Scotland it will be a PR coup because they have been refused the chance to debate with the other party leaders in Scotland.
Both of us should probably leave it up to the public to decide for whom it would/will be a PR coup.
As far as the internet goes a court order against youtube to stop the broadcast of the English only debate is one possibility but as long as the broadcast is stopped across the usual broadcast media then that will probably be sufficent.
Again, you are being naïve about the possibilities of modern technology (Youtube was given only as an example but even there, how long do you think it would take the programme to be up before it would go viral?). The SNP and the courts can attempt to censor the live tv broadcast of the programme within Scotland, that’s all.
Recordings of the programme broadcast outside Scotland will find their way onto the internet, that's a castiron certainty and unless Salmond is proposing a Chinese-style complete censorship curtain on the internet, there will be no way he’ll be able to deny those Scots who wish to watch the programme their democratic right in a free society to do so.
Once the election has occurred it doesn't matter anymore.
I’m prepared to bet you now a tenner, winnings paid to the favourite charity, that if the programme is censored in Scotland, within 24 hours of original broadcast Scottish viewers will be able to access it in full one way or another.
We will be able to watch it live on digital oneil. point is that democracy will have been defeated. You guys still may wish the likes of us to know our place, things have changed though and we are no longer content to let our 'betters' tell us what to do(we will leave that to you guys)
The publicity generated(even in the face of a seriously hostile media) will get the backs up in Scotland that the wee guy is getting a raw deal. hard for the unionist parties to spin away from that obvious conclusion i'd suggest.
"We will be able to watch it live on digital oneil. point is that democracy will have been defeated"
It'll only be defeated if you're forced to watch it- which you won't. But those that do wish to watch it shouldn't be denied that opportunity in a democracy.
But, yep, you've proved my point about the technical impossibility of censoring the debate.
And you have beginning to make me think that you are no democrat.
Seriously!
Democracy may not always work the way you or I like it but your attitude to it's implementation over a debate that will potentially affect the political future of my country is highly questionable.
Post a Comment