NEW BLOG POST scotlandspeaks: response to the TV debate and Scottish online protest

I am not a particularly gung ho tweeter and, until yesterday, had only a vague idea of what a trending topic was. But the Leaders Debate on ITV did induce something of an adrenaline surge as individuals responded to calls from Bella Caledonia and the Scottish Independence Convention to intervene.  Still waiting to hear back on how we did re trending topics - surely there must be a tool to reveal that? The process was exciting and in a short time enthusiastic recruits joined - welcome to my new "followers". Perhaps we should have built the campaign earlier, rather than relying on the element of surprise, though that does give these things a freshness. It was only on Twitter, for example, that the point was made about free personal care for the elderly being established in Scotland - yet Brown's Treasury had tried to punish Holyrood for introducing it. Similarly, the "leaders" were all terribly forthright on immigration - without mentioning child detention at Dungavel and Yarlswood. And crime - without letting spill that they all opposed SNP legislation - backed by police and doctors - to cut street violence by raising the price of alcohol. All were enthusiastic backers of referenda for constitutional reform or local democracy...but not in Scotland. That was not mentioned.   

The discussion on Newsnight Scotland - a programme I admire - simply replicated the UK network chatter on whether Clegg had the edge on Cameron and whether Brown was personable enough to win a 21st century election. Even the "English Speaking Union" schoolkids they interviewed for the views of "Scottish Youth" focussed on old fashioned debating points as opposed to the role of social media.  Given that Newsnight Scotland is one of the few intelligent outlets for Scottish political discussion, might it not have been better to examine the question of how nationalists and greens were using the internet to conduct an alternative debate? Should they not have analysed the debate itself by scrutinising how the SNP position on Trident/immigration/fiscal powers might have played?   

What of the Alex Salmond address in advance? A Scottish post mortem should have dicussed the issues raised in that - yes and criticised them too. The main TV channel have all accepted that Salmond is not part of the debate, but in doing so they are occupying a political position which undermines totally their commitment to impartiality. Similarly, why did they not discuss the impact of the compere Mr Stewart's  embarrassing refrain that "the next topic is on a devolved matter".  It wasn't just a BBC problem though. The Scottish newspaper front pages went on exactly the same "Clegg victory" lines. More of that later though...perhaps they have Scottish material inside

ADD

* Normally v equitable with links, but knackered tonight - use google!

* The online editor of STV Matt Roper is a good guy and fine journalist. He assured me that they only censored comments which contained bad words and were personally abusive - such as accusations of paedophilia. Whoever said that should behave themselves. No chance to watch STV coverage following the debate - hopefully will do that later as aware that my blogs focus on the BBC. It's the BBC who charge us plenty for a "public service!" Anything STV provide is gratis. 

* I am with the majority of Scots in that I thought the dour, unflashy Brown performed best out of the three.  This marks an extraordinary gulf between Scotland and England which, again, was not discussed on Newsnicht. This is my observation as a journalist.  I tweeted this view but one SNP activist replied that Salmond would have wiped the floor with them all....we'll never know....

* The lovely Libby Brooks, deputy comment editor of The Guardian, tweeted her Bearsden mother's view that Mr Brown had the best fitting trousers. Who could argue?  

Comments

[Jo]

I really have to take issue with anyone questioning Gordon Brown's right to be present at the debate. He is the Leader of the Labour Party which is presently in government and he is Prime Minister. England really MUST accept that his constituency is irrelevant. He is the Leader of the Government. The other truth they really must get their heads around is that they, like Scotland and Wales had the opportunity to go for devolution in the same way we did. We got there but they were so busy whining that England was different and bigger and then there was London to consider and oh.......please! They didn't do it. The other problem of course has always been that many of them think Westminster IS the English Parliament which is just isn't. Cameron may therefore run into trouble with his intention to "ban" certain MPs from voting on English issues. It would be better to negotiate an agreement on such things rather than declare that bans will come into play for he may just find he can't ban UK MPs voting on issues raised in the UK Parliament and which currently are within the remit of the UK Parliament because England didn't both to embrace devolution! To blame the whole mess on Scotland is unhelpful, narrow minded and just plain daft.

[Jo]

In a welcome return after illness Iain MacWhirter also made points not often seen in the Scottish media about the exclusion of the SNP from the debates. He said, "Had Salmond been present, viewers would have been reminded that Scotland already has free personal care for the elderly – a policy the other parties have opposed. We would have been reminded also that Scotland remains committed to free higher education and has resolutely opposed the privatisation of the NHS. The war would have been an issue and the debate about immigration would have been markedly different.

I still cannot understand how, under Britain’s strict election rules, the broadcasters were able to transmit this debate in Scotland without the governing party of Scotland being represented."

I think the TV debate proved nothing other than how insane it is to base important decisions such as voting in a government on something like that. And while I can understand the loathing of Brown I cannot remotely relate to any sort of tolerance towards Cameron and this particular batch of Tories. I still haven't recovered from all the last batch, led by Thatcher, did to all of us.

[joanmcalpine]

You make a good point Hamish. With hinsight the idea of a "protest" may have put people off. scotlandspeaks should be a big tent for anyone who want Scottish issues to be heard throughout the course of this campaign and beyond.

[Hamish Scott]

I actually joined Twitter to take part in Scotlandspeaks. I did find the thing a bit negative though, and whilst it might help, I think the people who are undecided/ambivalent/neutral woiuldn't be encouraged/persuaded by something with that negative aspect.
This does raise questions about how we engage the Holyrood election next year, which is more criticalto Scotland's future. We know what the mainstream media will be like, perhaps we need a look at co-ordinated tactics/strategy for using internet resources like Twitter, etc to counter that?
I disagree with Joan that Brown came out best. I thought Clegg performed best, which admittedly is being damned with faint praise. What does concern me, though, is such debates turning General Elections into 'beauty pagents', leading to even more dumbing down of politics.

[joanmcalpine]

good point torque. someone should have mentioned Brown's seat is in Scotland. The failure to mention free personal care already existing in Scotland was bizarre

[Toque]

As I've said on this blog before, this Englishman would have welcomed Alex Salmond into the fray. Without him the word 'England' was not mentioned once, despite the fact that most of what was on discussion was only about England.

Instead we were treated to phrases like "our NHS" instead of "England's NHS" and "this country" instead of "England".

Cameron could have gone for Brown's jugular at the end of the debate by highlighting the contrasting situations of Scotland and England's elderly (re home care) that Labour have presided over. But did he? Did he bollocks - that would have meant he might have had to mention England.

The hundreds of letters sent out by the Campaign for an English Parliament and Power2010 didn't result in a question asking why Gordon Brown was even present at a debate about English domestic matters when he is elected by Scots. You might have thought that a question on the governance of England would have made it in. At least you should get to discuss the Scottish question in your debates, whereas our "English" leaders would prefer to discuss Afghanistan in the TV debate about domestic matters.

[Dark Lochnagar]

I am quite new, well two days, to Twitter, but I thought like you it was extremely interesting watching the Scottish Tweets as the programme was on. I thought however that Clegg won it by some margin. Must be my loathing of Brown. If Cameron doesn't get his finger out we are heading for a hung parliament, which would suit us that support the SNP.