« Alex Salmond makes the case for an independent Scotland |
| Alex Salmond talks to Channel 4 News after launching the SNP's General Election campaign »
Posted at 12:35 PM in Alex Salmond | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61a053ef0120a77185c8970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alex Salmond says exclusion of SNP from election debates would be "outrageous":
As UKIP are a much bigger party than the SNP perhaps we should all get to go to the ball.....
December 22, 2009 at 01:14 PM
If the invite is restricted to lilabcon then all the costs of production but be split 3 ways as election expenses of those taking part I believe.
michael mcgough |
December 22, 2009 at 01:56 PM
The Nats really must not be allowed to get away with pretending they are important. Scotland is just not that important a part of the UK population when considered as a whole in a general election.
The SNP polled 412,000 votes in 2005 or 1.5% of votes cast, behind UKIP (603,000 or 2.2%). The three main parties each have 15-23 times more votes, while Scotland represents less than 1 in 11 votes cast.
To put this in perspective, Boris Johnson received over one million first preference votes in the London Mayoral election.
In Scotland the LibDems polled more (528,000 or 22.6%) and the Conservatives were close behind (369,000 or 15.8%)
If we split 4 1/2 hours of debate pro-rata to votes cast in the General Election then the Nats would get 4 minutes and 17 seconds, compared to more than 1 hour for the LibDems.
If this were a Scottish Assembly election the question would be different. But that is a different vote. If there is a structural unfairness it is nothing compared to that of Scottish MPs voting on English matters.
A debate for the GE between the big three party leaders is the only solution that is approximately fair. Any other solution would massively inflate the standing of fringe parties who scored numbers of votes in the 'poll margin of error' range for major parties.
If we feel there is an issue, perhaps UKIP, the SNP, the Greens, Plaid, the BNP and the Ulster Unionists could be granted an extra shot party political broadcast slot to compensate.
David Bouvier |
December 22, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Why does Alex Salmond think I would be interested in hearing what he has to say when living in Sussex I would have no opportunity of voting for an SNP candidate? If the message Salmond wants to convey to no Scot voters is his reasoning for breaking up the Union then non scots should be able to vote in a referendum on the matter - that is a different matter from a GE.
December 22, 2009 at 02:59 PM
In the 2005 General election, UKIP received 605,973 votes compared with the SNP's 412,267. In terms of votes cast, the Greens came next with 257,695 votes, then the DUP with 241,856, followed by the BNP with 192,746, Plaid Cymru with 174,838 and Sinn Fein with 174,530.
In the EU Parliament Elections in June, the Tories came first with 4,198,394; next was UKIP with 2,498,226 votes then Labour with 2,381,760, the LibDems with 2,080,613, the Greens with 1,303,745, the BNP with 943,598 and the SNP with a mere 321,007 votes.
December 22, 2009 at 03:23 PM
Why wasn't he wearing a tie?
December 22, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Does Van Rompuy get an invite, too, as he's head of the EU who apparently makes 80% of our laws?
Donut Hinge Party |
December 22, 2009 at 04:31 PM
Tired snipey little man.
Why doesn't he arrange for debates up in Scotland?
He narks on about Scottish independence then when us 'southerners' act independently the old croak goes mental.
December 22, 2009 at 05:32 PM
Some of your bloggers display a regretable insularity of thought with no sympathy for the Union - the real one that is, between England and Scotland; the one that matters.
However, the main point is that the votes of the main parties outside the old Westminster three might well make all the difference. In Scotland on a good day SNP might seriously hammer the Labour vote while the UKIP vote will definitely include many non-voters and Con-voters from 2005 and a worthwhile number from Labour too.
Andrew Smith |
December 22, 2009 at 09:50 PM
It is worth taking a look at the devloping Tory scandal in Wales where it is alleged that Nick Bourne has ebcouraged a Pakistani Wrlshmna member of the Assmbly to defect to the tOries. The reason was that the Tories were prepared to allow him to claim for his family to be employed on taxpayer paid expenses while Plaid Cymru were not. Plaid come out of it well. Bourne stinks -again.
Plaid has just put out a scorching attack on the Tories.
Anthony Scholefield |
December 22, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I live in Scotland and I'm not interested in what Salmond has to say. Even if it was in any way relevant to the UK as a whole, it would just be invective, empty promises and self-importance. He and his party are utterly irrelevant.
December 23, 2009 at 08:53 AM
In order to ensure fair play there should be a debate SHOWN IN SCOTLAND ONLY that includes Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond.
Otherwise 3 unionist parties get vastly more publicity than the nationalist party IN SCOTLAND.
What many forget is that all the above could emerge as the leader of Scotland.
If the SNP win a majority of Scottish seats (immeasurably more likely to happen eons before the Lib Dems win a majority of UK seats) then Salmond will lead Scotland, not any of the other 3.
There is no need for England to hear Salmond debating with the other 3, but there is every democratic reason for the Scots to hear such a debate.
December 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.