Sunday, August 02, 2009

Salmond threatens Court action if he's not invited to leaders' debate

Is there no limit to Alex Salmond's ego? It appears he thinks he should be included in a UK wide debate between the Party leaders if one is arranged during the next election campaign and if the big boys won't let him play, he's going to take them to court.

What a ridiculous notion, for a party which is fielding candidates in less than a tenth of the seats across the UK? If you allow the SNP in, then you probably also have to include the Greens, UKIP, the Welsh and Cornish nationalists as well and potentially even the BNP. It's going to be a crowded stage and not conducive to deep and meaningful debate.

The only people who should really be in that debate are the three main UK Westminster Party leaders.

I don't get why he should want to be on the UK stage as he spends his time telling anyone who'll listen that he wants Scotland to be independent. It doesn't make sense that he should want to hang onto the coat tails of Clegg, Cameron and Brown.

The SNP view is only relevant in Scotland and there will be, as at every other election, the chance for senior Scottish figures from each party to put their case. There usually is at least one debate of some sort and that's the place for the SNP. Why on earth would people in Derbyshire or Hampshire want to hear Alex Salmond going on about Scottish independence? In a US election context, it would be like including Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, in a presidential debate - nonsensical.

If Alex Salmond wants to blow the SNP's election budget on a court case he's bound to lose, then that's up to him, but he will just make himself look stupid in the process.


Anonymous said...

Let's have some fun here! I'll play the cybernat role. Here goes. Refute this drivel...

If the leaders' debate is shown in Scotland then Salmond must be included. The SNP is our democratically elected Government. Denying the leader of Scotland's Party a voice would be anti-Scottish and an insult to the sovereign Scottish people. It would show unionist desperation to keep us under their jackboots.

subrosa said...

When are we going to starting having grown up politicians in Britain? The fact is that the London scene has been dominated by just three parties throughout my lifetime. We now have devolved administrations although much is still decided by London. Why shouldn't the devolved administrations' leaders be involved? Why shouldn't the Greens be involved along with UKIP etc? Just a thought Caron :)

Of course if we had independence none of this would matter in the least.

Anonymous said...

The nationalist use of the first person plural pronoun, ‘we’, is fascinating. Note how Subrosa applied it to Scotland. Elsewhere isn’t ‘us’. That’s nationalism in a nutshell.

Note also how nationalist bickering over non-issues like this are used to argue for independence. It wouldn’t be contentious if only ‘we’ were independent. Emotional blackmail: give us what we want and we’ll stop bothering you. Is Scotland suffering ‘SNP fatigue’ yet?

Anonymous said...

I assume that Salmond would be using Tax Payers money again to fund this legal action?

He only wants to get on the stage to wind English voters up by arguing selfishly for Scotland and asking for more money for Scotland when England is about to go through a huge cut in puplic spending and tax rises.

Malc said...

SU - note how Subrosa used "we" to say "When are WE going to starting having grown up politicians in BRITAIN?" Not quite how you were painting it.

I'm not convinced by Salmond's claims to be involved in this one. However, I do think there should be debates around the country which involve the respective governing parties in the devolved areas.

I am somewhat puzzled by the Liberal Democrats position though. What is democratic about denying other UK-wide parties like UKIP and the Greens (and, yes, the BNP) an opportunity to air their views in this kind of debate?

It is the same FPTP electoral system which the Lib Dems continually complain about that is keeping these parties from gaining representation at Westminster yet the Lib Dem answer is to further shut them out. Presumably just so Nick Clegg can attempt to represent everyone that isn't a Tory or Labour voter.

James Mackenzie said...

I love reading about this debate debate. It shatters all preconceptions about partisan loyalty.

No, wait, Tories and Labour people say it should just be them because only they can form a government. Liberals argue for Clegg because they're the third party UK-wide. Nats argue for Salmond, and he does after all lead one of the constituent nations, and frankly Patrick should be in because he'd eat the others for dinner and then twitter about it.

The reality is it isn't going to happen. Brown's people would rather swallow a teleprompter than let Cameron do his PR shtick and make the PM look like the grumpy failure to communicate he is.

Just so we know what we're all doing.

Unknown said...

SU, I think you're being a bit hard on Subrosa's we comment - I think she probably meant me rather than the SNP:-)

James, I think you're wrong - I think it will happen. If the Greens were involved, it would be Caroline Lucas, surely, not Patrick, who would represent the Greens.

Malc, the Lib Dems can easily justify their place in the debate -only Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems field candidates in every seat on the British mainland bar the Speaker's. In 2005 almost a quarter of the voters who turned out voted for us. We did that under FPTP. The other paties don't come anywhere near that and don't stand everywhere.

The other thing is we need to have a meaningful debate which means that you can't really have 9 people on the stage. It would either have to go on for about 4 hours or nobody would really get the chance to say anything.

Unknown said...

Anon, I don't think that Alex Salmond is stupid enough to think that he can use public money for this - it would have to come out of the SNP campaign budget, which is fine by me, but might not be so fine by the SNP's campaign organisers.

Also, the idea that we have shedloads of money up here while England are going to have to go through spending cuts is complete nonsense. It's very worrying that even English Labour MPs are under that misapprehension.

Anonymous said...

Malc, Caron: conceded. Right phenomenon; wrong example!

Malc said...


It's not that I don't think the Lib Dems can't justify their place. But I don't think its particularly democratic to draw the line under their representation and allow no one else.

The point (perhaps) is that if this discussion was happening 15 years ago, I still think the Lib Dems would be clamoring to be included despite only claiming 20 seats on 20%...

Obviously you have to draw a line somewhere. I'm just not sure that having just the three parties represented is a proper indication of the democracy that we live in.

Anonymous said...

Through Barnett we will get cuts proportionally anyway. Alec Salmond knows that Scottish funding is a sore point with English voters and he will use any pan UK television opportunity to increase tensions to further his own goals.

It would be interesting though for the government to agree to the leaders at Westminister to be invited and watch Angus Robertson perform instead of Salmond.

subrosa said...

Oh stop nitpicking SU, it's wearisome. If every blogger's every word was analysed by you the way mine are, then there would be no blogosphere, Twitter or Facebook.

You know I'm writing this in Scotland so what's wrong with the use of 'we' for the population of Scotland?

I suggest you take your rather dubious grammatical analysis skills elsewhere. How's that for a sentence and not one 'we' in it?

Caron thanks. Of course I meant me as in the pural of 'we'. My first sentence would sound rather stupid if I said 'me' wouldn't it?

This is all an attempt to wind me up from SU but actually I rather enjoy reading his nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Had it been an attempt to wind you up, would I have conceded Malc's and Caron's point?

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this kind of thing at the moment. I've started keeping an eye out for raw material to exemplify a post about the SNP's rhetorical use of phrases like "our country" and "our history" to promote identification with Scotland, to the exclusion of Britain.

subrosa said...

Go and have a read of Lalland Peat Worrier latest post on Assisted Suicide SU.

Plenty of 'we' and 'us' there for you to last you a full day I'm sure. :)


Related Posts with Thumbnails