Leveson on Salmond
Analysis later. If you simply want to read the two passages of the Leveson Inquiry’s report which concern the actions of the First Minister without wading through 2000 or so pages, you’ll find them below. Bored readers may wish to compare the contents with our own assessment/predictions from five months ago. (NOTE: Where it says “emphasis added”, the emphasis in question was added by Lord Leveson, not by us.)
————————————————————————
CHAPTER 6: MEDIA POLICY: THE BSKYB BID
6. News Corp and the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP
6.1 The lobbying of Adam Smith was not the only way in which Mr Michel hoped to influence Mr Hunt. One of the conduits which Mr Michel sought to exploit calls for examination. Its roots lay in the period before Mr Hunt took over responsibility for the bid.
6.2 During the autumn of 2010, Mr Michel had been in touch with the First Minister for Scotland, the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP. By this stage, Mr Salmond was forging a close relationship with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp which is discussed more fully elsewhere in this Report. In particular, he was hoping to secure the support of The Scottish Sun in the then forthcoming 2011 Scottish Parliament election. Mr Salmond saw advantage for Scotland in the bid’s success because News Corp is a big employer in Scotland. He was more than ready to try and encourage a successful outcome for the bid. An email from Mr Michel to James Murdoch dated 1 November 2010 records Mr Salmond’s position and that of another unnamed politician with a political interest in the bid’s success:
“Mission accomplished.–Libdem MP, former Sky employee, with major Sky customer centres in his constituency and around, will contact Vince Cable to ask him to bear in mind the economic / investment point of view rather than getting influenced by political games, especially in times of austerity and very difficult economic environment for those areas. He will also emphasise the opportunity for Cable to show the maturity of the Libdems as coalition partners, working for the long-term, and will draw from the Coalition government experience lib-dems have had in Scotland. He agrees with the need for this to be looked at by Brussels rather than scrutinised again on plurality ground in the UK [sic]
Alex Salmond is very keen to also put these issues across to Cable and have a call with you tomorrow or Wednesday. His team will also brief the Scottish press on the economic importance of News Corp for Scotland.” (emphasis added)
6.3 Mr Salmond did not quarrel with the thrust of that email and confirmed that he had not only spoken to James Murdoch about the bid but also gone on to meet him in London in January 2011 to discuss the bid and other matters. Mr Salmond explained the importance of the bid to Scotland in these terms:
“It should be understood, I mean, BSkyB is a huge employer in Scotland. We’re talking about more than 6,000 full-time jobs in addition to the 2,000 outsourcing jobs and temporary jobs. It’s vital in Dumfirmline, Livingston, Uddingston. Some 36 per cent of BSkyB’s total global employment is in Scotland. They are in the top 10 of Scottish private sector employers. So it’s a matter of great importance and the argument being forward by Mr Murdoch was that an expansion of the digital platform on a European-wide basis would result in additional investment and that Scotland would be well placed in that context to benefit, given the strength of the Scottish offer in terms of competitiveness, to benefit from that additional investment.”
6.4 Mr Salmond confirmed that when he had spoken to James Murdoch by telephone the bid had been mentioned and that he wanted to discuss the bid with Mr Murdoch when he met him:
“Q. You refer, though, to the impact of consolidation of BSkyB ownership, so plainly you had in contemplation at that stage the BSkyB bid; is that right?
A. That’s correct. Prior to this, it had been indicated I think in a phone call – I’m sure in a phone call, actually, because I wanted to meet Mr Murdoch to discuss this in particular. This was one of the key things I wanted to discuss, to understand better the argument that the consolidation of ownership would result in additional investment and that Scotland was well placed. To be fair – well, I’m going to be more than fair, they can speak with a great deal of authority, if a company has 36 per cent of its global workforce in Scotland, then they speak from a position of some credibility.” (emphasis added)
6.5 He regarded it as his duty to pursue jobs and investment for Scotland and denied any responsibility for plurality in the press. He had been prepared to put forward those arguments to the relevant Secretary of State but, as things turned out, the opportunity to do so never arose:
“Q. I think it’s fairly clear from what you’ve just said, Mr Salmond, that certainly from the date of this meeting with Mr James Murdoch you were in favour of the bid. Is that right?
A. Yes. I was in favour of what benefited the Scottish economy. Remember, I have no responsibility for broadcasting policy, I have no responsibility for plurality in the press, Ibut I do have a responsibility for jobs and investment in Scotland. That is my statutory responsibility. Indeed, it’s reflected not just in the fact it’s my responsibility, it’s actually reflected in our Ministerial Code in Scotland that it is one of the responsibilities that you must pursue. So I would tend to put an emphasis on the jobs and investment aspects of this. It was for others to consider other matters. And specifically what I was prepared to do and said I was prepared to do would have been to speak to the relevant Secretary of State to say jobs and investment are going to be a consideration along with other things that they had to consider when these matters were brought to decision at the appropriate time.
As circumstances turned out, that appropriate time never arose, but I was certainly prepared to argue for that and I would certainly say that’s entirely a legitimate preoccupation and argument that the First Minister of Scotland or any Scottish minister should put forward.” (emphasis added)
6.6 He said that a purpose of his meeting with James Murdoch in January 2011 had been better to understand the potential consequences of James Murdoch’s plans for a European digital platform for Scotland:
“MR JAY: Mr Salmond, before January 2011, were you a supporter of the BSkyB bid or not?
A. What I’d said was that I’d be prepared to argue to the Secretary of State, initially Vince Cable, or advance to the Secretary of State the argument that jobs and investment should be taken into account along with other factors, which were their responsibility. I never got the opportunity with Mr Cable, because he disappeared from the scene for reasons you know about, and as it happens, I didn’t get the opportunity with Mr Hunt either, but I was certainly of a mind that I wanted to put forward the position that jobs and investment was an important criteria which should be taken into account, and the meeting with Mr Murdoch in January which followed on a phone call in November, I don’t have a date for it, was because I wanted to hear in more detail the connection between the European digital platform investment argument and what the consequences might be for Scotland in that respect.
So I was prepared to make that argument and if the circumstances had arisen, then I would have made it.”
6.7 To return to the question of Mr Salmond’s understanding of his role and duty, he made clear that he accepted that he knew that Dr Cable and then Mr Hunt were fulfilling a quasi-judicial role and had to make their decision insulated from the considerations which Mr Salmond had intended to raise. Even this knowledge would not have stopped him from trying to advance considerations which would have led the decision maker into error had they been heeded:
“Q. Were you advised that Dr Cable was occupying a quasi-judicial role and that he had to make the decision insulated from the sort of considerations you might have wished to bend his ear about?
A. Yes. He was; I wasn’t. Interestingly, as I said earlier, I don’t have responsibility for competition, I don’t have responsibility for plurality in the media. I do have responsibility for jobs and investment in Scotland, and the ministerial code, which we may discuss later in terms of politicians and their inter reaction with businesses in Scotland.
9.29 of the Ministerial Code of Scotland actually makes the point exactly:
However, nothing in this code should be taken as preventing ministers from fulfilling their proper function of encouraging investment and economic activity for the benefit and prosperity of the people of Scotland.”
Because within the terms of our remit and responsibilities, what is my responsibility, the government’s responsibility obviously takes pre-eminence. And across a whole range of issues, whether it be banking reform or oil taxation would be another issue where we don’t currently at least have competence, we nonetheless make an argument from the Scottish interest, and while Mr Cable or Mr Hunt, however they understood it, and I’m sure they did, were in a quasi-judicial capacity, I wasn’t. My capacity was quite clear and my ability to represent was also quite clear.
Q. I hadn’t considered that provision in the Scottish Ministerial Code before but I question, Mr Salmond, whether a very general provision of that nature would entitle you, if I may say so, to interfere with a quasi-judicial function which fell to the duty of the Secretary of State in London to discharge.
A. Well, in that case, can I give you a different example entirely where – a very controversial well-known example, where my colleague Mr MacAskill, the Justice Secretary of Scotland, was taking a quasi-judicial decision on the compassionate release of Mr al-Megrahi, and indeed on the application for prisoner transfer, where although he was in a quasi-judicial role he invited opinion and evidence, including opinion and evidence from the United Kingdom government.
In the event, they for their own reasons decided not to submit it, but our understanding certainly in Scotland, and I’m actually pretty certain it’s the same here, is that people are able within their responsibilities to make representation. It is for the Secretary of State or the politician concerned who is operating in that capacity to make sure that they stay within the bounds of their responsibilities.”
6.8 Paragraph 9.29 of the Scottish Ministerial Code, 2011 edition, is a part of a section on “Travel by Ministers” and falls under the subheading “Contact with Commercial Companies”. It concerns the promotion of products and services by association and attempts to influence public sector procurement and falls to be read in that context. It states:
“Ministers should also avoid promoting an individual company’s products or services by association. They should also bear in mind public sector procurement procedures and resist any attempt to influence them in favour of particular products or services. If such attempts are experienced, Ministers should report these to the Director of Procurement. However, nothing in this Code should be taken as preventing Ministers from fulfilling their proper function of encouraging investment in economic activity to the benefit and prosperity of the people of Scotland.”
6.9 The Scottish Ministerial Code starts with the following two paragraphs concerning General Principle and Ministerial Conduct:
“Scottish Ministers are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligation, and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life.”
6.10 On 11 February 2011 Mr Michel met with Mr Salmond’s adviser. The resulting report from Mr Michel to James Murdoch is consistent with Mr Salmond’s evidence that he was standing ready to speak to Mr Hunt. It also indicates that newspaper coverage and the potential for a televised First Ministerial debate were discussed on the same occasion. The email read:
“I met with Alex Salmond’s adviser today
He will call Hunt whenever we need him to
1 – He noticed a major change in the Sun’s coverage recently. The Daily Record is running a very personal campaign against him
2 – He believes the time has come to organise a First Ministerial debate between him and Ian Gray [Labour leader], who are the two only possible FM candidates.
He would be very keen for Sky News to organise it with Adam. There is a timing issue as it would have to be organised before dissolution on 22nd March.” (emphasis added)
6.11 Asked about the reference to the Sun’s coverage in the above email, Mr Salmond pointed out that The Sun did not commit to support the SNP until March 2011, although he seemed to accept that there had been something of a change in The Sun’s coverage. His evidence was:
“Q. Does that reflect an underlying reality that the Sun was more favourably disposed to you and your party at about this time?
A. I don’t know. Certainly they weren’t – I think the new editor had probably come in by this time. The Sun had not declared for the SNP at that time…”
and
“Q. I think the gist of your evidence is you wouldn’t disassociate yourself from the perception at least Mr Aberdain [Mr Salmond’s adviser] had about the Sun’s coverage; is that right?”
A. I think we did feel that the new editor was treating things a bit differently, but certainly at that stage there was no commitment from the editor to support the SNP in the election, because that I’m sure came later. In fact, it came in March.”
6.12 The third and final of three emails from Mr Michel to Mr Murdoch to refer to Mr Salmond in the context of the bid is dated 2 March 2011, the day before Mr Hunt announced that he was minded to accept the UIL in their then form and consequently began the first statutory consultation. It records Mr Salmond expressly seeking help to ensure that The Sun did support the SNP at the then forthcoming election. It also confirms Mr Salmond’s continuing willingness to support the bid. Insofar as is relevant, it read:
“Alex Salmond called. He had a very good dinner with the Editor of the Sun in Scotland yesterday.
The Sun is now keen to back the SNP at the election. The Editor will make his pitch to the Editorial team tomorrow.
Alex wanted to see whether we could help smooth the way for the process.
…
He also asked whether we could go for dinner at Bute House before the election campaign kicks off on the 22nd March.
On the Sky bid, he will make himself available to support the debate if consultation is launched.”(emphasis added)
6.13 Mr Salmond confirmed that he had called Mr Michel. The meal to which he referred was one of two meetings which he had had with the editor of The Sun. He had gone to see the editor following his meeting with James Murdoch in January (at which he had met Mr Michel for the first time). When seeking support on that occasion he had been told to “go and see the editor”. He said that what is recorded in the email as a request to smooth things over was in fact a plea to prevent London vetoing the Scottish editor’s wish to support the SNP: “All I wanted was a lack of influence. I wanted – the editorial team were well up for the cup”. He denied that discussion of both the bid and political support for the SNP in the same conversation amounted to a subtle and reciprocal exchange of favours.
6.14 The history of Mr Salmond’s readiness to intervene in the bid, on News Corp’s behalf, is of real interest. He stood ready to lobby first Dr Cable and later Mr Hunt, prepared to argue that it would be good for Scotland and Scottish jobs. Had he done so he would have been seeking to persuade a quasi-judicial decision maker to take into account a factor which was irrelevant to the statutory plurality test. Plurality was the only consideration which could legitimately have been taken into account by the Secretary of State. Acceding to Mr Salmond’s argument would have rendered the decision unlawful.
6.15 Mr Salmond adamantly believed that he was entitled to make his case and that responsibility for ensuring that the decision was properly taken rested entirely with the Secretary of State. Mr Salmond is right that legal responsibility for taking the decision lawfully rested with the Secretary of State. But it does not follow that he was entirely at liberty to seek to persuade the Secretary of State into error (particularly, if successful, it could potentially have had the effect of giving rise to grounds for challenge). Neither do I understand how a section of the Scottish Ministerial Code dealing with public sector procurement assists. Mr Salmond’s duty to promote the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs cannot sensibly be understood as requiring irrelevant submissions to be made to a quasi-judicial decision maker.
6.16 The evidence does not go so far as to show either an express or an implied deal between Mr Salmond and James Murdoch trading newspaper support for assistance with the bid. What it did reveal was the way in which Mr Salmond was expressly seeking the support of The Sun in the same conversation as he was repeating an offer to assist with the bid. That occurred in the context of a relationship between Mr Salmond and News Corp which had been warming since 2007 and was continuing to do so. Mr Salmond’s readiness, when the subject was first raised in November 2010 and thereafter, to stand ready to assist News Corp is striking.
6.17 I have absolutely no doubt that Mr Salmond was motivated by an anxiety to help Scottish employment and to benefit Scotland generally: that is entirely laudable and exactly what is the expectation and proper function of the First Minister. How far that should be taken, however, is another matter. He appreciated that employment whether in Scotland or elsewhere was not a relevant consideration for the Minister and, in fact, he never contacted either Dr Cable or Mr Hunt to argue the contrary. Judged by what he did, as opposed to what he said he was prepared to do, therefore, he cannot be criticised.
.
————————————————————————
.
CHAPTER 7 FURTHER POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PRESS.
4. The First Minister of Scotland, the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP
4.1 As I have explained,15 although the remit of this Inquiry extends to all parts of the UK, I have not sought to make any recommendations of exclusive application to Scotland (or indeed Wales or Northern Ireland). As for Scotland, the pattern of devolved and reserved competence in media matters in Scotland is not straightforward. For example, broadcasting regulation and competition rules in Scotland fall to be dealt with on a ‘reserved’ basis (that is on a UK-wide basis, with decision-making resting with the UK Government and Parliament). Press standards, and the commercial interests of the press more generally, fall to be considered on a ‘devolved’ basis: the Scottish Government and Parliament can choose either to make their own policy and law for national application or to support a UK-wide approach. What follows must be considered with that in mind.
4.2 Mr Salmond was asked about his expectations from the Inquiry in terms of the application of its recommendations to Scotland. He said this:
“Well, I think that rather depends on what the Inquiry comes up with, Mr Jay. If the Inquiry comes up with a proposition which accords with public support, which is eminently sensible and points the way to a better future, then I think the Scottish Parliament would be very foolish not to pay close attention to it. If on the other hand, which I don’t believe for a minute will happen, it came up with a solution which was either over-prescriptive, restricted press liberty, then I think the Scottish Parliament might wish not to apply that. So I think that rather depends on the proposition that emerges from this Inquiry. I wish you well in the deliberations and I assure you we’re looking with enormous interest.”
4.3 Mr Salmond said this, by way of his general views on his personal approach to relationships within the press:
“Q. … [s]o are we to understand by that that you will seek to persuade newspapers to modify their editorial or reporting stance to reflect the interests of either yourself or your party?
A. Oh yes. I mean, I don’t know of any politician I’ve ever come across who – well, if anybody doesn’t answer yes to that question, they certainly shouldn’t be under oath at an Inquiry. All politicians try quite legitimately and properly to influence newspapers to treat them or their party, or in the case of myself, their cause of Scottish independence, more favourably. That’s not the only reason for meeting editors. Often there are meetings about specific issues, specific campaigns, things that are important to that newspaper or important to the government, and a range of these meetings would be covered by that category.”
4.4 Mr Salmond spoke about his relationship with Rupert Murdoch: they had evidently made significant personal connections. They shared Scottish roots and heritage. Mr Murdoch’s grandfather was a Church of Scotland Minister within Mr Salmond’s old constituency. Mr Murdoch told the Inquiry that he was ‘intrigued’ by the notion of Scottish independence, and it is also clear that, over time, he came to be impressed by Mr Salmond’s ideas and political acumen.
4.5 The personal element of the relationship evidently dated from relatively recent years. Mr Salmond told the Inquiry that he recalled one telephone conversation with Mr Murdoch in November 2000, shortly after the US Presidential election, but that there was then no personal contact between them for nearly seven years.
4.6 The Scottish Sun, a News International title, was anti-SNP at the 2007 election (as indeed was the Daily Record). Mr Salmond’s relationship with Mr Murdoch changed after the 2007 election.
4.7 Bearing in mind the public interest in the transparency of relationship between senior politicians (particularly in government) and senior figures in the press, on 4 August 2011 Mr Salmond had volunteered to publish a list of his meetings with newspaper proprietors, editors and media executives over the preceding years. This list, together with more recent evidence to the Inquiry, shows that Mr Salmond and Mr Murdoch met on five occasions over a five year period. The tone of these meetings was said to be warm and friendly. Mr Salmond also had two meetings with James Murdoch.
4.8 It is apparent from the evidence that these meetings and conversations covered topics such as common heritage, the issue of Scottish independence, and (although the evidence was less clear about this) corporation tax rates in Scotland. Doubtless Mr Salmond had the opportunity on these occasions to explain to Mr Murdoch the advantages, as he saw them, of Scottish independence to the latter’s commercial interests. He also invited Mr Murdoch to sporting events and the theatre. Significantly, on Mr Murdoch’s side there was an invitation for Mr Salmond to be the guest of honour at the formal opening of News International’s Eurocentral printing plant on 30 October 2007.
4.9 BSkyB is a significant employer in Scotland, directly responsible for 6,000 full time jobs and 2,000 outsourced and temporary jobs. Some 36% of BSkyB’s total global employment is in Scotland. Mr Salmond’s support for Mr Murdoch’s bid to increase his holdings in BSkyB is discussed elsewhere: it is clear that he was prepared to lobby UK Ministers in furtherance of News Corp’s case. He said that that was with the motive of furthering Scottish economic interests, including investment and employment opportunities. Mr Salmond was also hopeful that The Scottish Sun would support him in the May 2011 election, and his evidence was that the issue was raised with the Murdochs, for him to be told by them that it was a matter for the editors:
“Q. Did you ever discuss with Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch support by their newspapers in Scotland for your party?
A. I find certainly with Rupert Murdoch and with James Murdoch as well that if you do that, what they’d say was, “Go to the editors”, and that’s what they say, so you just assume that’s what’s going to be said, and they’re perfectly right to say that and therefore that’s what I’ve done.
Q. Can we be clear on how many occasions then you have raised the issue with Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch? Are you able to assist us?
A. I wouldn’t explicitly raise it at meetings necessarily, because they’d always say, “Go to the editors”. That certainly was Rupert Murdoch’s practice, and I can’t even remember, it may have cropped up in a James Murdoch meeting, but if so, he would say, “Go to the editors”, and go to the editors I did, as I say, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.
Q. But that answer presupposes that you made a direct request statement to James Murdoch or Rupert Murdoch, “Would your papers support me?” and their answer is always, “Go and speak to the editors”; is that right?
A. No, I don’t think I’ve ever done it explicitly like that. It would be something like, “I take it I have to go and speak to the editors to get support for my point of view”. Much more like that. It’s chicken and egg. That’s been the position certainly throughout – not just in the meetings I’ve had with Rupert Murdoch more recently in the last five years, but even if we go back to 2000, 2001. I mean, I can’t speak for other people’s experience, but that’s been consistently what he says, so you just accept that’s what he’s going to say and therefore you anticipate that, so you don’t actually – I don’t think I’ve ever explicitly asked him for support for the party because the answer would be, “Go to the editors and argue the position.”
Q. In your witness statement, the way you formulate it at 13987, eight lines from the top of the page, you say quite generally: “In relation to questions about support from particular titles, any such discussion with Rupert or James Murdoch was always met with a request to talk directly to the relevant editorial team.” So you’re making it clear there that if – or rather when you raised such a request with Rupert or James Murdoch, they told you to go and speak to the editors?
A. I refer back to what I said a couple of minutes ago. I think probably the way I put it was “I take it I should go and see the sub-editor or go and see the Times editor or go and see the Sunday Times editor.”
4.10 It was also put to Mr Salmond that the editorial direction for The Scottish Sun came from Rupert Murdoch. His answer was:
“Not according to Mr Murdoch. Mr Murdoch would say he was maybe part of discussions, but it was up to the editors. He would always say that.”
4.11 In early March 2011 Mr Salmond made his ‘pitch’ to the editorial team of The Scottish Sun, and support from that paper was forthcoming later that month. Although Mr Salmond’s understanding was that Mr Murdoch’s editors rather than Mr Murdoch personally would decide which party to support, Mr Murdoch’s evidence to the Inquiry was that, although he could not recall the matter specifically, The Scottish Sun’s decision was one to which he contributed, and he was also able to explain the basis for it. Immediately after the general election the editor, Mr Dinsmore, wrote a personal letter of congratulation.
4.12 The relationship between Mr Salmond and Mr Murdoch after the 2007 Election came to be one of mutual respect and admiration, notwithstanding the fact that it was not built on frequent interactions between the two (very busy) men. Mr Murdoch could no doubt appreciate that he was dealing with a politician of considerable skill, resource and intelligence, and he may also have felt, and perhaps continues to believe, that the aims of the SNP are consistent with the long-term objectives of both News International and News Corp in Scotland. Mr Salmond clearly saw the advantages of securing political support from News International and The Scottish Sun, notwithstanding that the 2007 election had led to his becoming First Minister of a Coalition Government without support from The Scottish Sun or the Daily Record; and he would no doubt wish to do all that was properly within his power to achieve that.
4.13 Mr Salmond had been particularly keen to ensure that the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry should make explicit reference to the missed opportunity afforded by Operation Motorman to address problems in the culture, practices and ethics of the press. He said this:
“Well, I am concerned with it because I think there’s a connecting thread which is that what seemed to me to be substantive evidence of illegality or illegal practices which was contained in the Information Commissioner – the English and Welsh Information Commissioner’s report, Richard Thomas, I think, of December 2006 had been not left unlooked at because there had been a limited number of prosecutions, but even, for example, his proposal that breaches of data protection should be an indictable offence, as we call it in Scotland, and it’s the same in England, you know, had been left, and most recently the revelations on hacking, I mean the connection is obviously that there was a substantial body of evidence that there had been a sequence of perhaps systematic illegal practices going on, and the response of the law and those who have responsibility for pursuing these things, whether the police or the prosecution services, had not been adequate, and therefore I suggested to the Secretary of State that an explicit reference in the terms of reference to Operation Motorman would be helpful in making it clear that this was one key aspect, I hoped, of the Inquiry’s consideration, and now as it happens, as you know, it was argued to me that it didn’t have to be explicit because it was already implicit within the terms of reference and fair enough…
I was really thinking of illegal practices. I think it’s possible to consider – clearly this Inquiry is considering practices which are improper but not necessarily illegal. I mean, there are ways to access people’s data which are not illegal and it might be argued that’s a perfectly proper way to do things. You might – but I wouldn’t put my senses on that. I was really driving at the illegality as opposed to the propriety.”
4.14 Mr Salmond had this to say about the future:
“First, and I would give primacy to this, is to uphold the law. I think it’s – my view is it’s extraordinary of the various aspects of this that I’ve spoken about that an assumed illegality can have been taking place on a huge scale and nothing substantial done about it. I made the point earlier about the lack of information that had been given to the Scottish authorities, which I feel very angry about. I can give you the assurance that’s been given to me by the Lord Advocate that the criminal law will be upheld in Scotland without fear and favour, and I’m sure, given the circumstances in which this Inquiry has come into being, that will now be the case everywhere, but it has to be the case because, unless that’s the case, nothing else that’s suggested – I go back to the point – a voluntary or even a statutory code is not going to be enforced or enforceable if the criminal law is not being enforced and enforceable so I think it’s absolutely invites that that’s first in my hierarchy.
Secondly – and maybe this is maybe why you think I’m a minimalist in this matter – I think the freedom of the press is important not just as a matter of practice but as a matter of principle. And while I salute and applaud those newspapers like, for example, the ones I mentioned in DC Thomson and there are others, who make an absolute virtue of saying, look, comments are in our editorial or in our columnists, fact is in our news columns. That’s great, but it may be desirable but not only is the impossible to implement, in my opinion, this division between fact and comment, I actually do think there is a freedom for people within the law, the laws of not inciting hatred, to conduct themselves in a biased manner. It was Lord Northcliffe, wasn’t it, who the phrase the “daily hate” was attributed to, but whether it’s hate or bias, whatever you want to call it, I think that’s a price we have to pay for the essential freedom of the press and you cannot have a free press which does what you want it to do, which always behaves itself. It has to behave itself within the law and within certain norms, which I’m going to come onto in a few seconds.
Thirdly, in terms of redress from – well, the redress for illegal behaviour is clear enough, that should be a matter for criminal law to enforce that, but from other behaviour which might not be illegal but be wrong, then certainly on that, the redress must be open to all. There has to be the ability of individuals or groups, in my opinion, to seek redress in an effective manner they can have confidence in. Rich people and powerful people will always have the civil courts and actions that they can pursue, but to be proper, the redress must be open to all. Fourthly, politicians. I think the move towards transparency is a good thing for both government and opposition politicians. I think the abidance by the Ministerial Code is – the Ministerial Codes are there for a reason and the reason I cited you to Scottish Ministerial Code is because we pay it close attention and so politicians and relationships should be guided by transparency in terms of what is now being done by everyone –
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is the Scottish Code in your exhibits?
A. I cited it earlier on, sir. If we haven’t made it an exhibit, then I shall make sure it is done.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I’d be grateful if you could send me a copy.
A. And obviously the differences would tend to be it stresses areas where the Scottish ministers have particular competence, like the one on jobs and investment that I read out to you. But following the Ministerial Code is my fourth point. –”
————————————————————————
And yes, it does just end there. Cliffhanger!
O/T
Sorry for the first post to be off topic but hope that everyone would want to wish Stuart Hosie MP all the best after suffering a transient ischaemic attack (aka a “mini-stroke” or “senior moment”). My father had one a few years back and while nowhere near the severity of a stroke it was still distressing at the time, however, he has made a full recovery and now shows no after effects. As the BBC article says Stuart Hosie is also expected to make a full recovery.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20528212
‘he cannot be criticised’ – but it won’t stop some from trying, especially if it means talking down Scotland, or arguing for devolved powers to be diminished and the Westminster line to be toed
Gnashing of teeth from the No parties…
@muttley
No gnashing of teeth it seems, just accusations that Salmond is now the one who comes out of the leveson report worst.
You couldnt make it up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/01/david-blunkett-news-international-adviser
I’m sure the anti Salmond headlines for tomorrow’s papers have already been written.
Forget the TRUTH print the usual lies, deceit and misinformation.
Wee Useless Willie stutters again, I hope the new press regulation body comes down hard on wee liars like wee useless willie rennie
The spin is already all over Facebook with Salmond apparently coming out of Leveson “worse than any political figure”, and just for good measure he is out to “destroy the country”…
Vomit inducing…
McHaggis
“he is out to “destroy the country” – well if that means the political union of the UK, so am I. It’s a great compliment that description. 🙂
And so it begins…
Leveson criticises Salmond for offering to lobby on behalf of Murdoch
Severin Carrell – NO COMMENTS ALLOWED
“Lord Justice Leveson has criticised Alex Salmond for being willing to breach the Scottish ministerial code by lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch, while clearing the first minister of any specific wrongdoing”
The Scottish Government already has the powers to control the press, its now time for them to make it illegal for unionist press to distort the truth.
rob smith
What a dreadful idea! Laws are not just for Xmas. There could be nothing worse than a Government able to define what is the “truth”.
@Sneekyboy
If he’d missed out the “real doubts over the first minister’s fitness” bit, I’d say it was pretty balanced. However, it appears he couldn’t hold it in for an entire article.
Scotland is being driven out of the union by unionists just as Catalonia is being driven out of Spain by the federalists. It is standard stuff historically. It is not so much a referendum which leads to independence, but what happens ahead of one. The fact that a country/region/state has reached the stage of having a referendum means something must be very wrong with the current constitutional arrangement. If the existing ‘supra-state’ reaction to that is not to address the problem, but rather fuel it by reacting in a negative, repressive way, then ‘independence’ becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. That’s a big part of the reason independence referenda almost invariably result in independence.
The few wise voices we do hear in the MSM/among the unionist parties are starting to say exactly this. It’s probably too late though. It would take a miracle to save the union in it’s current form now.
Scottish Skier has the measure of this, I think,
We are already on a path to independence, the fact that the question is put is more significant than any of us appear to realise.
I agree Douglas, that’s a very good post by scottish_skier.
scottish_skier Very true and succinct. And oh lordy may the majority of the MSN carry on with their doom and gloom
Very good piece on Channel 4 news about Leveson. Its 30 minutes long and will be repeated on 4 + 1 (Freeview CH13) at 8pm tonight – miss it at your pearl
Comments now allowed on Guardian article.
New style of comment system, similar to heralds, allows trolls to use tactic of posting multiple entries of misinformation as respnses to early posts. Fills up the comments with FUD for those just joining later and allows them to be late to the party and still get their tuppence in.
Still… that can work both ways 😀
@ scottish_skier
Just to echo your comment about being driven out of the union, I noticed earlier the BBC’s report on today’s debate and vote, in Westminster, on Scottish independence. No surprises, the motion that Scotland was better off in the union was carried by 334 votes to 5. However, an SNP counter motion that Scotland would enjoy the same kind of special relationship that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India currently enjoy with the UK was also defeated by 321 votes to 5. Who would want to be governed by the kind of small minded, spiteful cretins that would vote in this way. This shows more clearly than anything I can remember in recent history that we need to be out of this union. This vote betrays the underlying feeling towards Scotland within our ruling class. And it is not pretty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20544743
@Keith B
I watched some of the debate, it was depressing stuff mostly. But some of the contributions just made me angry, I think it was John Robertson who just used his speech to smear the SNP in an angry rant, and claim the Scottish Parliament is like some sort of one party SNP state. Ironic in a debate about Scotland where only 1 10min speech was allowed by SNP, with virtually no SNP interventions being allowed.
” No surprises, the motion that Scotland was better off in the union was carried by 334 votes to 5. However, an SNP counter motion that Scotland would enjoy the same kind of special relationship that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India currently enjoy with the UK was also defeated by 321 votes to 5. ”
I guess this shows us that Westminster does in fact hate Scotland, well at least 321 of them?
I wonder if any Scots MPs voted against the second motion? I’d imagine there’d be some.
334 votes to 5
321 votes to 5
I’m also wondering, who didn’t vote on the second motion after voting for the first? Do some actually want to be “good neighbour” and “good friends” after independence, or did they all just go off for their tea?
Just listened to Gordon Brewer, Willie Rennie and Fiona Hyslop on Newsnight Scotland discussing Leveson. Rennie said that Leveson had “severely criticised” Alex Salmond. Fiona Hyslop pointed out that in fact the opposite had been the case (“he could not be critcised”, ie what Leveson had actually said) and that he had actually criticised the UK parties and wait for this, Gordon Brewer agreed and actually defended the First Minister. Wonders, indeed, will never cease!
I see that Brian Leveson’s statement:
page 1413 : 6.17
“I have absolutely no doubt that Mr Salmond was motivated by an
anxiety to help Scottish
employment and to benefit Scotland generally: that is entirely
laudable and exactly what is the
expectation and proper function of the First Minister”.
…doesn’t seem to have affected the Labour, Tory and …what are they called again … bias.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20543732
ITV Border gave us about a minute on the subject. Mostly Eleanor Laing impressing upon the Cabal the mandatory use of the ‘S’ word.
Maximum Cringe from a resolute ‘Auntie Tom’!
@KOF
Turns out there were 32 MP’s from Scottish constituencies that voted against the SNP motion that post-independence Scotland would enjoy the same special relationship as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India. My local MP is on that list and will be getting an e-mail tomorrow. The full list;
01 Bain, William (Glasgow North East) Labour
02 Begg, Anne (Aberdeen South) Labour
03 Brown, Gordon (Kirkaldy & Cowdenbeath) Labour
04 Brown, Russell (Dumfries & Galloway) Labour
05 Carmichael, Alistair (Orkney & Shetland) Liberal Democrat
06 Clark, Katy (North Ayrshire & Arran) Labour
07 Clarke, Tom (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Labour
08 Curran, Margaret (Glasgow East) Labour
09 Darling, Alistair (Edinburgh South West) Labour
10 Docherty, Thomas (Dunfermline & West Fife) Labour
11 Donohoe, Brian (Central Ayrshire) Labour
12 Doran, Frank (Aberdeen North) Labour
13 Gilmore, Sheila (Edinburgh East) Labour
14 Greatrex, Tom (Rutherglen & Hamilton West) Labour
15 Hamilton, David (Midlothian) Labour
16 Harris, Tom (Glasgow South) Labour
17 Hood, Jim (Lanark & Hamilton East) Labour
18 Joyce, Eric (Falkirk) Drunken Bampot
19 Lazarowicz, Mark (Edinburgh North & Leith) Labour
20 McClymont, Gregg (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East) Labour
21 McGovern, Jim (Dundee West) Labour
22 McKechin, Ann (Glasgow North) Labour
23 Mundell, David (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) Conservative
24 Murray, Ian (Edinburgh South) Labour
25 Nash, Pamela (Airdrie & Shotts) Labour
26 Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute) Liberal Democrat
27 Robertson, John (Glasgow North West) Labour
28 Roy, Frank (Morthwell & Wishaw) Labour
29 Roy, Lindsay (Glenrothes) Labour
30 Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow Central) Labour
31 Smith, Robert (West aberdeenshire & Kincardine) Liberal Democrat
32 Thurso, John (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) Liberal Democrat
Keith
They’re mostly Labour I see, with only one Conservative…….oh, wait a minute…..all the Scottish Conservatives ( silly me!).
Cheers for that, Keith.
A fair few familiar names there, I see.
Keith B,
18 Joyce, Eric (Falkirk) Drunken Bampot
😉
I will be interested, from a free speech point of view whether this survives on a Herald article by Kate Devlin. It was written by me.:
“Kate Devlin,
Your headline says:
“Salmond’s BSkyB move questioned.”
No, it didn’t, not really. From your own prose:
“Lord Justice Leveson added he had “absolutely no doubt” Mr Salmond was motivated by a desire to help Scottish employment which he said was “entirely laudable” and the “proper function of the First Minister”.
There is more:
“I have absolutely no doubt that Mr Salmond was motivated by an anxiety to help Scottish employment and to benefit Scotland generally: that is entirely laudable and exactly what is the expectation and proper function of the First Minister. How far that should be taken, however, is another matter. He appreciated that employment whether in Scotland or elsewhere was not a relevant consideration for the Minister and, in fact, he never contacted either Dr Cable or Mr Hunt to argue the contrary. Judged by what he did, as opposed to what he said he was prepared to do, therefore, he cannot be criticised.”
That is nothing like the headline, nor the content of your piece.
What Lord Justice Levison said, and I quote:
“he cannot be criticised.”
Perhaps you should re-consider your headline?
Else we might think, us independence supporters, that the Herald was not entirely neutral on this independence debate?
In the way of a friendly piece of advice. It is not the case that everyone who reads this newspaper is a Better Together fanatic. You are speaking, exclusively, for a minority of your remaining readership, in my opinion.
Just saying…..”
I suspect not.
I’m with skier on this, the unionist strategy is making independence more inevitable not less. The constant muck raking, misinformation, Pravda like media collusion and anti Scottish Government rhetoric is now so obvious to all but the blindest of die hards that the anti independence camp simply are painting themselves as the bad guy here. Had they been more subtle, picked their moments, whilst actually developing a future positive economic strategy and set of policies for the Scottish electorate they may have stood a chance. As it is, they have publicly and glaringly set themselves out there as a group of parties trying to bring down the duly and democratically elected Scottish Government.
There is a name for subversive groups who try to destabilise duly and democratically elected governments and countries……………… 😀
Sneekyboy said:
Comments now allowed on Guardian article.
New style of comment system, similar to heralds, allows trolls to use tactic of posting multiple entries of misinformation as respnses to early posts. Fills up the comments with FUD for those just joining later and allows them to be late to the party and still get their tuppence in.
Still… that can work both ways 😀
Something odd going on here. I saw and read quite a lot of comments last night, and there was a heavy presence of people criticising the article as biassed and just plain wrong, supporting their position with direct quotes from Leveson. The article still says, “Jump to comments (155)”. But if you click on that link, it doesn’t go to any comments, and no comments appear at the bottom of the article.
Surely the Guardian wouldn’t delete an entire comments thread with 155 posts because it exposed their correspondent as an agenda-driven lying liar, would they?
On a slightly different tack, I noticed BBC Scotland this morning taking the line that Salmond had not been criticised by Leveson. They were reporting Rennie and the rest of the opposition as saying he wasn’t fit to handle press regulation in Scotland because of his relationship with Murdoch – nothing about the accusations of his having come out of Leveson badly.
Morag, I just had a look at the Guardian article. Comments still there, a fair few not happy with the new format. I linked from the old SNP Tactical Voting site.
Funny, I still can’t see the comments no matter what I do. Other people must be able to though, because I see the number is now over 160.
I can see the comments perfectly well on other articles.
The thing about the Scottish media and the No campaign is that they have been trying desperately to get some dirt on Salmond. They were putting a lot of faith in the Leveson Inquiry to damage him. Alas, for them it has turned out like the other allegations, six in total, five times he has been cleared, one to go. In addition, Salmond leads a very private life, his wife is generally kept of the spotlight, there seems to be no scandal about him (we would have heard all about it by now.)
I think they still do not understand Salmond, or what motivates him. This is despite the fact that he has been an elected representative for 25 years! I don’t think they can comprehend why someone would dedicate their career to Scottish independence. They try and portray him as untrustworthy, a liar, yet they cannot explain why he has resisted the urge to earn a lot more money in other professions, and joining and staying in a party which reached its lowest point in the early 1980s.
I must admit KOF that I’m not surprised at either count on last night’s Westminster votes. Proof, if it were needed, that they are desperate to hold onto Scotland for as long as possible. The second vote, in my view, is utterly disgusting. They have not even considered the slightest possibility of an Independent Scotland but if they have then they will treat Scotland in a very bad way.
Thanks for the list Keith. I would like to have said I was surprised to see my MP on the list, but hey ho no I’m not surprised at all. I can say with due pride that my MP has risen to the bottom of the barrel in my expectations in this vote. Nice to see that the Labour list is long, very long, and (un)distinguished. 😀
Aye right enough jake we are inundated with Tory MP’s, well just the one, unfortunately he happens to be my MP. I can’t begin to tell you how that makes me feel every time I see his face in the local rag or on TV and don’t get me started about what his voice does to me either. 😆
Re Arbroath’s comments on Mundell. +1 all the way.
I didn’t vote for him!
I always find myself reaching for something every time I see him on TV. 😆
The air turns a lovely shade of BLUE at the same time. 😀
Wilie Rennie tells us that, “Levenson criticised A. Salmond in his report” whereas Levenson actually states in his report that A. Salmond is above criticism – guess which one is the liar ?
Can A. Salmond not sue Willie for lying about him. We have “an open an shut case” of a blatant lie being told about the First Minister of Scotland on TV and in a public forum. Surely there is some sort of PROACTIVE means of responding to this situation ?
Sadly, I have to confirm the negative scaremongering from the MSM, Unionist MSP’s and MP’s is, to a degree, working.
I have many friends on Facebook and I try to keep it politics free.
However, one friend has begun regularly reposting bettertogether stuff and outrageous scaremongering nonsense on their page. Fair enough – he is entitled to his view. I do counter each point analytically, but he kind of gets a bit hysterical in his responses. I actually now believe he is a Tory (yes there must be some in Scotland).
Despite my measured responses with references as appropriate, he still seems to get ‘likes’ to his comments. His views on independence are the most absurd and quite frankly abusive I have ever read (he thinks us ‘separatists’ should bugger off to a disused island somewhere), but he clearly has people who are believing it. Last night he basically posted that we would have no BBC post independence, which might of course be true, but the hysterical posturing about losing the ability to *view* the BBC drove him to apoplexy. We all of course know that its easy to watch the BBC from virtually anywhere in the world but that cut no ice with him.
Sadly, a friend of a friend, who I know was open to be persuaded by either side and had told me they would discuss my view before making up their mind, I noted last night has eventually ‘liked’ the Bettertogether Facebook page. It looks like, without hearing any positive view from an independence supporter, they have already made up their mind to vote No through what I know they feel is fear of the unknown.
With just 140,000 signing the Yes Declaration, and the never ending scare stories, I fear the next 2 years is going to be a massive uphill struggle.
Scaring people into accepting a status quo as opposed to an ‘unknown’ situation isn’t that difficult it seems.
Mundel ?
C’mon Arbroath, admit it, he got you all drunk down there at the Borders
and took advantage of you ! Nobody who was sober (or sane) would have
voted for him on purpose. He is just a Border relay station between Scotland
Westminster for the Tory party’s propaganda or his own demented ravings.
I see my MP’s name on that list posted above. I have written him the following e-mail:
Sir Robert,
I want you to explain yourself to me. I want you to explain why you voted against the proposal that, in the event of independence, Scotland would have a special relationship with the remaining UK, just as many Commonwealth countries have today. What were you thinking?
Regards,
McHaggis, I’ve just come off the Better Together Facebook page after attempting a discussion which kind of came to a stop (though it may kick off again I suppose). The case for independence there is misrepresented hilariously – we’re all predicting paradise the day independence dawns, we’re all going to be filthy rich, we’re all anti-English etc etc – so they attack these ideas and think they’re doing marvelously well in the debate. I did discover that, if somebody in favour of independence makes a remark perceived as insulting, that means we’re all neo-fascist xenophobic totalitarians, but when the other side come out with “that fat c**t Salmond” and other such perceptive observations it’s only a wee joke. Harmless. I do suspect that if your friend was impressed by the quality of that page, they were going that way anyway, as I can’t believe they could possibly have been impressed by what they read.
I reckon one of the best arguments against the No side, and their supporters, is just to ask them the simple question, what is your vision for Scotland’s future? Arguably they do not have one. I have often wondered what they think when they visit small European states. If they go to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Belgium, Portugal, Holland etc, do they think these countries are against their neighbours because they are independent? That is the ultimate logic of the ‘separatists’ talk, the anti-English accusation of those who support independence by Better Together.
It sadly speaks unpleasant volumes about the intelligence of far too many Scots. Simon Heffer in a particularly offensive article in the DM over ten years ago said of the Scots; “they would make good Prussians”, no doubt alluding to the gullibility of the masses and their astonishing ability to believe and do as they’re told.
Question is, does he have a point?
It both infuriates and embarrasses me.
@Jim Campbell
I live down the same neck of the woods as Arb and believe you me the blue rinse and landed gentry brigade are heavy on the ground. Geez the the biggest landowner in the region is a full blown aristo of the first water. Its rural/landed gentry central between Dumfries and Stranraer.
Ok Ok Jim I’ll hold my hand up.
Yep I do admit to being blind drunk at the last G.E. Both Blind AND drunk being the operative words here. Had I been sober AND able to see where I was going then naturally I would never have let my voting pen get anywhere near Mundell’s name. I’d have broken it before I let that happen. 😆
Is Scotland Charlie Brown?
In Charles M Shultz’s Peanuts cartoon there is a running gag in which Lucy holds a football in place for kick-off and encourages Charlie Brown to kick it. The joke is that she always moves the ball and Charlie always falls on his ass, yet, she always manages to play to Charlie’s hopeful nature and convince him that this is the time it will happen.
Eventually, Charlie does get to kick the ball but this is due to magical circumstances where he is made invisible by Snoopy. In real life he never does.
Murdo Fraser’s article in the Scotsman brought this strip to mind.
Tat’s a different cobnstituency, though.
That’s a different constituency, though.
The Better Together Facebook page…
I was banned for questioning the assertion that their medal table picture ‘proved’ we were “Better Together” and pointing out politely that there was a marked difference between opinion and fact.
They are more likely to keep up insulting/poorly written insults by “cybernats” and point these out as proof of how evil we all are than to publish (let alone engage with) reasoned argument.
I think that it betrayed both their unwillingness to engage and (equally likely) the paucity of their argument. If I strongly believed I was right and had a good argument, I wouldn’t simply block/erase my opponents, but allow their arguments to be proven false/inferior by comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy – I think they get their reasoning skills from here, can certainly identify a few on this list as regular occurences.
Never mind Macart, come the revolution, come the revolution Bruv. The blue rinse brigade will be batting down the hatches faster than you can say spercalifragilisticexpeealidosious. 😆
Of course down in the Sou’West, they’re also big on the Orange/Sectarian thing too are they not?
I’m so looking forward to watching the reaction on the faces of those and such as those when they realise the expenses gravy train has left the station Arb. 🙂
Bit of that traffic travelling through Stranraer max, but not something I’ve personally encountered. Mind you I don’t travel much in those circles anyhoo, tend to give all that mince a bodyswerve.
I know it can be absolutely disheartening to hear and see the volume of vitriolic and hateful support for the rotten borough of the UK, but you have to remember that many of the UK-wide supporters of Better Together will come from UKIP, BNP and Orange Order people. In other words ‘fanatics’. They will make some inroads into the referendum debate but it will not be sustainable over the next two years. Fanaticism combined with fear-but-no-substance will be beaten by measured debate and facts. Alistair Darling has already been reduced to emotive pleas in keeping the union, so that leaves the fanatics to be hysterical about it. Next year will be a defining one for the referendum debate. It will culminate in the White Paper which will be presented to the Scottish people. It will outline a future for Scotland which will be difficult to argue against, while Westminster will continue to promote years upon years of austerity. The attacks upon AS and the SNP can only go so far before people turn a deaf ear to it, chronic negativity has been defeated twice in recent years. I doubt if that will change.
One thing I would say to those people who are undecided. Do you want Scotland to be the only country in the eyes of the world to be offered independence, then refused it? Has there been any country that has refused independence when offered it?
Absolutely Macart. I reckon it is the loss of their expenses and future ermine cloaks that is really driving the Better Together crowd. Maybe we could find a way for them to keep at least their ermine cloaks then some may swap over to the right side of the debate.
Hang on a minute did I say debate sorry about that I just remembered JL keeps calling for a debate but no one turns up from her side, isn’t that right Mr Darling. 😆
Last I heard of Darling, he’d basically done a runner to avoid debating with Blair Jenkins. No so easy to debate against the principles of independence and democratic deficit dontchaknow. No policy target to aim at, no party to shoot down, no figures to faddle just a worldwide acknowledged human right and principle to attack. He was soooooo goin’ t’get his erse handed to him on a plate and he knew it. 😀
Dcanmore – Quebec? Bermuda?
I think it would be helpful for the people of Scotland to hear something of what
the people of the world think about it too. I think there are more that have spoken in favour of our self determination than against. The only hints I’ve heard against are From US and Spanish sources.
FEART! that’s what he was and still is!
Mind you they do have 1,000’s of gallons of the stuff stored in Labour’s Glasgow HQ so look out for many more events to be cancelled because Darling is feart of getting his earse well and truly kicked by Blair Jenkins.
They can shout.
They can lie.
They can be deceitful.
They can misrepresent.
They can run.
But they can NEVER hide from the TRUTH.
No matter what ever else happens between now and 2014 they can NEVER outrun the TRUTH which will bite them on their earse big time.
@Willie Zwigerland
Quebec is a province of Canada, therefore not a country. Bermuda is a British Overseas Territory similar to Gibraltar, Jersey, Falkland Islands and the British Antarctic Territory, therefore not a country. Scotland is a country seeking independence from a Nation State (UK).
Except the UK is not a nation state….
@Dcanmore
but you have to remember that many of the UK-wide supporters of Better Together will come from UKIP, BNP and Orange Order people.
Also, the DUP. Their present leader, Peter Robinson was once pictured holding a rifle….
I noticed this story on the BBC Scotland website today. Notice the difference in tone in the comments.
The Yes Scotland campaign has signed up 143,000 backers during the six months since promising to get a million people to support its independence pledge. Yes Scotland’s chief executive, Blair Jenkins, said the figure was a “tremendous achievement”, but there was still a long way to go.
He added: “We have lots of people who have never been involved in politics coming to us and putting their names down. There is still a long way to go until we cross the finishing line in the autumn of 2014, but reaching this number of declared supporters this early gives us great confidence for a positive result in the referendum.”
A spokesman for the Better Together group, which is campaigning to keep Scotland in the UK, insisted the majority of Scots did not support independence. “If they want to sign up enough Scots to win a majority, they will still be chasing signatures in 2018.” 😀
However, a spokesman for Better Together said claims of momentum were “a nonsense”. He added: “At this rate, they will have managed to reach their target of convincing a quarter of the electorate exactly a year after the referendum. If they want to sign up enough Scots to win a majority, they will still be chasing signatures in 2018. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Scots are not buying what the separatists are selling.”
😆 The obligatory reference to separatists. Also, the complete inability to acknowledge even the possibility of a Yes vote. How fun would it be to be working in the No camapign?…
@Muttley79
Also it’s a ‘spokesman’ for the Better Together campaign, never somebody with a name to stand up and be counted unless it’s flipper Darling. If the YES people can put up 12 people or so to do the media rounds consistently then the NO people wouldn’t be able to keep up. To me when the MSM say ‘a spokesman’ for the Better Together they’re trying to make out he has a large extensive team behind him. Where is Charlie Kennedy? Is he going to be their secret weapon or something? (snigger)
Anyone heard from that other leading light of the bitter together campaign Mr Kennedy recently?
McHaggis- cheer up! 143,000 signatures in 6 months excellent. that’s a greatv rate and the rate of sign up is bounfd to increase over the next 2 years, remember we’ve two years to go, 100 weeks of shooting doon the negativity of the no campaign and as the economy continues down the shitter and the rest of the cuts come in they’ll be only one way out of that mess. So in the long run we will win. Also consider if that amount of folk signed up for the NO campaign can you imagine the spin they’d put on that. The closer we get to 2014 the more they’ll all get corporal jones:)
Who him Macart? 😆
Thanks for this Keith B:
“Turns out there were 32 MP’s from Scottish constituencies that voted against the SNP motion that post-independence Scotland would enjoy the same special relationship as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India. My local MP is on that list and will be getting an e-mail tomorrow. The full list;”
My MP is on the list, she used to be a Labour Rebel I respected. Not any more.
Scottish MPs have indisputably voted against Scotland’s interests, regardless of their own views on Independence. That is surely something that can be used against them at some later stage of the campaign.
Disgusting, totally disgusting. I thought I’d seen it all; this actually shocks me.
Nothing should shock about Westminster MPs; they are almost invariably, lazy, corrupt, incompetent self-serving venal with a pathological contempt for those the feign to serve.
Not particularly shocked dads but definitely angry. We pay these people to basically stab us in the back. Not long now though, roughly just over a year and a half and we can drag their sorry asses back up here to answer some pointed questions on their Westminster conduct. Certainly looking forward to seeing one or two of them on a dole queue.
I am disgusted by anti-Scots vote shown above. they go out of their way to insult us in the most spiteful ways and make it official too! no one in scotland who has a shred of dignity should trust or want these people in power. I am also enraged to see politicians know or who run my area on that list of shame. scum, the lot of them.
To be honest, and apologies in advance, I didn’t believe it. So I found:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121129/debtext/121129-0003.htm#12112958001807
and it’s true.
An interesting resource, find out how our MPs voted:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/