0:00:09 > 0:00:12Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, an exclusive investigation into the
0:00:12 > 0:00:19business affairs of Rangers owner Craig Whyte finds that he may have
0:00:19 > 0:00:22lied in court. And as Leveson inquiry hears from the Daily Mail
0:00:22 > 0:00:29editor Paul Dacre, we'll discuss a new report from the Carnegie Trust
0:00:29 > 0:00:33on a code of conduct for journalists.
0:00:33 > 0:00:36Good evening. The Rangers owner Craig Whyte may have lied to a
0:00:36 > 0:00:38court over his business history, BBC Scotland can reveal. The
0:00:38 > 0:00:43businessman was giving evidence at Glasgow Sheriff Court in December
0:00:43 > 0:00:45last year over an alleged unpaid bill to a roofing company. But a
0:00:45 > 0:00:46BBC Scotland investigation has unearthed documents relating to his
0:00:46 > 0:00:49seven year director disqualification which casts
0:00:49 > 0:00:53serious doubt on his testimony, given under oath, which could raise
0:00:53 > 0:01:02questions of perjury. More evidence about Mr Whyte's alleged criminal
0:01:02 > 0:01:04past has also emerged. Tonight, Mr Whyte described the claims as
0:01:05 > 0:01:10defamatory and said the BBC was pursuing a witch-hunt against him
0:01:10 > 0:01:20and Rangers Football Club. Our investigations correspondent Mark
0:01:20 > 0:01:24
0:01:24 > 0:01:27They are one of Scotland's oldest and greatest institutions. But
0:01:27 > 0:01:34their very existence is now threatened under the shadow of a
0:01:34 > 0:01:43crippling tax bill. There were no new big-money signings to introduce
0:01:43 > 0:01:50at Ibrox yesterday as the financial problems were compounded further.
0:01:50 > 0:01:54Dundee United have come to Glasgow and beaten Rangers! Less than
0:01:54 > 0:02:0018,000 fans turned up as Craig Whyte watched his team crash out of
0:02:00 > 0:02:07the Scottish Cup at the hands of Dundee United. These are dark times
0:02:07 > 0:02:12indeed for the club, with a funding shortfall, the �49 million tax
0:02:12 > 0:02:16tribunal outstanding, the Ibrox club does not have problems to seek.
0:02:16 > 0:02:22With its personal -- business history once again under the
0:02:22 > 0:02:26spotlight. This was Craig Whyte in December last year arriving at
0:02:26 > 0:02:33court to give evidence over the bill of �90,000 allegedly owed by
0:02:33 > 0:02:37his company. Just weeks prior to this hearing, the BBC revealed that
0:02:37 > 0:02:42Craig Whyte had been subject to a seven-year director
0:02:42 > 0:02:46disqualification. Few records of this survived and Mr Craig Whyte
0:02:46 > 0:02:50subsequently refused to discuss the ban, dismissing it as a
0:02:50 > 0:02:55technicality. Cross-examined in the witness box at Glasgow Sheriff
0:02:55 > 0:02:58Court, Mr Craig Whyte could not remember what the ban was four, but
0:02:58 > 0:03:08he appeared certain it had nothing to do with the treatment of
0:03:08 > 0:03:29
0:03:29 > 0:03:34creditors. The QC asked what was it Nothing to do with creditors. Well,
0:03:35 > 0:03:39that does not appear to be true. BBC Scotland has a transcript from
0:03:39 > 0:03:46the judgment of his disqualification hearing in 2000 in
0:03:46 > 0:03:53the Royal Courts of Justice in London. It concerned his company, A
0:03:54 > 0:04:03vital UK. The judge was damning about his attempts to leave the
0:04:04 > 0:04:24
0:04:24 > 0:04:28creditors behind. The registrar, The creditors were owed almost
0:04:28 > 0:04:34�400,000. The charge for deliberately failing to tell the
0:04:34 > 0:04:44truth under oath is perjury. We put this to Mr Craig Whyte. In a
0:04:44 > 0:04:58
0:04:58 > 0:05:04Just a month before vital UK shifted assets in October 1995,
0:05:04 > 0:05:09another of Craig Whyte's companies allotted �600,000 of new shares,
0:05:09 > 0:05:19almost half of those to an address in the Bahamas. Once the liquidator
0:05:19 > 0:05:20
0:05:20 > 0:05:26had wound up A vital, it went for the next company, so what of the
0:05:26 > 0:05:32claim that the ban was over a technicality? It ranges from one
0:05:32 > 0:05:42year to 15 years for the most serious offences of perjury. In his
0:05:42 > 0:05:54
0:05:54 > 0:05:58After the documentary in October revealed allegations that he
0:05:58 > 0:06:02committed at criminal offence by controlling a company whilst
0:06:02 > 0:06:07disqualified, Craig Whyte immediately said he was launching
0:06:07 > 0:06:12legal action and withdrew co- operation from the broadcaster. The
0:06:12 > 0:06:18BBC has yet to receive a writ from his lawyers, but we have now
0:06:18 > 0:06:23obtained more details. These documents stated after his
0:06:23 > 0:06:28disqualification in 2000 appear to show that Craig Whyte not just
0:06:28 > 0:06:31controlled 85 per cent of the shares, but also that he was being
0:06:31 > 0:06:37consulted at various stages of another share offer which Craig
0:06:37 > 0:06:42Whyte had promised to underwrite to the tune of �500,000. When they
0:06:42 > 0:06:47failed to raise the capital, the directors wrote to him in his based
0:06:47 > 0:06:52in Monaco, asking him to pay the �500,000 the company promised. He
0:06:52 > 0:06:57failed to come up with the cash and an insolvency service wound up the
0:06:57 > 0:07:01company. The maximum sentence for being convicted of controlling a
0:07:01 > 0:07:11company was disqualified his two years in prison. A spokesman for
0:07:11 > 0:07:27
0:07:27 > 0:07:34Craig Whyte also points out that no criminal investigation has resulted
0:07:34 > 0:07:37from these allegations. Also the BBC understands the Insolvency
0:07:37 > 0:07:42Service passed on a file on the company to the relevant criminal
0:07:42 > 0:07:47authorities. Craig Whyte remains under investigation by the Scottish
0:07:47 > 0:07:51Football Association over its fit and proper person guidelines, and
0:07:51 > 0:07:56also by the Stock Exchange over his failure to declare his
0:07:56 > 0:08:00disqualification. These latest claims about Craig Whyte's past
0:08:00 > 0:08:05come just a week after the Daily Record revealed that Rangers had
0:08:05 > 0:08:11sold large chunks of the next four years season-ticket money to a
0:08:11 > 0:08:16London finance firm for �24 million. The club has also twice missed the
0:08:16 > 0:08:21deadline for filing accounts, which resulted in the share trading being
0:08:21 > 0:08:26suspended. Craig Whyte cannot be blamed for the tax liabilities
0:08:26 > 0:08:32however, that being the legacy of the Sir David Murray era. He
0:08:32 > 0:08:36insists he is the only man to take the club forward. Hundreds of
0:08:37 > 0:08:39thousands of Rangers fans can only hope that he is right.
0:08:39 > 0:08:46Well, our investigations correspondent Mark Daly joins me
0:08:46 > 0:08:52now. There has been some reaction from the Scottish Football
0:08:52 > 0:08:55Association. Craig White is still under investigation by the Scottish
0:08:55 > 0:09:00Football Association, and a spokesman told the BBC tonight they
0:09:00 > 0:09:07were aware of the new allegations about Craig Whyte made by the BBC.
0:09:07 > 0:09:12They said their investigation into whether he is troll of a football
0:09:12 > 0:09:15club were continuing. Under the guidelines, any director with
0:09:15 > 0:09:21disqualification occurring within the last five years must be
0:09:21 > 0:09:25declared before he gets involved in a senior level at a football club.
0:09:25 > 0:09:29I understand that Rangers and Craig Whyte are co-operating fully with
0:09:29 > 0:09:33the investigation, but there is some dispute over whether the five
0:09:33 > 0:09:40year period should begin in the year 2000 when the ban was handed
0:09:40 > 0:09:45down, or in a 2007 when the ban and lapsed. That has implications, if
0:09:45 > 0:09:50it is the former, there would be no need for Craig Whyte to disclose
0:09:50 > 0:09:54the ban. If it is the latter then he would have broken the rules. I
0:09:54 > 0:10:00think it will be some time before we see the conclusion to this
0:10:00 > 0:10:05investigation. Rangers does not have problems to seek at the moment.
0:10:05 > 0:10:12No, off the pitch matters seem to be overshadowing everything on the
0:10:12 > 0:10:17pitch. Just yesterday the manager of the club, Ally McCoist, spoke of
0:10:17 > 0:10:24a crisis and the uncertainty or at the club. As part of an annual
0:10:24 > 0:10:30funding shortfall admitted by Craig Whyte this weekend to be around �10
0:10:30 > 0:10:33million, there is also around �50 million of tax liability. The tax
0:10:33 > 0:10:38tribunal should come to a conclusion in the next few weeks.
0:10:38 > 0:10:44If the case goes against the club, it seems unlikely, some would say
0:10:44 > 0:10:49almost impossible, that the club could survive without some sort of
0:10:49 > 0:10:54administration events. Craig Whyte says that he has a plan for every
0:10:54 > 0:10:59eventuality. But, I think a very soon, Rangers fans will want to see
0:10:59 > 0:11:02some hard evidence of that. Thank you very much indeed.
0:11:02 > 0:11:05Tougher but voluntary regulation for the media is essential to
0:11:05 > 0:11:08safeguard journalism in the digital age. That's the conclusion of an
0:11:08 > 0:11:17investigation by Blair Jenkins, who in another life was head of news
0:11:17 > 0:11:26here at BBC Scotland. In a moment I'll be speaking to him but first
0:11:26 > 0:11:29here's David Allison. The ongoing Leveson inquiry into the ethics of
0:11:29 > 0:11:33the media is focusing minds on how to regulate the profession in an
0:11:33 > 0:11:40age where technology like the internet can undermine newspaper
0:11:40 > 0:11:45business models and social media, which can often or reveal news
0:11:45 > 0:11:50before papers without the legal restraints. After the Super
0:11:50 > 0:11:54injunction issue with Ryan Giggs, which does not apply in Scotland.
0:11:54 > 0:11:58They are not really working when the name of the person concerned is
0:11:58 > 0:12:03very well known to large parts of the population all-over social
0:12:03 > 0:12:09media and the internet. It was really to show, to illustrate, that
0:12:09 > 0:12:13the legislation was not working. How can be regional interests of
0:12:13 > 0:12:19Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales best be secured going
0:12:19 > 0:12:25forward? What we in Scotland need is an insurance that we can have
0:12:25 > 0:12:32the same kind of representation that we have just now. Not just
0:12:32 > 0:12:39from the point of view of an editor, with whatever the standards would
0:12:39 > 0:12:44be calling for, but that there is a guarantee that from Scholl and they
0:12:44 > 0:12:50are involved in the new process. Whatever the outcome, the media is
0:12:50 > 0:12:54likely to change it and the process is underway to shape the future.
0:12:54 > 0:12:58And then stands up in the Leveson inquiry and various other aspects
0:12:58 > 0:13:03of press behaviour may seem a long way away, but Blair Jenkins is
0:13:03 > 0:13:07clear that events down south could have an impact in Scotland. The
0:13:07 > 0:13:14report for the Dunfermline based carnet de UK trust makes a number
0:13:14 > 0:13:18of suggestions. Including a new framework, which would be voluntary.
0:13:18 > 0:13:25With very strong incentives for joining. Better journalism in the
0:13:25 > 0:13:28digital age goes on to call for the maintenance of broadcasting, more
0:13:28 > 0:13:34journalism education and training on professional ethics is needed,
0:13:34 > 0:13:39and extended availability on take up of high-speed broadband. The
0:13:39 > 0:13:42Leveson inquiry has already heard a call from the current editor of the
0:13:42 > 0:13:45sun for a level playing field between the largely unregulated
0:13:45 > 0:13:49internet and the highly regulated media in Britain. One former
0:13:49 > 0:13:55chairman of the Press Complaints Commission challenged the assertion
0:13:55 > 0:14:00that his organisation lacked teeth. If you think that I was sitting in
0:14:00 > 0:14:05their pocket, not daring to do things, things that they disliked,
0:14:05 > 0:14:10think again. The fact that the former News of the World editor,
0:14:10 > 0:14:14Andy Coulson, went on to become the head of press at Downing Street,
0:14:14 > 0:14:18having had an interview over phone hacking allegations, has led even a
0:14:18 > 0:14:24man who chairs the organisation to accept things must change
0:14:24 > 0:14:29fundamentally. I have come to the conclusion that we do urgently need
0:14:29 > 0:14:34a totally new body with substantially increased powers.
0:14:34 > 0:14:37Today, at the inquiry, even the editor of the Daily Mail conceded
0:14:37 > 0:14:42the industry needs to move to any system of regulation sooner rather
0:14:42 > 0:14:50than later. I think it would help the industry if they could move to
0:14:50 > 0:14:58a new arrangement as soon as possible. So some would say to
0:14:58 > 0:15:01avoid the sword of Damocles. would not say that. Whatever and
0:15:01 > 0:15:06whenever it happens, it is clear that things are not going to go on
0:15:06 > 0:15:16as before. I'm joined now by the report's
0:15:16 > 0:15:17
0:15:17 > 0:15:23In that report David was referring to today's business at Leveson and
0:15:23 > 0:15:26the editor of the Daily Mail's calls for a new code of conduct in
0:15:26 > 0:15:30effect. Is that what you want to see, is it the same sort of thing
0:15:30 > 0:15:33you were looking for? It was interesting what Paul Dacre had to
0:15:33 > 0:15:38say. He clearly supported one of the main recommendations we're
0:15:38 > 0:15:43making which is that the key incentive to get newspapers to sign
0:15:43 > 0:15:49up to a voluntary system of regulation is accreditation. I
0:15:49 > 0:15:53think Paul Dacre who is regarded as the toughest nut amongst the Fleet
0:15:53 > 0:15:58Street editors and probable lit one who historically is the most
0:15:58 > 0:16:03resistant to the notion of change, has now moved his position and is
0:16:03 > 0:16:07saying essentially the same as us. Code of conduct and independent
0:16:07 > 0:16:09press regulator, what form would that take and in what way would it
0:16:09 > 0:16:13be different from the Press Complaints Commission which does
0:16:13 > 0:16:17the job at the moment? The key thing, there is a consensus here,
0:16:17 > 0:16:20the key thing is we need a regulator which is independent of
0:16:20 > 0:16:24Government and the newspaper industry to avoid either the
0:16:24 > 0:16:27reality or the perception of conflict of interest and
0:16:28 > 0:16:31interference. So an independent regulator is where most people are
0:16:31 > 0:16:35thinking Leveson will settle. The challenge people have been
0:16:35 > 0:16:39wrestling with and to which we hope to have offered a solution, is how
0:16:39 > 0:16:42do you continue to have what is in essence a voluntary system of
0:16:42 > 0:16:46regulation, but make sure you get universal participation that all
0:16:46 > 0:16:51the newspapers sign up for it and indeed not just the newspapers but
0:16:51 > 0:16:56the increasing numbers of news websites and digital media. I hope
0:16:56 > 0:16:59we've helped. How do you do that? By saying that if you have a system
0:16:59 > 0:17:04whereby you only get the benefits of being a serious news
0:17:04 > 0:17:08organisation and there are many benefits which can go into, you
0:17:08 > 0:17:12only get those benefits t if you sign up for the duties and
0:17:12 > 0:17:16obligations. If you sign up to decent ethical and editorial
0:17:16 > 0:17:21standards, you get all the things that the public spend large amounts
0:17:21 > 0:17:26of money on to make the wheels run smoothly, everything to do with
0:17:26 > 0:17:30special facilities at various venues, the system that gets you
0:17:30 > 0:17:34privileged access, the fact there are press officers paid to answer
0:17:34 > 0:17:37questions from journalists promptly. You wouldn't -- they wouldn't deal
0:17:37 > 0:17:42with you if you didn't sign up to the code, you wouldn't get into
0:17:42 > 0:17:50events at the Palace or political events? This is not about excluding,
0:17:50 > 0:17:54it's about incolluding. How to get everyone involved. But there would
0:17:54 > 0:17:58be sanctions if you didn't sign up? That's right. Broadcasting, which
0:17:58 > 0:18:05you know very well, will always be more strictly regulated than the
0:18:05 > 0:18:11press in other media. If you look how Ofcom operates there's
0:18:11 > 0:18:16virtually no history of withdrawing licenses from a mainstream
0:18:16 > 0:18:20broadcaster. The other sanction which is often mentioned, financial
0:18:20 > 0:18:25penalty, if you look at Ofcom's history and the regulators that
0:18:25 > 0:18:29preceded them, the use of fines of financial penalties against any
0:18:29 > 0:18:33form of broadcast journalism is extremely rare. It's a very rarely
0:18:33 > 0:18:36used sanction, but it is always there to remind you that you are
0:18:36 > 0:18:40reason a regulatory framework. You're suggesting it should be
0:18:40 > 0:18:43there for the press under the new arrangements you would foresee?
0:18:43 > 0:18:47That's right. What we're trying to do here is strike a new balance
0:18:47 > 0:18:51between benefits and obligations. If you get all the benefits of
0:18:51 > 0:18:56being part of the accredited and the designated news media, you also
0:18:56 > 0:18:59have to sign up to decent standards. A crucial point in this is that the
0:18:59 > 0:19:04public then know what they're dealing with. If you have a set of
0:19:04 > 0:19:09standards, a regulatory system and people who are signed up for that
0:19:09 > 0:19:13display the label or badge that says "we sign up to this", the
0:19:13 > 0:19:16public know what they're looking at. With new media around, I think it's
0:19:16 > 0:19:20important that people know that the thing they're looking at has
0:19:20 > 0:19:25standards or doesn't. Now the corner stone of this system would
0:19:25 > 0:19:30be a code of conduct that all journalists would sign up to. How
0:19:30 > 0:19:34would that work? I think it's important for a number of reasons.
0:19:34 > 0:19:38I tebd -- tend to, I believe in journalism. It's hugely important.
0:19:38 > 0:19:42Journalists are looking for a new aspirational and ambitious code
0:19:42 > 0:19:46that covers the whole profession. It's unusual, strange, there is no
0:19:46 > 0:19:49one place you can go to in the UK to find out the professional
0:19:49 > 0:19:53standards by which journalists operate. It doesn't exist.
0:19:53 > 0:19:56Certainly not the PCC code. Journalists themselves want to see
0:19:56 > 0:20:00that clearer set of guidelines. I think the public would like
0:20:00 > 0:20:05somewhere to go to find a clear sense of what they should expect
0:20:05 > 0:20:10from news media. The increasing numbers of citizen journalists,if
0:20:10 > 0:20:17you like, would benefit from having a professional code. What do you
0:20:17 > 0:20:20say to those who say it feels like licensing? We have effectively an
0:20:20 > 0:20:24informal system of licenses through press passes and things like that.
0:20:24 > 0:20:27But it's not licensing. This is society setting standards for news
0:20:27 > 0:20:31media. Could bad journalists be struck off? Not individual
0:20:31 > 0:20:35journalists. Buff I think we should let journalists be journalists.
0:20:35 > 0:20:40Blair Jenkins, thank you for coming Let's bring you breaking news
0:20:40 > 0:20:44tonight from our business and economy editor. It's from Melbourne,
0:20:44 > 0:20:48headquarters of the national Australia bank, which owns the
0:20:48 > 0:20:52Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks. It's Tuesday morning there. The
0:20:52 > 0:20:57parent company has just announced it's carrying out a strategic
0:20:57 > 0:21:04review of its UK subsidiary based here in Glasgow. That means it
0:21:04 > 0:21:07would appear that it's looking for a buyer for the Clydesdale. The
0:21:07 > 0:21:12chief executive of national Australia bank says it's because
0:21:12 > 0:21:17the UK economy is facing a much longer period of subdued growth
0:21:17 > 0:21:24because of the eurozone crisis and the continuing austerity programme
0:21:24 > 0:21:28by the UK Government. Our business and economy editor Douglas Fraser
0:21:28 > 0:21:31saying the national Australia bank is looking, it seems, for a buyer
0:21:31 > 0:21:36is looking, it seems, for a buyer for the Clydesdale based here in
0:21:36 > 0:21:40Glasgow. Now the papers: There's the Scottish Daily Mail, terrorist
0:21:40 > 0:21:45on the school run. That's the main headline there.
0:21:45 > 0:21:51No details of the paper's editor before the Leveson Inquiry. Front
0:21:51 > 0:21:56of the Herald "Another hammer blow to the UK's bonus culture" that's
0:21:56 > 0:22:02the story of Network Rail bosses giving up their bonuses, giving to
0:22:02 > 0:22:07charity instead. The guardian front page, it goes on
0:22:07 > 0:22:11the Qatada story, set for release after six years in detention and