Leadership debates, should the SNP take part?

[geni]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It is either seats or number. You use both.

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

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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

He should keep out of this farce.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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?

He should keep out of this farce

 

[gtc]

Wait a minute, lets not get past this.

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

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:

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]

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]

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?