UK TV debate

[ddt]

I hope you've been following the "Zinoviev Letter" scandal in which the Torygraph has sought to embroil Nicola Sturgeon following her impressive Leaders' Debate performance.

I didn't know the French ambassador is the secretary-general of the Komintern.

Do I understand correctly that what transpired is:
1) in February, the French ambassador visited Holyrood and spoke, a.o., with Nicola Sturgeon.
2) shortly after, the French Consul-General in Edinburg phoned the Foreign Office with a report of the meeting.
3) the Torygraph now published the alleged memo which states that allegedly Nicola Sturgeon expressed a preference for Cameron to stay in power.
4) and the same Foreigng Office that would have leaked this memo is now tasked with investigating the leak.

I don't know who is smeared more by this. Nicola Sturgeon by having put words in her mouth that are just not credible. Or the Torypgraph for such a silly forgery. Or the French ambassador and/or CG.

The Independent writes:

Conversations between visiting ambassadors and leaders of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are, as a diplomatic courtesy, conveyed to the Foreign Office. They are, however, usually kept confidential.

Does anyone know if this is true? It seems to me a strange rule, as political sensitive issues may be discussed and the political dynamics in the devolved regions may be wildly different from Westminster.

But even if that rule is true, and if Nicola Sturgeon had said that to the French ambassador, it would be evidence of a complete lack of political acumen if they had conveyed that statement to the Foreign Office. And thus, true or not, the "leak" is a smear on the French diplomats.

Yes. That's why Murphy latched so quickly on to the Telegraph story about Sturgeon's alleged remarks to the French diplomats. The three establishment parties seem extremely disturbed about the SNP gaining a majority of Scottish Commons seats. I expect more signs of panic from them all.

Are you suggesting Labour is behind it?

 

[ddt]

I don't think independence for Scotland is a dead issue, in that if there was another referendum, yes could prevail. It is dead in the sense that neither big party will concede to another referendum any time soon though, and given that, the SNP will not demand one (because failure to obtain one is not a great outcome).

But there's a big chance that the SNP will hold the balance of power after the elections. They can demand a referendum in return for confidence and supply. Or, maybe smarter, because two referenda in as many years is a bit odd, demand devo-max, i.e., independence in all but name.

ETA: or at least the guarantee that Holyrood will not be dissolved, a proposal that has been rejected by the Scottish Secretary.

 

[Francesca R]

the SNP is the third largest party in the UK

You still have to wait a month.

 

[Francesca R]

But there's a big chance that the SNP will hold the balance of power after the elections. They can demand a referendum in return for confidence and supply.

Holding the balance of power is over rated. Such a demand will not be conceded under any circumstances IMO. Labour would still be the senior partner, to put it mildly.

 

[Craig B]

But there's a big chance that the SNP will hold the balance of power after the elections. They can demand a referendum in return for confidence and supply. Or, maybe smarter, because two referenda in as many years is a bit odd, demand devo-max, i.e., independence in all but name.

ETA: or at least the guarantee that Holyrood will not be dissolved, a proposal that has been rejected by the Scottish Secretary.

We're supposed to be getting Devo-max anyway. The "Vow", remember?

 

[Craig B]

Are you suggesting Labour is behind it?

No. At least I don't think so. But they made immediate and uncritical use of it.

 

[ddt]

No. At least I don't think so. But they made immediate and uncritical use of it.

Maybe Jim Murphy sniffed some glue, thought it a good idea and phoned the Torygraph? I dunno, I'm just piecing together some of the information you're feeding here.

 

[ddt]

We're supposed to be getting Devo-max anyway. The "Vow", remember?

So did you? And when would you be getting it? Before Xmas, without mention of the year?

 

[ddt]

In some countries you have to get a threshold vote share to get into parliament at all. This is why the Free Democrats can't be part of Germany's coalition any more.

It's funny you should mention Germany.

You missed where this is a national election, for a national parliament. You also probably forgot that you lost the independence referendum. Not everything in the Britain revolves around Scotland you know.

But you have an election system where MPs are elected as representing a constituency. They are in Westminster for the national cause as much as to represent the interests of their constituency. A regional party that represents regional interests is a natural fit for success in this system, and for having a more-than-proportional number of seats in Westminster. It's a natural consequence of the system you had a referendum on, remember?

The Germans perfectly understood this, and even wrote it in their election system, which is similar to the Scottish and the Welsh: 299 German MPs are elected as a district candidate, and then it's topped up with 299 list candidates to achieve PR in the overall distribution. That is, PR for parties that either:
* reach the 5% threshold in national vote
* have 3 district MPs
And that latter clause is precisely to enable regional parties to get into parliament. That's how the PDS got into parliament. While they had a significant share of the votes in former East Germany, they only had about 4% nationally. But they had 3 district seats in former East Germany, two of them in Berlin. Well, until 2002, because then Berlin was gerrymandered.

Anyway, you have your own system, and you should accept the consequences of that.

 

[ddt]

Holding the balance of power is over rated. Such a demand will not be conceded under any circumstances IMO. Labour would still be the senior partner, to put it mildly.

But they'd like to govern, wouldn't they? And devo-max was promised anyway.

Per analogy: in the NL, we now have a coalition between Labour and the major right-of-centre party. The coalition has one design flaw: while it commands a majority in the Lower House, it does not have one in the Upper House. In order to get the bills through parliament, they have to deal with opposition parties, and the three minor parties which give them the majority in the Upper House manage to extract quite a number of concessions.

 

[MikeG]

......Anyway, you have your own system, and you should accept the consequences of that.

In a fair number of posts you have failed to show that you understand that the Scots Nats primary interest is in breaking up the very nation in whose parliament they are standing for election. A party which wants to dissolve the union should have no part in governing the union, IMHO of course. Have representation by all means, because that is democratic, but to have actual hands on the controls? Uh uh...........that's gross hypocrisy.

It's pointless telling me to deal with it and so on. I am simply pointing out that a minority Labour government propped up by a nationally-tiny anti-union party is going to render Labour as damaged goods in the eyes of millions of English voters. In doing that, I am making a prediction, not a complaint.

 

[Francesca R]

But they'd like to govern, wouldn't they?

Sure but by giving Scotland another referendum they would very likely lose rather a lot of support. They would probably prefer to propose something that the conservatives would support over needing to concede a referendum. As above I don't think it is really in the SNP's interest to demand one either. We do not need to wait long to see if I am correct.

And devo-max was promised anyway.

That's what I thought.

Per analogy: in the NL, we now have a coalition between Labour and the major right-of-centre party. The coalition has one design flaw: while it commands a majority in the Lower House, it does not have one in the Upper House. In order to get the bills through parliament, they have to deal with opposition parties, and the three minor parties which give them the majority in the Upper House manage to extract quite a number of concessions.

The Dutch senate looks like a bag of pick-n-mix. I know there are challenges but to be honest I wish there was so much party choice in the UK.

 

[Francesca R]

A party which wants to dissolve the union should have no part in governing the union, IMHO of course.

Um, totally disagreed.

 

[MikeG]

Um, totally disagreed.

You'll have a good reason. Care to share?

 

[Francesca R]

Well because it's a rule you made up? And no more logical than requiring parties in government to support the voting system, or the membership of the House of Lords, or any other artefact or legacy. Even allegiance to the Queen is a bit silly. But whatever.

The SNP should be allowed to be in a coalition and so should the SDLP for that matter. But I don't think either of them will.

 

[surreptitious57]

It makes zero difference to the democratic process if the SNP want to break up the United Kingdom or not. Because what matters is that the country is governed either by a single party with a majority or a coalition with a majority. And so if the SNP are going to be part of the latter scenario then that is
entirely legitimate. The break up of the United Kingdom is not going to happen in the next five years anyway and so the point is somewhat superfluous

 

[CapelDodger]

The Independent writes:

Conversations between visiting ambassadors and leaders of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are, as a diplomatic courtesy, conveyed to the Foreign Office. They are, however, usually kept confidential.

Does anyone know if this is true? It seems to me a strange rule, as political sensitive issues may be discussed and the political dynamics in the devolved regions may be wildly different from Westminster.

Ambassadors should only discuss politically sensitive issues with government representatives. If they do have conversations with non-government politicians protocol demands that they inform the Foreign Office or equivalent that the conversation occurred and its general nature. All must be above board and seen to be above board.

 

[Craig B]

In a fair number of posts you have failed to show that you understand that the Scots Nats primary interest is in breaking up the very nation in whose parliament they are standing for election. A party which wants to dissolve the union should have no part in governing the union, IMHO of course. Have representation by all means, because that is democratic, but to have actual hands on the controls? Uh uh...........that's gross hypocrisy.

It's pointless telling me to deal with it and so on. I am simply pointing out that a minority Labour government propped up by a nationally-tiny anti-union party is going to render Labour as damaged goods in the eyes of millions of English voters. In doing that, I am making a prediction, not a complaint.

I think I'll let that post stand without argument or rebuttal. Yes, that is how it is in the minds of many Unionists.

At least I understand why you weren't too much bothered about the DUP. Although they represent only a component of the population of one of the parts of the UK, they're not an "anti-union party" after all. That makes all the difference. Neither is UKIP an "anti-union party", come to that.

But thanks for that clear exposition of your assessment of the view of "millions of English voters". Although I have a more charitable view of how English people are reacting to developments in Scottish politics.

 

[CapelDodger]

It makes zero difference to the democratic process if the SNP want to break up the United Kingdom or not. Because what matters is that the country is governed either by a single party with a majority or a coalition with a majority. And so if the SNP are going to be part of the latter scenario then that is
entirely legitimate. Furthermore the break up of the United Kingdom is not going to happen in the next five years anyway and so the point is irrelevant

Absolutely. The relevant point is austerity : Yay or Nay, and if Yay how much?

No party's going to be in a position to dictate the answer so it'll have to be something a majority (of MP's) can live with, with the SNP almost certainly part of that majority. Which sounds preferable to dictation to me.

 

[CapelDodger]

But thanks for that clear exposition of your assessment of the view of "millions of English voters". Although I have a more charitable view of how English people are reacting to developments in Scottish politics.

I imagine it varies by region. It's not just the Scots and Welsh who feel shackled to the Home Counties. I hear the Geordies are restive ...