:00:10. > :00:14.Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: Does the First Minister have a
:00:14. > :00:18.tycoon problem? I'll be speaking to the Deputy First Minister and the
:00:18. > :00:22.Labour leader. And some words of advice for
:00:22. > :00:26.aspiring councillors standing in next week's local election.
:00:26. > :00:28.Good evening. Acting as a lobbyist for Rupert Murdoch, or promoting
:00:28. > :00:35.Scotland's economic interests? The First Minister's justification for
:00:35. > :00:38.meeting with the Murdochs is the creation of jobs.
:00:38. > :00:43.This evening it has emerged he failed to disclose a meeting with
:00:43. > :00:48.Mr Murdoch in 2008 in New York. I will be speaking to Johann Lamont
:00:48. > :00:58.and Nicola Sturgeon in a moment. First, Derek Bateman watched the
:00:58. > :00:59.
:00:59. > :01:04.tussle at first ministers' When you are a big hitter, you have
:01:04. > :01:07.to expect to take a few shots yourself. This week, Alex Salmond,
:01:07. > :01:14.Scotland's heavyweight first minister, has suffered a blow after
:01:14. > :01:18.blow. In a flurry of jabs and hay makers, not just from the usual
:01:18. > :01:28.sparring partners, but also from the world champions of the public
:01:28. > :01:29.
:01:29. > :01:32.ring. James Murdoch used his name in the Leveson inquiry. He had
:01:32. > :01:37.offered to beat supportive as sconces politician and leader.
:01:37. > :01:42.there was Donald Trump, flailing wildly. He is denying stories on
:01:42. > :01:46.the front page of the papers today, and it has nothing to do with me.
:01:46. > :01:53.It was all a warm-up for first Minister's Questions. Johann Lamont
:01:53. > :01:56.came out swinging. The revelation that Rupert Murdoch's newspaper
:01:56. > :02:02.hacked Milly Dowler's phone was the moment any doubt was removed, it
:02:02. > :02:06.was the moment the empire started to fall. But the first minister
:02:06. > :02:16.became the only senior politician in this country, perhaps the only
:02:16. > :02:22.
:02:22. > :02:29.one in the world, to invite him 15 years of worshipping at the feet
:02:29. > :02:39.of Rupert Murdoch from the Labour Party, now treating him as a pariah.
:02:39. > :02:40.
:02:40. > :02:48.Refusing to explain... Refusing to explain the contact... What people
:02:48. > :02:54.in Scotland will see when they see Johann Lamont's and the Labour
:02:54. > :02:59.Party's words, they all think of humbug and hypocrisy. He gave his
:02:59. > :03:04.backing to Sir Fred Goodwin in a deal that broke the bank. The deal
:03:04. > :03:10.with Donald Trump, and now Murdoch. There are common themes. Each case
:03:10. > :03:18.was secret. Each deal was a fiasco. And in each case, the truth had to
:03:18. > :03:22.be dragged out of the first minister. Bit by bit. That would be
:03:22. > :03:31.Sir Fred Goodwin. Knighted by Gordon Brown on the advice of Jack
:03:31. > :03:35.McConnell. Donald Trump, up until last Sunday, Donald Trump's
:03:35. > :03:39.argument to the Scottish Government is that we were bound by a deal
:03:39. > :03:43.that he claimed had been made between him and Lord McConnell in
:03:43. > :03:46.the previous administration. kick-boxing Conservative leader
:03:46. > :03:52.harried him over a dinner Old -- dinner in New York with Donald
:03:52. > :03:58.Trump. Did the first minister intentionally mislead Parliament,
:03:58. > :04:07.or did he just forget that at the glory of supping with Murdoch one
:04:08. > :04:14.night, he had been supping with This was a global Scott dinner in
:04:15. > :04:22.New York. Attending the event were the Alexandra Real Estates, the
:04:22. > :04:29.General Electric... Etc, etc. don't think it sounds the likely
:04:29. > :04:36.venue to be exchanging commitments in terms of planning application
:04:36. > :04:40.for five years down the road. a left hook. Is he ashamed that he
:04:40. > :04:45.put his political motives above those of the phone hacking victims?
:04:45. > :04:48.I think the deplorable aspect of phone hacking will be fully dealt
:04:48. > :04:54.with at the inquiry, and I hope fully dealt with by the police
:04:54. > :04:59.force and judicial system on both sides of the border. If Alex
:04:59. > :05:09.Salmond was grubby, it did not show. But -- groggy. But the real damage
:05:09. > :05:13.
:05:14. > :05:19.may be the impression Labour tried No matter how precariously, he
:05:19. > :05:24.retains his crown. I'm joined now by the Deputy First
:05:24. > :05:27.Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and by the Labour leader, Johann Lamont.
:05:27. > :05:32.Johann Lamont, let's start on this meeting, this business that has
:05:32. > :05:35.come up tonight, in April 2008 that was not declared in a list that the
:05:35. > :05:38.Scottish Government produced. They are throwing their hands up and
:05:38. > :05:44.saying they admit it is a mistake, isn't that fair enough? We made the
:05:44. > :05:47.point that we had not been given the full information. The
:05:47. > :05:50.relationship between the first minister and Rupert Murdoch hadn't
:05:50. > :05:53.been revealed before the Leveson inquiry. We don't know the
:05:53. > :05:57.significance of this admission but we are keen there is as much
:05:57. > :06:00.transparency as possible. Do you think it is a significant
:06:01. > :06:04.admission? It was a mistake and mistakes happen. There was a long
:06:04. > :06:09.list of meetings and this was a simple error of admission and it
:06:10. > :06:13.will be put right. The key thing, and this is the point that Johann
:06:13. > :06:18.Lamont seems to miss, all of the first minister's engagement with
:06:18. > :06:24.Rupert Murdoch, with Skye or anybody else are about promoting
:06:24. > :06:28.Scotland's economic interests. want to deal with this meeting. You
:06:28. > :06:31.have had the explanation that Alex Salmond offered, do you accept it?
:06:31. > :06:36.It is a very odd explanation, it came very late. Your own programme
:06:36. > :06:40.could not get anybody to explain the situation. It was 48 hours when
:06:40. > :06:46.we heard nothing. If it was about jobs, why did we not know that the
:06:46. > :06:53.first minister believed this deal was good for Scotland's jobs? He is
:06:53. > :06:58.very good at arguing. To tell Westminster in his view what should
:06:58. > :07:02.be done, why do we not know this? If it were about jobs, why did he
:07:02. > :07:09.not do it? Why did he not meet with Vince Cable, Jeremy Hunt, if it
:07:09. > :07:12.were about jobs? It seems it is a hard explanation to justify if you
:07:12. > :07:22.look... The 40% ownership, total control, would that make the
:07:22. > :07:23.
:07:23. > :07:28.difference in terms of jobs? We He has been completely transparent
:07:28. > :07:34.in all of his dealings. Rupert Murdoch used to meet with Labour
:07:34. > :07:39.ministers in secret. This nonsense from Johann about nobody knowing
:07:39. > :07:44.Alex Salmond was standing up for jobs - he wrote a letter to James
:07:44. > :07:49.Murdoch a dearer go in January. That was published in August. It is
:07:49. > :07:54.all about jobs. Just because Johann did not see that, just because it
:07:54. > :08:02.does not sit her argument does not mean it does not exist. It was
:08:02. > :08:09.about the takeover. It was about other Skype jobs. The other point
:08:09. > :08:13.is this - the first minister decides he wants to promote jobs in
:08:13. > :08:20.Scotland, and was going on this morning about his call centre
:08:20. > :08:26.opening up. It is not immediately obvious why that has anything to do
:08:26. > :08:31.with supporting Rupert Murdoch taking over BSkyB. What the first
:08:31. > :08:37.minister was prepared to do was argue that the economic interests
:08:37. > :08:41.of the jobs aspect should be taken into account in the decision-making.
:08:41. > :08:46.This call centre is going ahead anyway and it has nothing to do
:08:46. > :08:50.with BSkyB. The first minister believed, I think rightly, that if
:08:50. > :08:55.News Corporation had consolidated its ownership of sky, that would
:08:55. > :08:58.have led to job enhance them. It is not going ahead so we will never
:08:58. > :09:05.know. But he was also concerned about jobs in Glasgow that were
:09:05. > :09:08.under threat because Skype were reducing their contact centres from
:09:08. > :09:15.at nine up to two. He believed that the chance of retaining their jobs
:09:15. > :09:20.in Glasgow would be retained if the takeover went ahead. Alex Salmond
:09:20. > :09:28.has been working hard to make sure that Skype retained the jobs in
:09:28. > :09:33.Scotland. That is what the first minister is there to do. -- Sky. It
:09:33. > :09:36.is a belief that John is not first minister if she does not see that
:09:36. > :09:45.the key role of the first minister is to promote the economic
:09:45. > :09:50.interests of the Scotland. -- Joe one. What is the evidence that was
:09:50. > :09:59.put before the Cabinet in terms of what the author was a from to James
:09:59. > :10:04.Murdoch? What jobs would have come? To one's First Minister's question
:10:04. > :10:14.was predicated on a mistaken belief that there had been job losses. --
:10:14. > :10:14.
:10:14. > :10:17.Johann. His is perfectly acceptable - and I think you would accept -
:10:17. > :10:21.that it is fine for a first minister to lobby in favour of
:10:21. > :10:26.getting jobs for Scotland. It is another thing to intervene in a
:10:26. > :10:30.takeover. He said he would make the case for the economic argument to
:10:30. > :10:35.be taken into account. Circumstances changed and Jeremy
:10:35. > :10:41.Hunt decided not to refer the bid to the Competition Commission. --
:10:41. > :10:45.Competition Commission. What led him to believe that somehow jobs
:10:45. > :10:49.would be adversely affected unless they got to own the whole of the
:10:49. > :10:53.company? News Corporation made it clear they wanted to increase
:10:53. > :10:57.employment in Scotland. Any first minister would be keen to encourage
:10:57. > :11:03.that and any First Minister worth their salt would have been keen to
:11:03. > :11:07.do everything possible to protect 800 jobs in this city of Glasgow
:11:07. > :11:17.Vostok in that case, he would not have done it privately, and then he
:11:17. > :11:18.
:11:18. > :11:23.would have done it. They are letters demonstrating... If it were
:11:23. > :11:33.the case that it would protect jobs, he should have had a meeting with
:11:33. > :11:41.Vince Cable or Jeremy Hunt. Murdoch's people said "mission
:11:41. > :11:45.accomplished" and that he was onside. The is and the problem for
:11:45. > :11:48.you and your party that giving you spend that the whole time you were
:11:48. > :11:58.in government crawl into the Murdochs, you are not in a position
:11:58. > :12:05.to criticise? -- isn't the problem. It is all right when you do it but
:12:05. > :12:11.not when they do it? It no, no, I did not say that. I think the Milly
:12:11. > :12:16.Dowler think really pulled people up shockingly. One thing about Alex
:12:16. > :12:26.Salmond was that he won an election in 2007 and was not being supported
:12:26. > :12:26.
:12:26. > :12:30.by the Son. He did not need Murdoch. Nevertheless he has continued. He
:12:30. > :12:36.is the only senior politician who has continued to try to
:12:36. > :12:41.rehabilitate a man... There is no connection between Alex some
:12:41. > :12:44.understanding of four jobs and have the newspaper backing the SNP.
:12:44. > :12:48.lot of people watching this will think that it is obvious what is
:12:48. > :12:57.going on - Alex Salmond was currying favour with Rupert Murdoch
:12:57. > :13:03.because he wanted his paper's backing. The son of back the SNP
:13:04. > :13:11.last year for the same reason hundreds of other people did. -- of
:13:11. > :13:19.the newspaper it back to. We now have a first minister who appears
:13:19. > :13:24.willing to rehabilitate Rupert Murdoch and News International,
:13:24. > :13:27.over which there were three police inquiries, one judicial inquiry...
:13:27. > :13:33.Do you think Alex Salmon should not have tried to protect jobs in this
:13:33. > :13:41.city? Bat is a separate issue and to know that per that be well. You
:13:41. > :13:47.need to explain why, in July this year, six at SNP MPs said...
:13:47. > :13:55.have to stop. We are merely out of time. Presumably you think Jeremy
:13:55. > :14:01.Hunt should resign? Yes, because he had the legal responsibility.
:14:01. > :14:06.you think the Murdochs were right to withdraw their bid or BSkyB?
:14:06. > :14:11.Even though you supported it? was before anybody knew about phone
:14:11. > :14:16.hacking. I am glad they did. The motion supported by the SNP said
:14:16. > :14:23.that the bid should not go ahead. If they've revive their bid in the
:14:24. > :14:29.future, would you be again prepared to lobby, all offer to lobby for
:14:29. > :14:35.them? The Scottish government has a very basic test for anything - is
:14:36. > :14:42.it in Scotland's interests? Do you think Rupert Murdoch and his family
:14:42. > :14:47.are fit and proper people to own it newspapers and TV stations? No.
:14:47. > :14:53.you? I totally condemn what happened with the phone hacking.
:14:53. > :14:56.Yes or no. Rupert Murdoch is a big employers at... We will take that
:14:56. > :15:04.as a yes. Why would anyone want to be a
:15:04. > :15:10.councillor? Given the likes of street lighting, bin collections
:15:10. > :15:20.and to other jobs, this is local level politics. We have been to
:15:20. > :15:29.
:15:29. > :15:33.meet some retiring councillors with Why would anyone want to become a
:15:33. > :15:36.councillor? We are at the bottom end of the political ladder. I have
:15:36. > :15:46.come here to speak to three councillors who are standing down
:15:46. > :15:49.
:15:49. > :15:54.at the next election. Between them, these three have over 60 years
:15:54. > :15:59.experience in office. They believe that personality comes before party
:15:59. > :16:05.politics at a local level. They vote at local government level for
:16:05. > :16:11.the person rather than the party. I am quite sure the three of us would
:16:11. > :16:15.agree that we know of people who are either with Mary's or Ian's
:16:15. > :16:19.party and have voted for me, and they will tell you bluntly that
:16:19. > :16:24.they will not vote for you in the general election because they are
:16:24. > :16:29.voting for you, not the party. you are standing for election next
:16:29. > :16:35.week, it might be worth listening to these old timers. If you are
:16:35. > :16:42.married, your marriage has to be box solid because the partner who
:16:42. > :16:49.is left to to look after the home at all the family - it puts a huge
:16:49. > :16:54.onus on them because you are expecting to be away from that home
:16:54. > :16:59.a lot as the children are growing up. There is homework to do it -
:16:59. > :17:06.there are things to look after, and that is something that candidates
:17:06. > :17:12.often do not think about. I can give one example for a person who
:17:12. > :17:19.elected me at the council elections, and 10 days later it appeared that
:17:19. > :17:22.my house door -- he appeared at my house door and said he did not want
:17:22. > :17:27.to be a councillor any more and had not realised how much work was
:17:27. > :17:33.involved. Despite all the training programmes the parties put people
:17:33. > :17:39.through, when it they actually look... For your job starts at 8am
:17:39. > :17:46.and often does not finish until 11pm. Do you feel like local public
:17:46. > :17:51.property? One of my relaxations was playing golf and even though I say
:17:51. > :17:58.it, I was a good golfer. I am not a good golfer it now because I
:17:58. > :18:02.stopped going. As you would put on your shoes in the car-park, someone
:18:02. > :18:06.would ask to see you about sheltered housing for their parents.
:18:06. > :18:13.You would be thinking about that and you would miss your golf shot!
:18:13. > :18:18.I have had phone calls. I think the earliest I had in the morning was
:18:18. > :18:21.6am and the latest that might was at midnight, when someone phoned me
:18:21. > :18:29.to ask what I was going to do about their cooker that had stopped
:18:29. > :18:33.working. You should have told them to phone an electrician! I came
:18:33. > :18:40.close to telling them something else! What is the one thing you
:18:40. > :18:44.love about being a councillor? Someone came to you with the
:18:44. > :18:50.problem and you were able to sort it out promptly. That brought great
:18:50. > :18:58.satisfaction. Will you miss the influence that you had in the party,
:18:58. > :19:02.to change things? I don't know if I ever had any. I find that really
:19:03. > :19:07.interesting because I know what you mean. I don't think I ever had any
:19:07. > :19:15.influence. You must have because you said you could phone up and
:19:15. > :19:23.improve somebody's life. I could kid them on. A woman friend be once
:19:23. > :19:27.about a hedge that needed to be cut. -- phoned me once. My husband had
:19:27. > :19:34.been taking the call, went out and came back shortly afterwards and
:19:34. > :19:44.said, "she is absolutely thrilled". She was just saying up the head had
:19:44. > :19:54.been cut. One of the things that I did was to get a new sports stadium.
:19:54. > :19:57.
:19:57. > :20:02.We got one last year. 23 years! That shows you the influence.
:20:02. > :20:12.will leave a hole in your life after it made a third, so what will
:20:12. > :20:14.
:20:14. > :20:21.you do next? -- after it 3rd May. collect whisky. I have also
:20:21. > :20:28.collected wine for many years. It is it being a councillor that makes
:20:28. > :20:33.you go to the drink! I am intending on going to watch it Motherwell in
:20:33. > :20:38.the Champions' League. I will do more housework, my husband will be
:20:38. > :20:43.delighted to know, because he has had to do it all these years! I am
:20:43. > :20:48.not very good at that but I will have to do it. I have been saving
:20:48. > :20:53.up to buy a piano and I will perhaps take music lessons and
:20:53. > :20:58.learn to play the piano properly. Over lunch, I got the juicy gossip