The economy, social security, international development, defence. All big issues in an election, all reserved (pretty much) to Westminster. Plenty to talk about you would think, but the SNP have chosen to spend their election campaign bleating about their lack of inclusion from a television programme.
The SNP wanted Alex Salmond to be included in the series of three leaders’ debates. Logically therefore, they waited until two of these debates had passed before mounting a legal challenge to the showing of the final debate, without Salmond, in Scotland.
Mr Salmond, as you may be aware, is not a candidate in this election. Nor, given that the SNP are only fielding candidates in Scotland, is it at all possible that an SNP MP will be our next prime minister.
The SNP have been given the opportunity to participate in each of the Scottish debates and from their performance in those I’ve witnessed thus far, it may be that Labour supporters everywhere should be clamouring for their inclusion in every programme aired from now until polling day.
This was not enough for the SNP however, and this week we were treated to the spectacle of Nicola Sturgeon, with due awareness of the dignity required of her in her role as deputy first minister, tripping off to the Court of Session to drop off the paperwork to ask the court to ban the broadcast of tonight’s debate in Scotland.
Unsurprisingly, their petition was dismissed by the court and costs were awarded to the BBC.
The SNP claim that this sets an “undemocratic precedent”, presumably they feel that denying viewers in Scotland access to the final leaders debate is the ideal way to encourage civic participation to blossom.
We are also told that in the final days of the campaign, this is the key issue that the SNP will be taking to the Scottish public, so no fear of trivialising the democratic process from them then.
The SNP have always been a party of process over policies, of appearance over substance. The key, some would say only, underpinning of their party focuses on loading Scotland down with the trappings of a nation state. Ending child poverty, pah, that can wait for another day, let’s rebrand all our stationery.
There’s no denying that it is irritating to watch the supposedly UK news, and be treated to item after item about English schools and English hospitals, and it’s perhaps this exasperation with the English-centric media that the SNP are hoping to tap into. That’s the nature of devolution in this country though, it’s a bit lopsided, rather messy, but, after a fashion it pretty much works. That feels like a very British institution to me.
Time will tell what impact the huffing and puffing of the SNP will have on the election in Scotland. It seems likely however, that the Scottish people will not reward the SNP for focusing on their own interests at the expense of those of the electorate.
While I agree with much of what you’ve said here, (to whit, the extreme unlikelihood of an SNP PM – imagine! – and the glossy-but-insubstantial nature of some of the proposed policies), I think there is a risk that some rather more serious issues are being overlooked here.
Firstly, the SNP did not wait until two of the leader’s debates had elapsed – rather, they and Plaid Cymru pursued their claim for inclusion through the BBC’s internal complaints procedure, as was right and proper, and did so as soon as the debates were announced. The delay was caused by the BBC dragging its feet, not by any inaction on the part of the Nats. Court proceedings as a next step could not be pursued until this had run its course – by which time two debates had already taken place. What more could reasonably have been done is hard to say.
Secondly, I find it hard to credit that the SNP would go to all this trouble just to “tap in” to “exasperation with the English-centric media”, thereby somehow winning seats. I rather suspect that the aim is to highlight a situation whereby the elected representative of a devolved country is being denied equal representation with the potential leaders of a government with which he will have to work in the coming weeks and months. English-centric media or not, the focus in this election, it seems, is becoming fixed on the personalities (or lack thereof in two cases) of the party leaders. That these are the London-based parties, and that excluding Mr. Salmond from the three debates relegates him to a position of relative inferiority – a parochial voice squeaking in the wilderness – is a fair point. He is entitled to this opinion, and entitled to voice it. That he and his party have chosen to try and settle the matter in an infantile fashion (“if they won’t let me play, I want the whole game to end”) is unfortunate, and unlikely to gain him many fans. But then, Mr. Salmond is a habitual point-maker, as you rightly point out; although there are some who would argue that changing the name of the representative body from Parliament (talking shop) to Government (legislative body) aspires to a homological significance. In any case, the way they’ve gone about it is purile; the intent is serious, and the point is worth making. Not that it’ll change anything. Or anyone’s opinion. But is that any reason not to try?
Thirdly, the elephant in the room: the point Mr. Salmond made (and which he will present again in a speech later today) about the budget deficit and the inevitable cuts in public expenditure that every financial analyst worth her or his (respective) salt is predicting. He is right when he says that the London parties are not talking about this. Nobody is talking about this. Focusing the media’s attention on personality politics is keeping us all distracted from the one thing that nobody yet has an answer for – nearly one trillion pounds of national debt for which. No one party has yet proposed a solution, or a way of saving money other than the inevitable cuts. Answers on the back of a postcard (albeit a biggy) please.