NEWS RELEASE – Greens slam SNP over threat to BBC

The Scottish Greens today called on Alex Salmond to withdraw his party’s threat to the BBC’s public service broadcasting. Revelations today that his party may use decisions around party leaders’ debates to justify such a move will cause serious public concern about both the future of the BBC and the irresponsibility shown by SNP, Greens argue.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“No serious political party would overturn its entire broadcasting policy because of a single programme decision they didn’t like. We’ve had our objections to the BBC’s political decisions in the past – for instance, Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time after less than six months as an MEP, yet after more than ten years of election success at Holyrood not one Green MSP has ever had the same invitation.

“Nevertheless, politicians in this country should be grateful to have a broadcaster of the BBC’s quality, even when we don’t support every decision it makes, and we should be committed to supporting it and improving it instead of trying to knock it down. This is also the worst possible time for the SNP to have chosen, effectively allying themselves with the forces lurking in the wings who want to gut the BBC for their own political and commercial advantage. The First Minister must today distance himself from this approach.”

Notes

27 Comments

>> yet after more than ten years of election success at Holyrood not one Green MSP has ever had the same invitation.

Maybe they didn’t think the Green MSP was appropriate.

Oh, well, I’ll get my coat.

PS Agreed with the sentiments.

Comment by Alec — March 5, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

You’ve lost me here Patrick, surely requesting that the BBC hold to it’s own charter on impartial fairness is a very reasonable situation, that the greens have unsuccessful doing so in the past is hardly reason for attacking others that wish to make such a point forcibly.

This surely a matter of principal?

Comment by Wardog — March 5, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

The BBC’s a damn sight more impartial than the free market alternative which Murdoch and others want to impose on us. There are plenty of Tory MPs chaffing at the bit to demolish the Beeb, and for any party that claims left of centre credentials to even hint at joining forces with them is shameful.

Comment by Patrick — March 5, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

It is totally undemocratic for the SNP not to be heard. Are they not right to at least challenge?

I agree that Green MSPs, who I believe are a fantastic part of Holyrood, should be on TV more.

Broadcasting really needs to be devolved.

Comment by Kenneth — March 5, 2010 @ 5:28 pm

It is interesting that you seem to believe that any attack on the BBC equates with an attack on the idea of public service broadcasting.

It is the BBC’s failings as a public service broadcaster that are the issue here.

They are running a “Leaders” debate for a UK election which excludes the three non-English UK nations.

Not so much nation speaking unto nation as big nation speaks and three little nations are supposed to listen.

And you support that? Bizarre position to take.

Comment by Ind — March 5, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

My whole point is that criticising one editorial decision should not lead people to call the license fee into question. Of course the SNP have the right to object – they want their faces on the box as much as possible in the election campaign. That’s only natural!

But they are dead wrong if they think that turning this into an attack on the BBC itself will encourage anyone to trust them with devolved powers over broadcasting. I’m on their side in that argument, but even I wouldn’t want to give Salmond and co that kind of power unless I had a cast iron commitment to the license fee, to the BBC’s editorial independence, and to it’s central role as the country’s public service broadcaster.

Comment by Patrick — March 5, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

It’s certainly an overreaction by the SNP, which will come to nothing.

However, you say you wouldn’t trust them with control of broadcasting unless there was a “cast iron commitment to the license fee”. Do we have such a commitment from those who currently hold the broadcasting reins, or from those who shortly will? Tory policy advisers have been making vague threats about the licence fee for years – and less vague than this SNP one.

Comment by Colin — March 5, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

Come on – this is a bit more than an editorial decision. An editorial decision is who to invite onto QT. Decisions on which political parties will be represented during an election period is governed by legislation and set out very clearly – as are the major parties. Unfortunately the Green Party is not defined as a major party; however the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Fein, Social Democratic and Labour Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party are.

To quote Iain McWhirter (not an SNP member) “I am not making a narrow nationalist point here. It is, or should be, obvious to any fair minded person that this is a distortion of the democratic process in Scotland.” The same can be said of Wales and Northern Ireland.

Comment by Indy — March 5, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

I think we maybe need to differentiate ‘public broadcaster’ from ‘bbc’, the BBC’s stance on this has been similar to their dumbing down evident when Griffen took to the stage at Question time and indeed the plethora of “…dancing on ice’ myopia that populates prime-time tv.

It’s the decision & the ability to make these decisions that is being questioned, not the need for a public broadcaster.

I think your comments over ‘control’ over a devolved broadcaster area red herring, no one would have control over it other than an independent and transparent trust with a clear as day charter.

The abuse of which in the BBC’s case is at the nub of the matter here.

My biggest worry is that we are going to see the three politicians debating issues like health with no forewarning to those that maybe don’t realise that none of what they are saying will necessarily affect Scotland.

That’s a clear breach of the BBC’s own guidelines as evidenced in their news bulletins (but often disregarded)

Comment by Wardog — March 5, 2010 @ 7:41 pm

>>My whole point is that criticising one editorial decision should not lead people to call the license fee into question.<<

Patrick

The magnitude of it utterly defies democracy. I find it bizzare that that point of principle is reduced by you to “they want their faces on the box as much as possible in the election campaign. That’s only natural!”

With a devolved BBC parties like yourself will recieve far more coverage than they do now.

Comment by Tony — March 5, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

As I said, I’ve no problem with them criticising this decision. There’s a strong case against the format that’s been chosen, and no doubt others will think there’s a strong case in favour.

But the SNP have decided that because they aren’t going to get their way on this one they are going to review their whole broadcasting policy, including the future of the licence fee – which means the BBC’s whole basis.

The vultures are circling for the BBC right now, and the last thing the SNP should be going to Westminster to do is to help wreck the bits of the UK which are worth preserving.

Comment by Patrick — March 6, 2010 @ 9:58 am

But let’s be clear – the SNP is not proposing to abolish public service broadcasting.

It is proposing to devolve it.

If there are vultures circling the BBC, and the wider principle of public service broadcasting, at Westminster then devolving it may be the best protection the BBC in Scotland could have.

Comment by Indy — March 6, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

>> It is totally undemocratic for the SNP not to be heard. Are they not right to at least challenge?

I don’t think the proposed format is suited for the current British system, but I’d be interested to know if BBC Scotland has declined to broadcast a similar debate between Salmond and willing participants. Have any signed up?

If they have, and if the BBC hasn’t, I’ll agree.

>> But let’s be clear – the SNP is not proposing to abolish public service broadcasting. It is proposing to devolve it.

And I don’t know of many of the aforementioned opponents of the BBC who wish to abolish the public service broadcasting aspect of the BBC. Just emasculate it.

I would hope that a similar debate is proposed for the 2011 Holyrood elections, where the SNP is unarguably a major party.

Comment by Alec — March 6, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

I agree with the Greens on this one. The SNP have thrown all of their toys out of the pram for no real reason.

I am Scottish and proud of it – in the census next year the box next to Scotland on the nationality will be getting a big tick. However, I am not a short-bread tin, sepia tinted glasses Nat with no real perspective.

These are debates between (as it stands) the only three people who can be the future prime minister of the UK. Not just Scotland but the UK. Where does the arrogance of the SNP come from to think that they should be involved? If Jim Murphy was involved I would understand, similarly Tavish Scott. But they are not. These are UK debates and SNP are clear that they dont want to belong in the UK – why are they so annoyed by this?

Comment by Douglas — March 6, 2010 @ 8:01 pm

Douglas

The only ‘three’ people who can be the future PM? Really? I don’t think so.

Comment by Dougie Kinnear — March 7, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

patrick @ 9:58 am

Ok Patrick you are worried about the BBC and you do not support the SNP allegedly planned actions.

How do you propose they go about dealing with the obvious lack of Constitutional equality that these debates will cement, perhaps even create a precedent? Also won’t the exclusion of Plaid and the SNP only re-enforce the falsehoods voiced by the English based parties that Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties are irrelevant and by extension somehow less than equal?

>>I am Scottish and proud of it – in the census next year the box next to Scotland on the nationality will be getting a big tick. However, I am not a short-bread tin, sepia tinted glasses Nat with no real perspective.<<

Douglas

I am devastated at the lenghths you would go to to put Scotland first! By ticking that ‘Jock box’ you are simply putting yourself down the road to latter part of your intellectually bereft ststement.

Comment by Tony — March 7, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

Dougie

Who else?

Douglas

Comment by Douglas — March 7, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

The same argument is also being made by Plaid Cymru – this is a decision which is discriminatory against the three smaller nations in the UK and against six of the seven parties of government in the UK.

It is not ‘a single programme decision’ but a regular and consistent feature of supposedly public service broadcasting.

Welsh blog Syniadau makes the very same serious point about the recent Question Time broadcast in Wales, which might as well have been broadcast from Bristol as Cardiff.

http://syniadau–buildinganindependentwales.blogspot.com/2010/03/complaint-about-bbc-question-time.html

This in turn reflects the same failures noted in the King Report in 2008.

As ‘Ind’ points out, the issue being raised is not threaten the existence or concept of public service broadcasting but to note that it is not doing what it says on the tin – and if it doesn’t do that, then why should we expect every household to pay a fee for that?

Comment by Ian Johnson — March 7, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

Ok, this is all starting to get silly, and some posts are simply insulting other commenters.

I don’t intend to explain how the SNP should “go about dealing with” the BBC on this issue, precisely because I don’t think they, or any other political party, should have the authority to impose their will in that way. My whole point is that all of us in politics must accept that these things will often happen in ways we don’t like. That’s the price of a free media, and like many other people I want to stick up for that media freedom which is protected by the license fee.

Comment by Patrick — March 7, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

Patrick

This seems like a bit of a cop out;

>>I don’t intend to explain how the SNP should “go about dealing with” the BBC on this issue, precisely because I don’t think they, or any other political party, should have the authority to impose their will in that way.<>..That’s the price of a free media,..<<

Quite an overstatement there Patrick! It is precisely due to the state of our so called free media in Scotland that we need an impartial BBC. They have hardly covered themselves in glory regarding their coverage of the SNP as it stands.

Not wishing to go off topic but important in this context. Could you imagine that if Stephen Purcell had been an SNP figure the media would have handled the situation any different than the several pairs of kid gloves they have used all week?

Comment by Tony — March 7, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

Right, sorry mate but by suggesting that the media should have been ‘gloves off’ over someone’s breakdown I think you’ve just ended this conversation.

Comment by Patrick — March 7, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

“media freedom which is protected by the license fee.”

This seems to be a little missed up thinking here Patrick.

Media freedom isn’t ‘protected’ by the license fee, to suggest as much is really quite startling.

Media freedom or maybe better defined in this discussion as ‘bbc impartiality’ is protected by the BBC Trust who adhere to a set charter.

It is the adherence to that BBC charter which is being questioned.

It is the non-adherence to that charter and worse still, the lack of willingness from the BBC to even discuss it that is damaging the perceptions of the BBC’s ‘impartiality’.

By limiting the debate to three parties, the BBC is throwing it’s impartiality out of the window and perpetuating the ’same old same old’, as a Green I really can’t understand why you don’t see that other than trying to score cheap points again the SNP.

Why should I pay my license fee for a supposedly ‘impartial broadcaster’ who doesn’t even make any attempt to represent my views in their main political coverage?

I believe the word is ‘disenfranchisement’

The BBC Charter cites:

“news judgements at election time are made within a framework of democratic debate which ensures that due weight is given to hearing the views and examining and challenging the policies of all parties. Significant minor parties should also receive some network coverage during the campaign.”

Limiting it to the three large parties is by definition not democratic and not in the interests of the license fee payers of these isles.

By doing this the BBC are promoting hegemony, not debate.

Why your choosing to defend that apparent failing is quite beyond me.

Comment by Wardog — March 8, 2010 @ 5:33 am

Not wishing to bombard your blog here but I forgot to include this wee gem.

BBC Charter “Broadcasting during elections”

“We should make, and be able to defend, our editorial decisions on the basis that they are reasonable and carefully and impartially reached. To achieve this we must ensure that:

- they are aware of the different political structures in the four nations of the United Kingdom and that they are reflected in the election coverage of each nation. Programmes shown across the UK should also take this into account.”

Is the BBC meeting this impartiality by limiting it to three leaders?

Or is it the case that the BBC has went a bit ‘obama mad’ and is trying to ape the sterile election campaigns in the states.

Do such debates inspire democracy or some form of leadership cult?

Are we selecting a leader or a parliament?

Comment by Wardog — March 8, 2010 @ 5:59 am

Patrick if you believe that the BBC should be able to cover elections any way they want I suggest you put forward a proposal that the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act, the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act and the Communications Act be thrown out, along with OFCOM guidelines which cover broadcasting during the election period.

If you are not proposing that then what are you proposing?

That the BBC should be able to ignore guidelines when they only impact on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We can see the damage this is doing already with suggestions that the SNP is being arrogant thinking they can get involved with an election which is about choosing the next Prime Minister of the UK.

The purpose of a general election is not to choose the Prime Minister of the UK but that is what people like Douglas now believe – thanks, in part, to the BBC!

Comment by Indy — March 8, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

Oh for goodness sake.

For the last time, I’m not saying that I support every decision the BBC make – in fact my original release above made that very clear. I don’t expect the SNP to be happy that they don’t get a place in these debates (though I’m sure they’re very happy indeed with all the spin-off coverage their faux outrage has earned them).

But I find it infuriating that while arguing for devolved control of broadcasting they also seem determined to attack the very nature of the BBC.

As for the debates themselves, I can take them or leave them. I’d prefer the regional broadcasters to show people their own local candidates at traditional hustings, rather than the three UK party leaders. But frankly it’s a second order issue, compared with the threat to the Beeb’s very future which will come from a Tory government. If the SNP intend to come down on the side of the BBC in those circumstances, they should say so unequivocally.

Comment by Patrick — March 8, 2010 @ 5:00 pm

Patrick, I’m afraid you are beginning to look utterly foolish on this point. You are unwilling to criticise the BBC on the grounds that the BBC is to be protected as ….what? A national institution, a beacon of truth, fairness and impartiality?
The BBC in adopting this policy is demonstrating it is none of the above!
Anyone wishing for the provision of fair and democratic media provision (particularly one paid for by the populace as a tax) should see the gross arogance and unbridled bias associated with this arranement.
Your failure to accept this displays either a limited understanding of the principles involved, or a short term desire to score a cheap point……….look at the long game, an institution which is working against both it’s own charter and the interests of it’s shareholders is best corrected by challenge, not cringing acceptance.

Comment by Scootydug — March 9, 2010 @ 9:06 pm

“You are unwilling to criticise the BBC…”

No I’m not. My original press release above explicitly criticises the BBC, and on an issue I consider far more important than whether or not the SNP get themselves into these debate programmes. There’s a perfectly valid argument on both sides of that question, and an even stronger one that these programmes should not be happening in this way at all.

What I’m not willing to do is to turn one criticism into an attack on the license fee, which is what the SNP seem to be doing. Regardless of the difference of opinion on these three programmes, the BBC is vastly superior to the alternatives being touted by the Tories, and I’ve heard nothing to convince me otherwise.

Comment by Patrick — March 10, 2010 @ 3:32 pm