06/02/2012 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, an exclusive investigation into the

business affairs of Rangers owner Craig Whyte finds that he may have

lied in court. And as Leveson inquiry hears from the Daily Mail

editor Paul Dacre, we'll discuss a new report from the Carnegie Trust

on a code of conduct for journalists.

Good evening. The Rangers owner Craig Whyte may have lied to a

court over his business history, BBC Scotland can reveal. The

businessman was giving evidence at Glasgow Sheriff Court in December

last year over an alleged unpaid bill to a roofing company. But a

BBC Scotland investigation has unearthed documents relating to his

seven year director disqualification which casts

serious doubt on his testimony, given under oath, which could raise

questions of perjury. More evidence about Mr Whyte's alleged criminal

past has also emerged. Tonight, Mr Whyte described the claims as

defamatory and said the BBC was pursuing a witch-hunt against him

and Rangers Football Club. Our investigations correspondent Mark

They are one of Scotland's oldest and greatest institutions. But

their very existence is now threatened under the shadow of a

crippling tax bill. There were no new big-money signings to introduce

at Ibrox yesterday as the financial problems were compounded further.

Dundee United have come to Glasgow and beaten Rangers! Less than

18,000 fans turned up as Craig Whyte watched his team crash out of

the Scottish Cup at the hands of Dundee United. These are dark times

indeed for the club, with a funding shortfall, the �49 million tax

tribunal outstanding, the Ibrox club does not have problems to seek.

With its personal -- business history once again under the

spotlight. This was Craig Whyte in December last year arriving at

court to give evidence over the bill of �90,000 allegedly owed by

his company. Just weeks prior to this hearing, the BBC revealed that

Craig Whyte had been subject to a seven-year director

disqualification. Few records of this survived and Mr Craig Whyte

subsequently refused to discuss the ban, dismissing it as a

technicality. Cross-examined in the witness box at Glasgow Sheriff

Court, Mr Craig Whyte could not remember what the ban was four, but

he appeared certain it had nothing to do with the treatment of

creditors. The QC asked what was it Nothing to do with creditors. Well,

that does not appear to be true. BBC Scotland has a transcript from

the judgment of his disqualification hearing in 2000 in

the Royal Courts of Justice in London. It concerned his company, A

vital UK. The judge was damning about his attempts to leave the

creditors behind. The registrar, The creditors were owed almost

�400,000. The charge for deliberately failing to tell the

truth under oath is perjury. We put this to Mr Craig Whyte. In a

Just a month before vital UK shifted assets in October 1995,

another of Craig Whyte's companies allotted �600,000 of new shares,

almost half of those to an address in the Bahamas. Once the liquidator

had wound up A vital, it went for the next company, so what of the

claim that the ban was over a technicality? It ranges from one

year to 15 years for the most serious offences of perjury. In his

After the documentary in October revealed allegations that he

committed at criminal offence by controlling a company whilst

disqualified, Craig Whyte immediately said he was launching

legal action and withdrew co- operation from the broadcaster. The

BBC has yet to receive a writ from his lawyers, but we have now

obtained more details. These documents stated after his

disqualification in 2000 appear to show that Craig Whyte not just

controlled 85 per cent of the shares, but also that he was being

consulted at various stages of another share offer which Craig

Whyte had promised to underwrite to the tune of �500,000. When they

failed to raise the capital, the directors wrote to him in his based

in Monaco, asking him to pay the �500,000 the company promised. He

failed to come up with the cash and an insolvency service wound up the

company. The maximum sentence for being convicted of controlling a

company was disqualified his two years in prison. A spokesman for

Craig Whyte also points out that no criminal investigation has resulted

from these allegations. Also the BBC understands the Insolvency

Service passed on a file on the company to the relevant criminal

authorities. Craig Whyte remains under investigation by the Scottish

Football Association over its fit and proper person guidelines, and

also by the Stock Exchange over his failure to declare his

disqualification. These latest claims about Craig Whyte's past

come just a week after the Daily Record revealed that Rangers had

sold large chunks of the next four years season-ticket money to a

London finance firm for �24 million. The club has also twice missed the

deadline for filing accounts, which resulted in the share trading being

suspended. Craig Whyte cannot be blamed for the tax liabilities

however, that being the legacy of the Sir David Murray era. He

insists he is the only man to take the club forward. Hundreds of

thousands of Rangers fans can only hope that he is right.

Well, our investigations correspondent Mark Daly joins me

now. There has been some reaction from the Scottish Football

Association. Craig White is still under investigation by the Scottish

Football Association, and a spokesman told the BBC tonight they

were aware of the new allegations about Craig Whyte made by the BBC.

They said their investigation into whether he is troll of a football

club were continuing. Under the guidelines, any director with

disqualification occurring within the last five years must be

declared before he gets involved in a senior level at a football club.

I understand that Rangers and Craig Whyte are co-operating fully with

the investigation, but there is some dispute over whether the five

year period should begin in the year 2000 when the ban was handed

down, or in a 2007 when the ban and lapsed. That has implications, if

it is the former, there would be no need for Craig Whyte to disclose

the ban. If it is the latter then he would have broken the rules. I

think it will be some time before we see the conclusion to this

investigation. Rangers does not have problems to seek at the moment.

No, off the pitch matters seem to be overshadowing everything on the

pitch. Just yesterday the manager of the club, Ally McCoist, spoke of

a crisis and the uncertainty or at the club. As part of an annual

funding shortfall admitted by Craig Whyte this weekend to be around �10

million, there is also around �50 million of tax liability. The tax

tribunal should come to a conclusion in the next few weeks.

If the case goes against the club, it seems unlikely, some would say

almost impossible, that the club could survive without some sort of

administration events. Craig Whyte says that he has a plan for every

eventuality. But, I think a very soon, Rangers fans will want to see

some hard evidence of that. Thank you very much indeed.

Tougher but voluntary regulation for the media is essential to

safeguard journalism in the digital age. That's the conclusion of an

investigation by Blair Jenkins, who in another life was head of news

here at BBC Scotland. In a moment I'll be speaking to him but first

here's David Allison. The ongoing Leveson inquiry into the ethics of

the media is focusing minds on how to regulate the profession in an

age where technology like the internet can undermine newspaper

business models and social media, which can often or reveal news

before papers without the legal restraints. After the Super

injunction issue with Ryan Giggs, which does not apply in Scotland.

They are not really working when the name of the person concerned is

very well known to large parts of the population all-over social

media and the internet. It was really to show, to illustrate, that

the legislation was not working. How can be regional interests of

Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales best be secured going

forward? What we in Scotland need is an insurance that we can have

the same kind of representation that we have just now. Not just

from the point of view of an editor, with whatever the standards would

be calling for, but that there is a guarantee that from Scholl and they

are involved in the new process. Whatever the outcome, the media is

likely to change it and the process is underway to shape the future.

And then stands up in the Leveson inquiry and various other aspects

of press behaviour may seem a long way away, but Blair Jenkins is

clear that events down south could have an impact in Scotland. The

report for the Dunfermline based carnet de UK trust makes a number

of suggestions. Including a new framework, which would be voluntary.

With very strong incentives for joining. Better journalism in the

digital age goes on to call for the maintenance of broadcasting, more

journalism education and training on professional ethics is needed,

and extended availability on take up of high-speed broadband. The

Leveson inquiry has already heard a call from the current editor of the

sun for a level playing field between the largely unregulated

internet and the highly regulated media in Britain. One former

chairman of the Press Complaints Commission challenged the assertion

that his organisation lacked teeth. If you think that I was sitting in

their pocket, not daring to do things, things that they disliked,

think again. The fact that the former News of the World editor,

Andy Coulson, went on to become the head of press at Downing Street,

having had an interview over phone hacking allegations, has led even a

man who chairs the organisation to accept things must change

fundamentally. I have come to the conclusion that we do urgently need

a totally new body with substantially increased powers.

Today, at the inquiry, even the editor of the Daily Mail conceded

the industry needs to move to any system of regulation sooner rather

than later. I think it would help the industry if they could move to

a new arrangement as soon as possible. So some would say to

avoid the sword of Damocles. would not say that. Whatever and

whenever it happens, it is clear that things are not going to go on

as before. I'm joined now by the report's

In that report David was referring to today's business at Leveson and

the editor of the Daily Mail's calls for a new code of conduct in

effect. Is that what you want to see, is it the same sort of thing

you were looking for? It was interesting what Paul Dacre had to

say. He clearly supported one of the main recommendations we're

making which is that the key incentive to get newspapers to sign

up to a voluntary system of regulation is accreditation. I

think Paul Dacre who is regarded as the toughest nut amongst the Fleet

Street editors and probable lit one who historically is the most

resistant to the notion of change, has now moved his position and is

saying essentially the same as us. Code of conduct and independent

press regulator, what form would that take and in what way would it

be different from the Press Complaints Commission which does

the job at the moment? The key thing, there is a consensus here,

the key thing is we need a regulator which is independent of

Government and the newspaper industry to avoid either the

reality or the perception of conflict of interest and

interference. So an independent regulator is where most people are

thinking Leveson will settle. The challenge people have been

wrestling with and to which we hope to have offered a solution, is how

do you continue to have what is in essence a voluntary system of

regulation, but make sure you get universal participation that all

the newspapers sign up for it and indeed not just the newspapers but

the increasing numbers of news websites and digital media. I hope

we've helped. How do you do that? By saying that if you have a system

whereby you only get the benefits of being a serious news

organisation and there are many benefits which can go into, you

only get those benefits t if you sign up for the duties and

obligations. If you sign up to decent ethical and editorial

standards, you get all the things that the public spend large amounts

of money on to make the wheels run smoothly, everything to do with

special facilities at various venues, the system that gets you

privileged access, the fact there are press officers paid to answer

questions from journalists promptly. You wouldn't -- they wouldn't deal

with you if you didn't sign up to the code, you wouldn't get into

events at the Palace or political events? This is not about excluding,

it's about incolluding. How to get everyone involved. But there would

be sanctions if you didn't sign up? That's right. Broadcasting, which

you know very well, will always be more strictly regulated than the

press in other media. If you look how Ofcom operates there's

virtually no history of withdrawing licenses from a mainstream

broadcaster. The other sanction which is often mentioned, financial

penalty, if you look at Ofcom's history and the regulators that

preceded them, the use of fines of financial penalties against any

form of broadcast journalism is extremely rare. It's a very rarely

used sanction, but it is always there to remind you that you are

reason a regulatory framework. You're suggesting it should be

there for the press under the new arrangements you would foresee?

That's right. What we're trying to do here is strike a new balance

between benefits and obligations. If you get all the benefits of

being part of the accredited and the designated news media, you also

have to sign up to decent standards. A crucial point in this is that the

public then know what they're dealing with. If you have a set of

standards, a regulatory system and people who are signed up for that

display the label or badge that says "we sign up to this", the

public know what they're looking at. With new media around, I think it's

important that people know that the thing they're looking at has

standards or doesn't. Now the corner stone of this system would

be a code of conduct that all journalists would sign up to. How

would that work? I think it's important for a number of reasons.

I tebd -- tend to, I believe in journalism. It's hugely important.

Journalists are looking for a new aspirational and ambitious code

that covers the whole profession. It's unusual, strange, there is no

one place you can go to in the UK to find out the professional

standards by which journalists operate. It doesn't exist.

Certainly not the PCC code. Journalists themselves want to see

that clearer set of guidelines. I think the public would like

somewhere to go to find a clear sense of what they should expect

from news media. The increasing numbers of citizen journalists,if

you like, would benefit from having a professional code. What do you

say to those who say it feels like licensing? We have effectively an

informal system of licenses through press passes and things like that.

But it's not licensing. This is society setting standards for news

media. Could bad journalists be struck off? Not individual

journalists. Buff I think we should let journalists be journalists.

Blair Jenkins, thank you for coming Let's bring you breaking news

tonight from our business and economy editor. It's from Melbourne,

headquarters of the national Australia bank, which owns the

Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks. It's Tuesday morning there. The

parent company has just announced it's carrying out a strategic

review of its UK subsidiary based here in Glasgow. That means it

would appear that it's looking for a buyer for the Clydesdale. The

chief executive of national Australia bank says it's because

the UK economy is facing a much longer period of subdued growth

because of the eurozone crisis and the continuing austerity programme

by the UK Government. Our business and economy editor Douglas Fraser

saying the national Australia bank is looking, it seems, for a buyer

is looking, it seems, for a buyer for the Clydesdale based here in

Glasgow. Now the papers: There's the Scottish Daily Mail, terrorist

on the school run. That's the main headline there.

No details of the paper's editor before the Leveson Inquiry. Front

of the Herald "Another hammer blow to the UK's bonus culture" that's

the story of Network Rail bosses giving up their bonuses, giving to

charity instead. The guardian front page, it goes on

the Qatada story, set for release after six years in detention and