Most Scots want SNP included in debate
The SNP have released new figures from a YouGov poll. Constituency voting intentions for the Scottish Parliament stand at CON 14%(-4), LAB 32%(-1), LDEM 13%(+1), SNP 35%(+3). Sadly regional voting intentions were not asked, so it can’t be translated into a projected Scottish Parliament result. (Neither are there Westminster voting intention figures, but I’ve no idea if they were asked or not – sometimes the SNP release their figures over a couple of days).
59% of respondents disagreed that the SNP should be excluded from the televised leadership debates, with 31% agreeing. It suggests the Scottish public would like the SNP included in any debate, but of course if there was a debate being broadcase only in Scotland there probably wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place – the reason there is one is because it to be broadcast across nations with different party systems. My expectation is that the issue will end up being decided in the courts of law, rather than the court of public opinion.
This poll shows that Scots want the SNP included in a debate. Fine – have a separate Scottish debate as well as a UK-wide one.
But as for the UK debate – why is this not a poll for the whole of the UK? Why ought the SNP be included in a UK poll just because that’s the ‘wish’ of the Scots? If it is a UK-wide debate then the views of the whole of the UK should be considered. Is there any polling on this?
Additionally I don’t think blocking parts of the debate – as has been suggested – on devolved issues like health and education from being aired in Scotland would work for three reasons:
First you could watch on digital or online
Second it would almost certainly also block viewers in Northern England from watching those part of the debate, thereby unfairly and undemocratically stopping them watching as well.
Third because Scots, whether rightly or wrongly, decide who to vote based on health and education as much as anyone else in the UK. Those who do (and they seem to be the majority according to polling) simply ignore devolution.
Edward, surely that point could be made for any political party?
I would be very interested to see what thresholds the BBC has used to determine a ‘national’ party from provincial ones. The issue of Lib Dem participation should be included is an interesting one, given their underrepresentation in nearly every area of the UK.
It would be interesting, however, to poll the regions of England to determine their appetite for smaller parties to be included.
As Anthony indicated, if we are basing entitlement to participate based on Westminster performance, the BBC (in particular) need to show a proper process of determining which parties should or should not have a platform in the debate. The problems BBC will face, if using the arguments deployed by Edward, is that there appears no due process in such a decision.
I really don’t know what the SNP are planning here but I suspect that we may call fro a separate Scottish debate with the Focus on what the Parties plans are from Scotland be it independence more powers or the impact of cuts.
To be honest I think that Could be a good programme and worth watching . It might even be informative. If it was to take Place then the SNP would want it to be Salmond, Cameron, Brown and Clegg.
Tactically it would really be a win win demand for us.
If it went ahead Alex would be seen in Scotland as on a par to the Others. He certainly could show he was more popular than Brown and more experienced in Government than Cameron or Clegg.
If the other Parties said yes but put up Goldie, Gray and Stephen then the SNP could decline on the basis that they are all second string and that in Westminster Scotland deserves the UK leaders to come north and explain themselves.
Alternatively we could say yes as Alex Salmond regularly beats the other three in parliament. Labour could of course put up Jim Murphy ( has anyone ever noticed how much he looks like Kaatu from the Original 50′s “The Day the Earth Stood Still”) but that would be a huge Snub for Iain Gray.
Finally if the UK parties blocked a separate Scottish debate then the SNP could campaign on “Well that shows how much you matter to them and what to expect from whichever one wins, If they want even talk to you do you think they’ll fight for you”.
Peter.
I daresay if we polled in Cornwall the Cornish Nationalists would be in the debate. The SNP don’t even run in enough seats to win a majority, even in theory, they are not a national party competing for the same votes as the big three.
Can UKIP be kept out ? They came second in the most recent nationwide elections and will have a slate, I understand, of 300 candidates.
Why arent the ulster unionists and sinn fein complaining about not being in the debate ?
Great poll for the NATS.
Obviously the main focus was on the debates but the voting figures for Holyrood show real strength at beyond mid term.
Paul B –
Ulster Unionists ARE effectively in the debate in the form of David Cameron, since they have an electorate pact with the Conservatives and will be putting up joint candidates.
Of course, that means that where previously how the debate was handled in NI wouldn’t have been an issue (none of the three main parties really seriously contested seats in NI, so no one would have been advantaged or disadvantaged there), now the DUP could complain that the Conservatives/Ulster Unionists are getting an unfair advantage from the debate being show in NI.
I have no idea if they have complained, or have any intention of doing so.
Edward
Fame at last! You have already been quoted as an example elsewhere as a comment “which demonstrates the deep ignorance of the polity of the UK which is endemic in England.”
The debate questions and responses -
1. The televised leaders’ debates due to take place in advance of the election should NOT include the leader of the Scottish National Party:
Strongly Agree: 16%
Tend to agree: 15%
Total Agree: 31%
Tend to disagree: 21%
Strongly disagree: 38%
Total Disagree: 59%
Don’t Know: 10%
2. Do you think the SNP should get more, less or the same amount of coverage on TV in Scotland as the main UK political parties in the run up to the next UK general election?
More Coverage: 9%
The Same Coverage: 62%
Less Coverage: 22%
Don’t Know: 7%
Once again the SNP have either not asked about Westminster voting or have not published the results. Doesn’t that confirm they are on the slide for Westminster? After all, it would help their case if they published the debate poll next to one that showed if people were going to vote for them or not.
Malcolm Cole
Why would that matter? You can be assured they will not be behind all 3 unionist parties.
Malcolm Cole
The SNP have said that they didn’t poll on Westminster elections this time.
I know it’s difficult for those of you who are Brit oriented to understand that Westminster isn’t the be all and end all. It’s already fairly clear that many Scots will vote in 2010 on visceral dislike of the Tories.
2011 (especially under a Tory Government) is much more important for expanding Scottish autonomy than which group of Brit politicians are elected to abuse power at Westminster.
(Anthony . This post isn’t partisan – it’s equally contemptuous of all r UK parties
)
We do not have a three party system across the whole of the UK. Most of the discussion that would take place in such a debate would probably only be relevant in England because the majority of the issues likely to be discussed are devolved in all but England.
The view that these are the ‘three main parties’ only comes about because of the mathematics of population – because England has 85% of the total population. These parties are the three main parties in England only. Why is it that the rest of us have to put up with being ‘averaged’ out of existence in this way.
Truly the only useful, fair, logical and representative way to tackle this matter would be to hold four debates, one in each nation. If shown in Scotland without Salmond I wouldn’t see the point in watching – largely because I’d be watching a debate about English education, health etc, and about subjects like immigration which hold no interest for me (or the majority of Scots).
Lastly, it isn’t devolution that is causing this problem, it is England’s lack of devolution from the UK, caused I suspect, by an inability to recognise that England and the UK are not the same thing!
I’m wondering how my initial comment shows a “deep ignorance of the polity of the UK”? Points one is undoubtedly true – you could watch on digital or online. Point two is probably true if the example of Panorama in 1995 is anything to go by. Point three is shown by polling on what are the policy areas that people are most influenced by at a general election in which health and education feature prominently.
There is a simple solution: have Alex Salmond, the Plaid Cymru leader and the Northern Ireland party leaders as pannellists in a debate on regional issues. I don’t just want to know what the policies of the London-based parties are with respect to Scotland, but also to Wales and ESPECIALLY Northern Ireland.
This wouldn’t be as even as having Salmond involved or having a “right-of-reply” type thingie, but it would mean that the regional party leaders could get involved by asking (I assume loaded and largely rhetorical) questions as part of a panel. It would also get it all over and done with in a single programme.
Let’s face it: I don’t like the man, but Alex Salmond is going to beat the London party leaders in any format or in no format. Brown, Cameron and Clegg are so out of his league in terms of political nous and debating ability that it’s laughable. I’m not endorsing Salmond or the SNP- it’s just a fact that he’s a superior politician in a sense of being skilled at politics. You’d have to go back to the days when there was Blair, Kennedy and Hague to see that kind of (political, not statesmanlike) talent in the 3 London-based party leaders.
Actually, now I think about it, Hague wasn’t a good politician. I suppose Major would be the last Tory leader to be a model of skill (measured by results, he’s Britain’s most skilled party leader EVER) that could match the other names I mentioned. Real Machiavellian political skill is a rare commodity and it’s one that Alex Salmond has in abundance.
Edward
I thought you rather neatly encapsulated the point in “a general election in which health and education feature prominently.”
Westminster only runs these functions (as well as many others) in England only. When Scots or Welsh are polled (as we frequently are by Anglo-centric polls on things like the NHS), what makes you think we are answering with reference to your local system as oposed to the ones that actually affect us?
Your point 1 about digital is irrelevant. Of course, those who are interested can watch debates from anywhere that way. I followed with some interest, the French Presidential debates – that does not require that the main broadcasters schedules here should have been interrupted to show them.
An additional debate in Scotland does not address the issue that 71% Scots clearly see as unfair (and, I suspect our Courts would agree) that three Unionist parties would get 75% more TV coverage than the SNP.
Unless these debates can be constructed in such a way that they operate fairly in all parts of the UK, then they should not go ahead. Anyone who argues that unfairness in the smaller nations of the UK is acceptable because it happens to suit the largest, doesn’t understand the “polity of the UK”.
If the Tory leader was a Scot with a strong accent would it help the Tories in Scotland ?
Bill Patrick
The problem with your suggestion that there should be representation via “a debate on regional issues” is that the only “regional issues” in this election are English.
The real debate is over defence and foreign policy, the economy and the constitution. The big UK issues resonate differently within the four political systems of the UK, and require to be examined separately in each of them.
There should be no problem getting the Brown/Cameron/Clegg grouping to debate these issues 4 times alongside different additional members – they are going to be spouting their policies every day anyway. Oh, unless they simply want to use this structure to mould the voters into a Westminster dominated perspective. Nah, they wouldn’t be so anti-democratic, would they?
Ken
No.
@OLDNAT- thanks for that. During my travels north of the border I often encounter antipathy bordering on hatred for the English and thought that this might be reflected in the Scot’s support for one of their own in Westminster.
@anthony Wells
Very true. I can see the SNP’s arguement if Labour get a boost in Scotland due to the debate that will effect how many seats they get in Scotland. I also understand the UK wide problem is that the SNP will not be in power for the whole of the UK. Could Scotland ask Alex Salmond questions seperately then edit him in so they can hear his answers to questions to?
I think a lot of Scots might vote Labour believing this will keep the tories out. I wander if the Tories get in will they look more towards independence. I am for scottish independence as the scots have always resented being ruled by the english as they have often seen it. I believe in economic co operation it’s the same as I believe about europe. I feel all countries should have independent governments and laws. Yet should be able to trade and visit other countries. The european Union however has just led to Germany and France dictating terms.
Oldnat,
I think the problem with your suggestion is that it loses the advantage of focused debates. I would rather have debates that focused on a specific issue (eg. defence, economics, welfare etc.) since this would allow for longer, more extended debating on points.
4 fly-by-night debates means that leaders could get away with spouting out a few slogans, rather than face extended questioning from the panel and each other on the details of their positions. If that’s how it’s going to be done, I’d rather there were no debates at all. After all, we already have party political broadcasts for that sort of thing.
If the rules are that only the top 3 parties are involved then so be it.
If it is to be viewed at prime time to all viewers then so be it.
The ‘regional’ debates MUST follow the same rules because of the democratic process.
So the Scottish debate MUST be shown at prime time to the whole of the UK – not scrambled to 90% of the population.
It also need to have the 3 most popular parties involved – no more and no less – so this debate must be between SNP, Labour and Lib Dems.
The Conservatives who are in 4th place should not be permitted to have a place. The same should apply to the Welsh and Northern Irish debates.
Only UK questions should be allowed to be asked as it is for a UK election – so no questions on Education, Health, etc for the Scottish debate as they are completely English subject matter at Westminster and similar rules for the Welsh and NI debates.
In this way the whole of the UK may become aware of the politics of ALL of the combined lands, not just the most populated. It may also give you a better idea of how you will be governed in the event of a hung parliament, where these ‘minority’ parties on the edge of the Kingdom will be negotiating their own wish lists in return for support of whichever of the 2 main parties is given the task of cutting all of our services.
“Why is it that the rest of us have to put up with being ‘averaged’ out of existence in this way.”
“because England has 85% of the total population”
It’s a democracy, a crushing majority matters. That’s like asking why the Greens are averaged out of existence, it’s because not enough of the people voting vote for them. Votes for the UK parliament are naturally going to go to parties either offering policies to the whole UK or to the largest segment. England is hardly over-represented, at the 2001 Census we had 83% of the people and 81% of the seats, which given the shifts is now more like 85% and 84-5% each.
Ironically, in the UK we complain about the West Lovian problem and how the Scots get too much representation.
Ahh, I promise typing ‘the UK’ instead of ‘England’ at the end was an error based on tiredness and not a freudian slip!
Just looked at the top of your web page and it kind of sums up how I see myself and my interests being portrayed in UK situations.
Your graphic of ‘constituancy guide’ only includes England and Wales yet the web page is titled ‘UK Polling Report’. No Scotland or Northern Ireland? Free at last?
Sadly this is not an unusual situation and goes to show us our rightful place in the UK.
AND
ken
If the Tory leader was a Scot with a strong accent would it help the Tories in Scotland ?
No – not in a month of sundays – ever
Look forward to once again having a Tory free zone – permanantly – Not a great fan of the Tories pre 1979 – now I would rather put up with the love child of Tony and George Bublya than any Tories (although it might be a close run thing).
Quincel
“England is hardly over-represented, at the 2001 Census we had 83% of the people and 81% of the seats”
Compare that with the US situation. In the House, you’d have more than 80% of the seats but in the Senate you’d have 25% of the seats. Same applies in Switzerland and many other democratic countries.
In what, with an unreformed HoL, is effectively a unicameral kingdom-wide parliament, one nation – England – has total control over the other three.
You could solve the West Lothian question at the GE by voting for parties wanting an English parliament.
PS. I should have said:
England – has total control over the other three, or would have if it introduced a democratic voting system.
Quincel
West Lotian question
Welcome to the Independance side.
The natural progression of this is to let us do it ourselves.
This solves all your problems.
You don’t have Scottish MP’s voting on English measures in a UK parlaiment.
You don’t have Scottish MP’s coming down and running your country as PM / Chancellor / etc.
You don’t need to ‘subsidise’ us as we will be self sufficient – for better or worse – but it would be our problem – not your problem.
We will keep all our natural resources and sell you any that are in surplus. You can also do the same at your end. If we make too much energy from our wind farms / tidal generation etc we will sell you them at the going rate – at present we need to pay you to take them!
I have never understood the unionist parties from the south who are so keen to fund our extravagent way of life and not let us get on with it ourselves. Surely we are old enough and ugly enough to cope.
At the same time we have the same parties complaining that to be joined up together is not always good – no Euro / no United States of Europe / no Central European bank / no vote on the European constitution, etc.
Why is it good for these parties to fight to stop accepting everything from a European aspect but insist that when they are the biggest, they should be able to force the others to their will?
Let us go and fend for ourselves, make us happy, and come and visit at the bank holidays and climb some of our mountains or paddle down our rivers. I am sure I will be doing the same to you by hiking about the Lake District at Easters
Bill Patrick
A themed debate on English domestic issues makes a lot of sense. UKIP and the English Greens might object to being omitted, but that’s something for you guys to sort out amongst yourselves. None of Plaid, the SNP, or the NI parties, would want to get in the way of your discussing these important matters for the governance of England.
As long as it was clearly labelled as an English only debate, I’d probably watch it on digital, as I’d like to see the response to the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath telling England how they should run their own affairs.
However, as well as the English election, there is a UK election going on, at which UK issues need to be discussed. These discussions will take a different slant in England as opposed to the other nations. There is absolutely no reason why the remaining two debates (for example (one on defence/foreign policy plus the constitution, the other on the economy, tax, public spending etc can’t be reprised with the appropriate parties in each nation).
This terrible need for centralisation and common structure is wholly unsuited to the current constitutional structure of the UK.
Bill Patrick
Just realised that I’d posted “your” as if you are English. I have no idea what you are! Apologies if I have been in error.
This really just highlights the need for national parliaments for all of the home countries, and a proper federal UK. Personally I quite like UKIP’s idea of the contingent of MPs from each country forming both the national parliament (Scots, English, Welsh, N.Irish) and the UK-wide one. Saves a lot of money at least!!
Choosing only the top 3 parties is undemocratic and totally unfair on all the other parties, like SNP and UKIP, and that’s why it is going ahead.
Once again our leaders have showed utter contempt for democracy.
The most worrying thing about all of this is that it would be entirely possible to accomodate the NATS and potentially other parties within the UK debate.
There are a variety of ways to do this particularly when there (as I understand it) an audience involved.
The problem is that the broadcasters are bedsidethemselves with excitement at the prospect of the debates and are willing to abandon any suggestion of fairness and kowtow to the three London parties.
This poll indicates that the people are not satisfied with that approach – the courts might not be either..
Oldnat,
I am indeed Scottish.
Your suggestion does seem to have merit, though it would mean changing the idea of what the debates are supposed to be about from “Who forms the next government?” to “Who wants to talk about politics?”
However, I also think the aim that the debates are currently supposed to fulfill (the former question) makes no sense, because the Liberal Democrats aren’t going to get a majority anytime soon. Of course, it might be objected that the Lib Dems might form a coalition government or prop-up a minority government, but the same could be said about the SNP. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised (in fact, I’d be pleased) by an SNP-Tory pact to give extra powers (substantial fisical powers and probably more) to Holyrood in return for the SNP backing Tory manifesto legistlation and budgets.
One of the advantages of your suggestion would be that it would change the culture of silence about English national identity and regional issues. There are specifically English issues (flooding, for instance, is almost entirely an English issue and an important one) which deserve to be addressed properly by governments and an English regional debate would be a good way of achieving this.
It might also raise awareness, as Neil A suggests, for an English regional parliament. Of course, as with the USSR, the UK constitution is structured in such a way that England is the dominant factor in Westminister (a government can have a working majority based on purely English seats) so this hasn’t been a major necessity, but it’s the easiest way to solve the West Lothian question. It would also probably have to be accompanied by reducing the power of Westminister/England in order to ensure regional balance.
@quincel
You are just missing the point entirely. I’m not complaining about the way the democracy works – my point is that if a debate were held at UK level between three party leaders it would be substantially to discuss English only matters. Of what interest do you think this holds for people who do not live in England?
If a debate is going to be held in this way – could we at least be honest and admit that it isn’t a UK debate? If the subject matter were to be restricted to only reserved matters then it might interest me – otherwise it would certainly not. The chances of the TV companies restricting the debate in this way, I suspect, are slim – because few English people seem capable, yet, of understanding that England and the UK are not the same thing!
@Al,
The conundrum faced by the TV companies is merely a product of the farcically imbalanced constitutional situation we have been left with by the government’s policy on devolution. When the English rejected the concept of regional assemblies, the government were left with loose ends they simply couldn’t tie together. The only solution that would have plugged the gap, a single English Parliament, was rejected because the government suspected (probably rightly) that it would have a majority Tory government 9 times out of 10 and this would leave Labour a bit marginalised.
We all know the current situation is FUBAR, but the only routes to complete logic are a) independence for the home countries, b) abolishing devolution altogether c) an English parliament, with the Welsh and N.Irish Assemblies upgraded to parliaments or d) English regional parliaments.
@ BILL PATRICK
“It might also raise awareness, as Neil A suggests, for an English regional parliament”
17% of English people asked are in favour of an English Parliament.
14% in favour of English Regional Assemblies
57% believe that England should be governed as it is now with laws made by the UK Parliament :-
British Social Attitudes
25th Report 2009
Data-2007
@Neil A
I completely agree. Perhaps the only point I would add is that the current arrangement is not just unfair to the English – the lack of devolution in England is a problem for us all. England is run by a parliament distracted by foreign affairs, defense and macroeconomics; while the UK parliament is distracted by trying to run England too.
If there has to be a UK, I say abolish the lords, turn it into a UK parliament, and make the commons the English parliament.
@Colin
“57% believe that England should be governed as it is now with laws made by the UK Parliament”
Utterly utterly bizarre!
Salmond is not standing for Westminster so he might not be the man to put in for the debate- a shame, as he knocks spots off the other 3
@ AL
…and consistent too AL- between 50% & 57% over the last eight years.
That’s the trouble with real people AL-they don’t always agree with you.
Steve,
“Salmond is not standing for Westminster so he might not be the man to put in for the debate- a shame, as he knocks spots off the other 3″
If its a debate between Party Leaders he should be their in a separate Scottish debate.
If it is to be between potential PM’s it should be Brown v Cameron although you could argue that on current polling evidence Cameron could just turn up on his own…….
Peter.
@ NA-HEARRAICH
A breath of fresh air, perhaps if Scotland was independent we could start a truth and reconciliation process. Gordon Brown could relocate to Edinburgh with his team of Westminster Scots, and, with his vast experience of high level international affairs, elevate Scotland to the global force for good. I as a humble Englishman would support such a move as would the vast majority of my countrypersons.
Lang may yer lum reek.
Ken
Emmm! nah yer ah richt
Honestly, Gordon (in my opinion) has emigrated down south (because I see the two as different countries) and I can’t see him being interested in coming back home.
He has stated quite catagorically that he sees only one country – the UK – and so in his vision he would still be at home in London so there would be no pressure to relocate back to the Lang Toon.
From up here, he seems determined to appear as English as possible in an effort to gain votes down there to get Labour re-elected in Westminster and it would be difficult for him to reverse some of the statements he has made and integrate himself again at a political level up here. I think he would think it beneath his talents.
I also wonder how popular he is with the Scottish Labour Party at times and could see him having to sit on the ‘back banches’ or act as an advisor if he wanted a political life up here – surely too low down the political social order for an exPM.
Our economy at present seems to be recovering well and we have serious problems over having Nuclear power and nuclear weapons in our country. His past record in each of these areas is the complete opposite of the direction we are going in.
He is in charge of a governemt who are stalling on giving any more powers to the Scottish Parliament, (despite his party up here instigating the commission in an attemp to get rid of the calls for independance (Calman). The results of the commission has wide cross party support up here for certain areas to be implemented immediately, – areas which need no new laws passed to achieve, – and there is a wide desire that these should be implemented sooner rather than later, but still he refuses to move on these recommendation.
His visions are so different to where we want to be that there would be nowhere politically for him to position himself.
Nah! you keep him safe and look after him. He seems happy where he is.
As for the others they will all have their own pros and cons of whether they want / need to come back and whether they will be more or less welcome if they come. Some might be OK and add to the rich diversity of life here but some would be better staying as ex-pats.
Most of the ones in promoted posts in the Labour government, who’s sole aim in life seems to be to put Scotland, its governemt, and its population down at any attempt would probably not be welcome back into mainstream politics.
There are only so many times your own can tell you how badly you are doing and how wrong your personal views are before you give up on them and move on to a more positive message. Currently the SNP are given that possitive message.
Labour are a nightmare in opposition in Scotland with absolutely NO possitive suggestions or alternatives to new ideas – their only role is to say they don’t agree and it’s the SNP’s fault – it remains to be seen how they will react if the Tories win the coming election. Look out for them blaming the Tories for things that happened long before Labour left office (the economy will become the Tories fault for not fixing in within the first 12 months and Iraq and Afganistan will also end up being the Tories fault if it is not tidied up within the first few months).
If they react in the same way that they have up here it could take the whole of the next session of parlaiment before they stop sulking and will provide no effective opposition during that time. This might be the chance for a minority party such as the Lib Dems to gain some ground.
@Colin
“That’s the trouble with real people AL-they don’t always agree with you.”
Yes, the other trouble with real people is that they are often wrong, and apparently stupid too
AL-On the whole I prefer the way Dick Tuck expressed the frustration you feel.