As Jeff blogged today, the First Minister has begun to find the Murdoch swamp rising around his thighs. The SNP activist defence to that is simple – do you really think the word of the First Minister would carry weight with a Tory or Lib Dem Secretary of State?
Perhaps not, but the Murdochs clearly thought this potential phonecall would be helpful. And it’s not hard to see one way that call would have to go for to be useful to News Corp: “Hi Vince/Jeremy, Alex here, just to let you know if you approve the BSkyB deal my administration won’t kick up a fuss”.
Another of Mr Salmond’s former friends made his presence felt at Holyrood today – Donald Trump. Like Jack McConnell before him, the First Minister did everything he could to get Mr Trump to build his resort and golf course at Menie, but Mr Trump is unable to quit when he’s ahead.
His friend Alex, the man who overturned local planning rules for him, is now “Mad Alex“, who will literally, Trump’s argument goes, destroy Scotland with wind turbines. His bizarre rantings in Committee today will have won no-one round, nor will his argument that a mere democratic mandate is no reason to set energy policy.
In both cases, the First Minister has made a serious effort to get these men on board, and in both cases their interests are diametrically opposed to those of the Scottish people. On Murdoch, I think Scots would clearly welcome a more diverse media, not one so extensively owned by one family. On Trump, his threats to evict local families from Menie were opposed by 74% with just 13% support.
Murdoch and Trump may have turned on the First Minister now, but these are hardly isolated examples. Take just two more of the First Minister’s friends. Brian Souter’s interests are in a deregulated bus market, and the public interest is in a regulated one. Jim McColl’s interests are in a low-tax Scotland, although he’s registered in Monaco for tax reasons, whereas the public have an interest in business paying its fair share. It’s time for this SNP administration to start putting the interests of the vast majority of Scots first, not the predatory elite they seem to prefer.
#1 by Angus McLellan on April 25, 2012 - 5:27 pm
That was a Party Political broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Green Party.
Don’t you have your own blog any more for this kind of thing?
#2 by James on April 25, 2012 - 5:32 pm
I didn’t mention the Greens once. And this is my own blog – I just share it with three others.
#3 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 5:36 pm
A pretty naff comment right off the blocks there Angus, thanks for that.
There is undoubtedly an issue growing for Salmond, and by extension the SNP, here. The Jim McColl tax exile situation isn’t helpful, though I’m not sure the Souter linkage would stick.
At the end of the day, it’s difficult for Salmond to look like ‘man of the people’ with the company he keeps, and when it’s the Bullingdon crew in power down south, one would think Salmond would be trying to look as far from an elitist as possible.
#4 by Cináed on April 25, 2012 - 5:58 pm
The problem is that in politics, you need to court people who you would ordinarily find objectionable.
It’s easy for us to sit and criticize – but at the end of the day, if Donald Trump waved millions of pounds of investment under *my* nose as First Minister, I’d have jumped as well.
Likewise, being told that the Sun would be supporting my party certainly wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, given Scotland’s unequivocally anti-SNP media culture. Whether the News International takeover of BSkyB was in Scotland’s best interest remains to be seen – but if Salmond supported it, then it most certainly would have been in Scotland’s interest. He’s nothing if not consistent.
The whole furor is over nothing in particular. The media have ignored months of pleading by anti-windfarm campaigners: Trump says jump, and the media asks ‘how high, sir?’ If he thinks he can dictate national energy policy, he should stand for election.
As for the Murdoch debacle, it’s proof that politicians and the international media should, by definition, be mutually antagonistic. How you regulate that, though, God alone knows. What will emerge, though, is that everyone in politics has courted News International at some point – as Piers Morgan suggested, it’s a bit of a circular firing squad.
#5 by James on April 25, 2012 - 6:38 pm
Having earlier been accused of writing a Green screed, I should at least point out that Greens haven’t had that kind of intimate relationship with the Murdoch empire. Although I do get on well with their hacks..
#6 by Nikostratos on April 25, 2012 - 6:36 pm
The problem with Alex is he would of supped with the devil if he thought it would of aided his push for Independence(separation).
And of course now we find out he did and does
#7 by Doug Daniel on April 25, 2012 - 7:58 pm
“Would of”
If you’re going to slag him off, could you at least make sure it’s grammatically correct?
#8 by Barbarian on April 25, 2012 - 8:08 pm
Doug, you know that everyone is going to spell check your posts from now on! 🙂
#9 by James on April 25, 2012 - 8:10 pm
Say what you like about Doug’s politics, but his spelling is normally immaculate.
#10 by Doug Daniel on April 25, 2012 - 8:16 pm
*always 😛
Anyway, not knowing the difference between “would’ve” and “would of” is a grammatical error, not a spelling one!
#11 by Barbarian on April 25, 2012 - 11:46 pm
Just wait until I start making typos……..:p Should of – sorry should HAVE kept my mouth shut!
#12 by Indy on April 26, 2012 - 12:26 am
There is an element of truth in that. Most SNP members are not natural Sun readers but it’s the biggest selling tabloid in Scotland isn’t it? Bigger than the Daily Record. And if it takes a pro-SNP and fairly pro-indy line that is going to make a difference in 2014. Which, in addition to explaining the whole devil worshipping thing, also explains why the pro-union opposition parties are so furious.
#13 by Tock Jamson on April 25, 2012 - 6:49 pm
” On Murdoch, I think Scots would clearly welcome a more diverse media, not one so extensively owned by one family”
The Scottish media is hardly dominated by the Murdoch’s. I’d be interested to see the statistics but I’d bet that the Record has a bigger share of the tabloid market in Scotland than the Mirror does in England. Also, neither of the top two national broadsheet/quality papers are Murdoch owned. Perhaps Salmond should ask Rupert to buy the Scotsman, he might make a decent job of it.
#14 by James on April 25, 2012 - 7:30 pm
You’re seriously claiming, after the phone-hacking scandal, that you want more News International influence in Scotland, and that that’s a popular point of view?
#15 by Commenter on April 26, 2012 - 10:20 am
An important question is: which newspaper groups have *not* hacked phones? As I understand it, the set is empty.
#16 by Tock Jamson on April 25, 2012 - 7:02 pm
Wikipedia has a table with the circulation of Scottish newspapers – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Scotland
If that’s accurate then 22% of Daily newspapers in Scotland are owned by Murdoch. That compares to 33% in the UK as a whole. Also, the Sun sells more than twice as many papers as the Mirror, whereas the Record runs the Sun much closer. The Times sells less in Scotland than either the Herald or Scotsman and even less than the Telegraph.
#17 by Allan on April 25, 2012 - 7:20 pm
Of course, in the interests of impartiality, i should point out that New Labour had Murdoch to themselves for about 13 years, and also had their own wee pal that ran a bus company, the one funilly enough that’s scrapping bus routes accross Glasgow.
#18 by Barbarian on April 25, 2012 - 8:06 pm
Glad to see that I’m not the only one who has concerns about Salmond. I’ve posted on my own blog that what appears to be a crack could turn into a chasm.
I can fully understand the need for both money and positive media coverage. All political parties do it. But that single email has the potential to cause a hell of a lot of damage to Salmond.
Jeremy Hunt is politically dead. But I am seriously considering that he is being set up to fall in order to take Salmond with him. Deadly serious.
The Conservatives and Labour have been shafted by their crawling to Murdoch. It now appears to be the turn of the SNP.
#19 by James on April 25, 2012 - 8:07 pm
That’s a brilliant conspiracy theory.
#20 by Dr William Reynolds on April 25, 2012 - 8:33 pm
Barbarian.I have noticed your concerns with Alec Salmond.Fair enough.However, I do not agree with your analysis of Alec Salmonds involvement with Murdoch.I believe that there is no conclusive evidence that Alec Salmond spoke to the COnDem government on behalf of Murdoch.
Of course his political opponents are desperate to smear him since they have little else going for them just now.I have a different conclusion from you.I believe that the attempts to smear Salmond will have negative consequences for his opponents.The SNP have offered a manifesto for the council elections in May that is based on what voters tell them is a priority for the,It is likely that when they have to make a choice between smear campaigns and a positive campaign,they will ignore the attempts to smear Salmond.In other words,my hunch is that voters are more focused on issues that concern them,and are tirned off by narrow party political politics.If I am correct,the stooshie generated by the Murdoch affair will be buried.Lets see what happens.We live in interesting times.
#21 by Barbarian on April 25, 2012 - 11:54 pm
I don’t think it will affect the council elections one bit. But with the ongoing investigations into NewsCorp it is going to raise suspicions, whether there is any substance or not. I’m looking at the potential damage in the longer term.
Nor did I allege there was any dealings between Salmond and Hunt.
The public are not stupid, but let’s not forget that polticians are generally mistrusted anyway. And not everyone reads the Sun.
Murdoch shafts anyone he feels like. The SNP will be no exception when the time comes.
#22 by Gerard on April 26, 2012 - 10:18 am
Again this misses the point. Salmond may not have called or met with the UK governement but he offered to at a time of Murdoch’s choosing.
The reason he wasn’t needed is that Hunt was well on board and the bid was kiled of by the phone-hacking scandal.
Salmond still offered to be ‘an ally’ of the UK govt and NI on this one.
#23 by Doug Daniel on April 26, 2012 - 6:50 pm
Woah!!! Accusing Salmond of conspiring with NI is one thing, but I draw the line at any suggestion he has offered to be an ally of the UK government!
#24 by Gerard on April 26, 2012 - 8:54 pm
You can draw the line if you wish DD but he sided with the UK government over the BskyB takeover didn’t he?
I’m curious as to the loyal SNP supporters’ view on the position of Jeremy Hunt: should he resign?
If not why not?
If so, why shouldn’t Alex Salmond? (because obviously none of you will think he should).
#25 by James on April 26, 2012 - 10:56 pm
I don’t much like Hunt or Salmond’s activities here, but Hunt was ruling on a takeover bid and has acted in a way which is clearly in breach of his formal responsibilities. Salmond was in no such regulatory role: if he committed to kissing Jeremy Hunt square on the mouth in a direct exchange for the Sun’s endorsement, it’d be repellent but probably not a resigning matter.
#26 by Gerard on April 26, 2012 - 11:26 pm
You know James I don’t disagree; what I was going to come to is that FMs and party leaders have had to resign for less than this, and the SNP have been at the front of the queue each time baying for blood.
I think some SNP supporters forget that.
Salmond will survive – only because the SNP don’t have faith in anyone else to take them to the promised land and the fact Hunt has gone further which makes this sordid affair look slightly less serious relatively.
#27 by Doug Daniel on April 27, 2012 - 3:01 pm
They haven’t had to resign – no one can be made to resign – they’ve just chosen to do so. Anyway, if we’re referring to McLeish, McLetchie and Wendy, each resigned due to financial irregularities which had actually occurred and were against the rules. What rule has Salmond broken?
There have been so many failed attempts to discredit Salmond that this one just looks like another one to add to the pile. Even if it was as serious as people are trying to make out, the fact is people in Labour should have paid a bit more attention when their teachers read them “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in school.
#28 by Indy on April 27, 2012 - 11:26 am
There is something a little bit off about that remark. Maybe I am being a bit paranoid here but remarks about kissing men on the mouth and Johann’s frequent references to the fact that she has children – highlighting that Alex doesn’t – and then yesterday talking about him being infatuated with ricj men. Its a little bit off isn’t it? Maybe even a little bit dirty don’t you think?
#29 by Alec on April 27, 2012 - 1:40 pm
There are overtly sexual references to make when alluding to low morals demonstrated by a man, and I didn’t take this from James’ remark.
As for anything Lamont has said, I have to confess ignorance and say I haven’t heard/read such remarks. Salmond, however, is known to be married… it’s not quite Edward Heath territory.
~alec
#30 by James on April 27, 2012 - 1:47 pm
I’ll be honest, I didn’t even know he didn’t have kids. As someone who doesn’t intend to either I certainly wouldn’t impugn that. I also would have made the same reference if the parties had been one man and one woman or two women. But I accept it could be seen as problematic, and I apologise for that. Anyway, thank god I didn’t say “bend over backwards” or similar.
#31 by Alec on April 27, 2012 - 2:23 pm
When I’ve seen it mentioned in the press, the implication… well, no, the outright statement has been that he’s not a very jolly person deep down (his wife is almost two decades older than he).
“Bumchum” is a common riposte with undertones of gay-baiting. All I saw in James’ comment was summat along the lines of giving your granny a bit slobbery kiss.
~alec
#32 by Doug Daniel on April 27, 2012 - 2:54 pm
Not really – Murdoch wanted to take over BSkyB, and the one thing standing in his way was the UK government. So I don’t see how Salmond could have allied himself to both at the same time – the accusation is that Salmond would have stepped in if need be and say “aww, go on” if the UK government was looking to turn down Murdoch’s bid. In other words, he stands accused of being prepared to go against the UK government. He could only have allied himself with the UK government if he had promised to back them in whatever decision they took.
#33 by James on April 27, 2012 - 4:01 pm
Surely the idea is that the call would have said the Scottish Government wouldn’t kick up a fuss if it was approved. A small factor, but not insignificant.
#34 by Doug Daniel on April 25, 2012 - 8:13 pm
I’m not particularly concerned what tax regime etc Salmond has or hasn’t told some rich folk to expect – the simple fact is if they believe Salmond can ensure a low tax Scotland upon independence, then they’re not particularly bright. It’s us, the Scottish electorate, who will decide who sets our tax levels after independence.
I would have no problem with a lower corporation tax if it was balanced with a higher top-rate of income tax. After all, while people are very keen to point towards Ireland’s 12.5% corporation tax, nobody ever mentions that Ireland had a higher top-rate of income tax before the recent cut – and obviously it is now considerably higher.
Also, if we are to condemn countries that are “business-friendly”, then we’d better stop praising the Nordic countries so much. After all, Finland in particular is commonly known as being more business-friendly than even the USA.
The simple fact is I’m far more concerned about social policy than economic policy. As long as university tuition is kept free, the NHS is kept completely in public hands, and measures are taken to combat poverty, then I don’t care how it’s paid for. To be perfectly honest, I think making sure the post-independent Scotland’s tax system is fit for purpose would go a very long way towards paying for these things.
My vote is up for grabs after independence, so I don’t care if a few rich men think they’ve been promised something along the way.
#35 by Daniel J on April 25, 2012 - 11:49 pm
Salmond promised today down in London at the Institute of Directors that he wouldn’t raise or lower income tax in an independent Scotland assuming he was in charge.
Combined with corp tax cuts that certainly leaves a hole!
#36 by Lyn Irwin on April 25, 2012 - 8:32 pm
I think you people have to live in the real world, Alex Salmond has to speak to persons who can provide jobs, therefore they are going to be those with money.
Whether you agree or not is unimportant, the only way to improve our country is to provide jobs for all those who need and want them, and hopefully to encourage those who do not aspire to improve their lot, to do so. I have to say I always enjoy and mainly agree with the blogs of Jeff and James but today I strongly disagree.
#37 by Gaz on April 25, 2012 - 9:59 pm
It is sad that so many people shout ‘fire’ anytime a Unionist politician throws up a smokescreen.
What is even sadder is that all these so-called leaders seem able to do is concoct conspiracy after conspiracy when it is abundantly clear that our FM is simply trying to attract investment into Scotland.
Their line of thinking says much more about how their own parties operate than how the SNP operates.
Every week we hear Lamont et al scream about how the FM is not doing enough to grow the economy. Now it seems he is expected to do so without speaking to people who can provide the investment or lobby on their behalf. Time for some people to grow up and get a vision of their own.
What the Scottish people want is an FM that does his best for Scotland. Unless it can demonstrably be shown that anything Salmond has done was not in Scotland’s interests any criticism of his actions will just slide off the teflon coating.
Salmond knows he will be criticised by those with a different agenda for what he has done, is doing and will do. But he also knows that as long as he can show that his agenda is in tune with that of the people of Scotland any such criticism will only consolidate his position further.
And, James, although I have a certain amount of sympathy with some of your politics, when it comes to assessing what is in tune with the people of Scotland and what is not, I’ll defer to the FM’s judgement rather than yours.
The last couple of days have reminded me of the atmosphere of the last week of last year’s election campaign when Labour ramped up its negativity exponentially. I sense the same thing is happening again and I suspect it is for exactly the same reasons.
I imagine it will end up in much the same result too as my sense of what is happening on the ground is that differential turnout of SNP voters will overcome a lot of the ‘protection’ Labour might have expected from the STV system.
#38 by James on April 25, 2012 - 10:26 pm
Gaz, on the specific four issues cited, do you agree with the First Minister? And do you think the polls I cited are wrong?
#39 by Barbarian on April 25, 2012 - 11:56 pm
Gaz, if the FM is doing what is best for Scotland, then please explain public transport.
#40 by Gaz on April 26, 2012 - 1:32 am
I don’t think the poll you cite is remotely relevant to Alex Salmond’s actions at all. Most people also thought it wrong that Glasgow City Council should evict folk from the planned site of the Commonwealth Games athletes’ village but I don’t see anyone saying that that makes the Commonwealth Games wrong.
It is just a wee bit difficult to work out what the first issue you raise is, so my personal view on each is:
Trump – absolutely correct to use established planning procedure (aka ‘overturn local planning rules’ 😉 ) to secure an investment opportunity of national significance. And BTW, is it really credible that a businessman of Trump’s success and reputation would not require written assurances about any perceived threat to his return on investment before he committed. Me either – he’s just changed his mind and is looking to blame someone else instead of taking responsibility for misreading the demand for his hotel.
Murdoch – absolutely right to offer to lobby in support of BSkyB takeover in the belief it would generate additional jobs in Livingston and Dunfermline.
Souter – I disagree that a regulated bus market would necessarily be any better than an unregulated one because there would be a huge danger of more routes becoming unprofitable and the overall service level being diminished or fares going up or both. I do think that publicly owned public transport would be better than privately owned but that is a very different thing and there is maybe no way back now.
McColl – a red herring really as Salmond does not control business taxes apart from rates. However, the small business bonus is instructive. I know several small business owners who attribute the reduction in business rates to either beinf able to start up in the first place or being able to take on an additional headcount. The discussion about business taxes is always jaundiced by focussing on the greedy mega-corporations when the reality is that business taxation has to be constructed to encourage SMEs to grow incrementally. This is the only way we are going to create a diverse and sustainable economy. 90% of business owners are working their butts off to get by and are genuinely trying to create employment by growing their business. It is really depressing when folk say they should ‘pay their fair share’ when what they really need is assistance to help create more jobs.
Bet you’re sorry you asked now.
#41 by James on April 26, 2012 - 10:00 am
Gaz, the most glaring load of old Trump in there is that Ministers called in a properly rejected application. Martin Ford’s Infrastructure Services Committee followed the local plan. Established procedure was to appeal, but instead the First Minister called it in at that point, which has no basis in law.
#42 by Indy on April 26, 2012 - 10:38 am
On the whole bus regulation thing there is a nice example of this in Glasgow. First Bus threatened to stop bus service. Mass outcry. SPT steps in and subsidises route. Guess whox get the tender? That’s right – First Bus. Cosy, eh?
#43 by FormerChampagneSocialist on April 26, 2012 - 7:37 am
Jim McCall and Brian Souter have created thousands of Scottish jobs between them. Rupert Murdoch employs 6000 people in Scotland. It’s quite right that the FM maintains a dialogue with major investors. I’d be seriously concerned if he didn’t.
When Alex Salmond accepts cash for honours, or makes up lies to sell an illegal war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, that’s when Labour might have the moral high ground. Until then, a period of silence seems appropriate.
I’d love to see the stats on how often UK govt ministers met NI people between, say, 2000 and 2012 compared to how often Scottish govt ministers met them. I’m guessing the number of the former dwarfs the latter. Salmond should come out fighting on this one.
Still, I’m sure a bright Labour adviser will write down a good question for johann Lamont to ask at FMQs today. Whether Johann is actually able to read it out fluently is quite another matter…..I’m betting she isn’t……
#44 by Gerard on April 26, 2012 - 10:25 am
Seems this issue has got you a wee bit on edge.
You’re defence is: everyone else has made errors so we shouldn’t be punished for them.
That is nonsense.
Then a nice ‘positive’ dig at Johann. I personally hope she manages to wind up AS today as he usually says something he shouldn’t when he gets flustered.
#45 by Indy on April 26, 2012 - 10:38 am
Ah but there are “good” jobs and “bad” jobs.
#46 by Aidan on April 26, 2012 - 11:49 am
Yes. There are http://www.betternation.org/2011/07/the-wrong-sort-of-jobs/ 🙂
#47 by Gerard on April 26, 2012 - 9:00 pm
The only person with a prepared script that wasn’t changing was wee Eck!
4 different questions from Johann Lamont yet AS gave the same answer 3 times!
Also the jobs he kept harping on about were not exactly new jobs from what i know – perhaps someone could shed some light on that on here.
The whole fighting for jobs thing is not the truth and the fact he kept waffling on about it shows desperation from the FM as he tries to cling onto one fact which appears flimsy at best.
#48 by Ben on April 26, 2012 - 1:17 pm
Hi James! Great snapshot there, seems like Trump is spotting Anthony Baxter (You’ve been Trumped) in that split-second, right?
#49 by James on April 26, 2012 - 1:32 pm
That’s exactly what happened! Anthony was right in front of me..
#50 by FormerChampagneSocialist on April 26, 2012 - 11:15 pm
Type your comment here
Nope, bad luck – she was as hopeless as ever.