David Maddox: Salmond has no chance of joining great debates

Published on Monday 5 October 2009 21:41

IN JUNE, a political grouping called Mebyon Kernow – "the Party of Cornwall" – took three seats in county council elections.

It means that, after the last serious test of political opinion in that part of the south-west of England, politicians who want independence for Cornwall hold three more seats than Labour.

Strangely enough, though, Dick Cole, Mebyon Kernow's leader, is not demanding to be part of the leaders' debate in the run-up to the UK general election, as Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, is.

While the SNP, as the governing party in Scotland and the holder of seven Westminster seats, is an altogether different and more substantial political beast than its Celtic cousin, the question of where and how the line should be drawn on a political debate is a vexed one.

The SNP's threat to seek a legal block to stop Scottish viewers seeing a debate, if it is not involved, could actually scupper the whole concept and, ironically, get Gordon Brown off the hook.

The SNP threat also sounds sinister – it never looks good for a party to try to stifle the electorate's access to political debate to serve its own purposes.

However, in this case it seems that the law, if not the moral argument, might be on the SNP's side – and the legal precedent was created by two unionist parties for their own interest. A successful challenge from Labour and the Liberal Democrats in 1995 stopped the screening of an interview with John Major in Scotland a week before an election.

But, even taking all this into account, anybody who believes Mr Salmond, or, perhaps more appropriately, the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson, should have the right to join a UK-wide broadcast of a leaders' debate seems to be missing the point.

The proposed debate reflects the trend towards presidential-style politics in Britain. Increasingly, people are voting on the basis of the personalities who lead the parties rather than the parties themselves.

The old argument against these events was that, unlike the United States, Britain is a parliamentary democracy run by a collective cabinet style of government and the principal leaders have a chance to confront each other at Prime Minister's question time on a weekly basis.

The reality is the tenures of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, together with the haplessness of John Major's attempt to restore cabinet government, put paid to that idea. So these debates on television are all about who we want to see as prime minister after the next election – and that boils down to David Cameron or Gordon Brown.

There is just about a strong enough moral case to include the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in the broadcasts, even though he seems to be only person who believes he could be the next resident of 10 Downing Street.

But while the Liberal Democrats are at least running in almost every seat in the UK, and with the aid of a miracle akin to the raising of Lazarus could sweep to power, it is simply impossible for Alex Salmond to be prime minister, not least because he is not even standing as an MP.

This means the SNP is relevant only to Scottish-based voters, who make up about 8.5 per cent of the total UK electorate – less than the percentage total for London, Yorkshire, the north-west of England or the West Midlands.

The counterpoint to this, of course, is that Scotland is a separate country within the United Kingdom, with its own devolved government.

But one also has to ask what the SNP would bring to the table. Despite its pretensions, the SNP is largely a single-issue party and that issue, Scottish independence, is, in a UK electoral context, not the highest priority in British voters' minds, especially in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

That is not to say it is unimportant – there is plenty of interest in it in England, not least from small pockets of English separatists who believe they are subsidising Scotland. It is just that independence for Scotland is not at the forefront of political debate south of the Border.

There is also the question of practicalities. Regionalising the debates is unlikely to be acceptable for the broadcasters or the main party leaders.

There are more than 350 political parties registered in the UK. The idea of giving each and every one of them air space in a leadership debate is ludicrous. A line has to be drawn.

If that line were to be drawn to include the SNP, others, in the wider British context, would have an equal, or greater, claim.

Above the SNP would be Ukip, the Greens and the odious BNP, which all commanded many more votes in the recent European elections.

Alongside the SNP would be Plaid Cymru and the four main Northern Irish parties. Plaid, Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionists are, like the SNP, parties of devolved government.

This means that a leadership debate involving the SNP would, by necessity, probably have to be a 12-party affair – unwieldily, impractical and pointless.

There are possible compromises, though, which could nullify the SNP legal challenge.

First is the talk of spin-off debates involving Cabinet ministers and their shadows. One of these could be on Scottish affairs, with Labour's Scottish Secretary, Jim Murphy, and the various Westminster spokespeople.

The other solution would be to look at the legislation and offer the SNP fair and proportionate time. This could be a minor parties' debate.

But as this would mean Mr Salmond would have to share a platform with Nick Griffin of the BNP, it may give the SNP leader an excuse to stay clear, even if it ticks the legal box.

The real problem is Mr Salmond's ego and his party's aspirations. He has made it clear in the recent past that he believes he is too important to debate with mere Scottish secretaries and ministers. He wants to be seen as a statesman equal to prime ministers.

This is also the SNP's big chance for a breakthrough, and a leadership debate excluding the party could be significant in stopping it getting its cherished target of 20 Scottish MPs.

The SNP would rather stop these debates than not be part of them. If they succeed, it will be a lost opportunity for British democracy.