A POLITICS expert has called out STV for a “very British” approach to its General Election debate which will only involve the Holyrood leaders of the Scottish parties.
The debate will be aired on Monday and will involve First Minister John Swinney, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, Conservative leader Douglas Ross and Scottish LibDem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton.
The broadcaster has already come under fire from the Scottish Greens and Alba who are furious they will not have a chance to take part.
Alex Salmond has gone as far as to report STV to Ofcom over the issue.
But criticism of a different brand has come from political science professor Ailsa Henderson who has said the debate could confuse voters and imply devolved politicians can influence reserved matters.
READ MORE: Alex Salmond reports BBC Scotland and STV to Ofcom
On Twitter/X, she described the set-up of the debate as “very, very British”.
Henderson told The National it made sense to have a dedicated Scottish debate, but it should involve candidates for Westminster seats who can discuss reserved matters.
She said: “There are rightly concerns that a lot of the UK General Election campaign may feel like it makes little difference in Scotland.
“UK party leaders will be talking about their plans for education and health, and that is devolved in Scotland, so their plans will apply in England alone.
“In that environment it makes sense to have a dedicated Scottish focus for some debates but the participants in those debates should be candidates for Westminster seats, they should focus on reserved matters, and ideally discuss how they would approach the role of Secretary of State for Scotland.
A UK election debate among 4 Scottish leaders, none standing for election, or who can legislate on reserved matters, is so very, very British.
— Ailsa Henderson (@ailsa_henderson) May 29, 2024
Any time folks blame voters for not understanding devolution or legislative competence I point to stuff like this. https://t.co/jfIbRDJRvP
“Otherwise there is a risk of confusing voters and implying that devolved politicians can influence reserved matters.
“The devolved party leaders might have bigger profiles in Scotland but it’s not obvious why they are the most appropriate participants in a UK General Election debate. If other Scottish MPs have lower profiles then that’s an argument for inviting them to a debate not excluding them from it.”
READ MORE: BBC Question Time: Who is on tonight's show in Epsom?
STV's political editor Colin Mackay is set to oversee proceedings from the broadcaster's Pacific Quay headquarters in Glasgow, grilling each leader in turn before allowing them to cross examine one another.
Sharing news of the debate on Twitter/X, Henderson said: “Any time folks blame voters for not understanding devolution or legislative competence I point to stuff like this.”
After STV journalist Paris Gourtsoyannis defended the programme, she argued broadcasters needed to “recognise they live in a multi-national state” and not “pretend devolved politicians have any say on reserved outcomes”.
She added: “A British political culture that misunderstands devolution is aided by a media that likewise obscures it (discuss, 20 marks).
“An hour of leaders arguing about the SNP's education record illuminates no one in a UK General Election.”
The row comes after Swinney said it was "ridiculous" that the SNP were being excluded from ITV's head-to-head debate between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, which will be broadcast the following day on June 4.
An STV spokesperson said: “STV’s election coverage, including the upcoming leaders’ debate, is consistent with Ofcom’s Programme Code.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel