:00:07. > :00:14.We will leave it there for the time being. Thank you.
:00:14. > :00:17.Tonight, on Newsnight Scotland. What a day for Alex Salmond. Just
:00:17. > :00:21.after breakfast these two MSPs quit the SNP in protest at the weekend
:00:21. > :00:24.U-turn on NATO membership. And, just after lunch, this Labour
:00:24. > :00:33.MSP called him a barefaced liar over whether he'd sought legal
:00:33. > :00:36.advice on EU membership. So just before we all turn in for
:00:36. > :00:38.the night, I''ll hear from the Deputy First Minister on what it
:00:38. > :00:40.means for the Government and the party.
:00:40. > :00:42.Good evening. Having won a narrow, hard-fought
:00:42. > :00:45.and strategically important vote committing his party to supporting
:00:45. > :00:55.NATO membership, Alex Salmond might have fancied a quiet day today,
:00:55. > :00:59.
:00:59. > :01:05.maybe even a long lie. There are some days you want to
:01:05. > :01:08.forget and today, well, it's not been 24 of the SNP's finest hours.
:01:08. > :01:13.After a jolly weekend with friends, the party came back to the office
:01:13. > :01:17.to find out that two of them, well, aren't friends any more. Jean
:01:17. > :01:21.Urquhart and John Finnie, two of the long standing party faithful,
:01:21. > :01:26.have resigned. Much to the surprise of many in Holyrood this morning.
:01:26. > :01:31.Your reaction to losing two of your colleagues? I'm sorry I have no
:01:31. > :01:37.idea what you are talking about. Can you give us the first SNP
:01:37. > :01:42.reaction to these resignations? When did you hear? A-short time ago.
:01:42. > :01:47.The party's U-turn on being part of NATO trampled on too many
:01:47. > :01:52.principles for some. I'm not proud of. It it's the only thing I can do.
:01:52. > :02:00.I have wrest eled on how remaining within the party I can square the
:02:00. > :02:06.matter. I cannot advocate joining a first-strike nuclear alliance as
:02:06. > :02:11.NATO is. Not everyone was on message. Are you considering
:02:11. > :02:14.following them? No comment. comment. That is not the same as no.
:02:15. > :02:21.No comment. Are you think being it? No comment. Thank you very much. So
:02:21. > :02:24.Holyrood tried to move on. This was published. Yes, this is the result
:02:24. > :02:27.of the Scottish Government's consultation on how the
:02:27. > :02:35.independence referendum should be run. The results have been made
:02:35. > :02:40.public. Now, after it's all been decided. Over 26,000 Scots took
:02:41. > :02:46.part and 62% of them wanted a single question. 32% did not. Well,
:02:46. > :02:51.that's all right then, the people got what they wanted. There was
:02:51. > :02:55.more to come. The Deputy First Minister made this statement on EU
:02:55. > :02:59.membership to try to end a long- running law on naval advice. It in
:02:59. > :03:03.light of the Edinburgh Agreement by which both governments have agreed
:03:03. > :03:06.the process of Scotland to achieve independence, I can confirm the
:03:06. > :03:10.Government has commissioned specific legal advice from our law
:03:10. > :03:16.officers on the position of Scotland within the European Union
:03:16. > :03:20.if independence is achieved through this process. That's clear then.
:03:21. > :03:25.They are now seeking legal advice. Weren't we told that the party had
:03:25. > :03:32.already sought legal advice over EU membership? Have you sought advice
:03:32. > :03:36.from your own Scottish law advisers in this man sner We, have, yes.
:03:36. > :03:41.What did they say? You can read it in the documents we put forward.
:03:41. > :03:47.What do they say? I can't give you the legal advice or reveal the
:03:47. > :03:51.legal advice of law officers. You know that. What you can say is that
:03:51. > :03:57.everything we publish is consistent with the legal advice that we
:03:57. > :04:01.received. Have we all been misled? Labour accused you of lying over
:04:01. > :04:06.the European question, have you? will deal with that in a few
:04:06. > :04:13.seconds in Parliament. I have been described as a barefaced liar. The
:04:13. > :04:20.quote that is used to justify this says me saying, in response to Mr
:04:20. > :04:25.Neil "we have yes... You know I can't release the legal advice of
:04:25. > :04:32.law officers, Andrew." That misses out 27 words across three separate
:04:32. > :04:38.answers. It might not be over yet. Can I take this opportunity to not
:04:38. > :04:43.restart my statement that I made earlier today. Can I also ask the
:04:43. > :04:46.Government to take the opportunity for a full, frank debate on this
:04:46. > :04:50.issue at the earliest possible opportunity and for the Government
:04:50. > :04:57.to reveal all of the information that will allow for a full and
:04:57. > :05:00.frank debate to take place. I will look forward to that debate at the
:05:00. > :05:10.earliest possibility opportunity this week. Plenty to sleep on for
:05:10. > :05:14.
:05:14. > :05:21.the SNP or will it be more of a restless night? I spoke to surg
:05:21. > :05:28.surg surg I began by asking her if she could explain why the First
:05:28. > :05:35.Minister told Andrew Neil that he had taken legal advice on an
:05:35. > :05:39.independent Scotland's entry to the EU Nicola Sturgeon. He was talking
:05:40. > :05:42.about general government documents which are underpinned by law
:05:42. > :05:47.officers advice. He in that interview went on to specifically
:05:47. > :05:52.say that he couldn't reveal either the fact of or the content of legal
:05:52. > :05:56.advice. It was interesting today - He didn't say he couldn't reveal
:05:56. > :06:03.the fact of. He was asked specifically, "Have you sought
:06:03. > :06:09.advice from your own Scottish law officers on this matter?" He said
:06:09. > :06:12."we have, yes" he said he couldn't reveal the content but he couldn't
:06:12. > :06:20.reveal whether or not there was advice? He said yes in terms of the
:06:20. > :06:26.general debate. That is not what he said? He did use the word "debate"
:06:26. > :06:31.If I ask you, have you received - have you sought legal advice on
:06:31. > :06:37.whether Scotland would be a member of the European Union after
:06:37. > :06:42.independence and you say said to me "we have, yes" are you saying I
:06:42. > :06:47.would be wrong to take the inference - It's clear he is
:06:48. > :06:53.talking about - It is not at all? It is. It's talking about the
:06:53. > :06:57.general debate. He cites different legal authorities and he is talking
:06:57. > :07:00.about government documents, all of which are underpinned by law
:07:00. > :07:05.officers advice. That is what he was talking about. He was not
:07:05. > :07:08.spaubging about -- talking about specific legal advice on the
:07:08. > :07:11.specific issue. When he was asked whether you sought advice from your
:07:11. > :07:16.own law officers on whether or not an independent Scotland would
:07:16. > :07:18.continue to be part of the European Union, and he said "yes"? He was
:07:18. > :07:22.talking about the general government documents on the
:07:22. > :07:28.constitution that we published over the past few years, all of which
:07:28. > :07:32.are underpinned by law officers' advice. You keep reading one
:07:32. > :07:35.particular section of - I listened to the whole thing. Let me put it
:07:35. > :07:40.to you this way. If I had watched this interview and gone into work
:07:40. > :07:43.the next day and one of my colleagues said to me - I heard the
:07:43. > :07:46.First Minister said they have taken legal advice on Scotland's position
:07:46. > :07:51.if they were independent in the European Union, is that the case? I
:07:51. > :07:56.would have said, watching that interview - yes, he told that to
:07:56. > :08:00.Andrew Neil? Why did Labour have to take 27 words out of the quote that
:08:00. > :08:05.they used? They had to do that in order to give it the meaning -
:08:05. > :08:10.important bit was the bit they kept? I'm sorry I have read the
:08:10. > :08:13.transcript. It's clear he is talking about the general debate
:08:13. > :08:18.and not what I was talking about in Parliament about the specific
:08:18. > :08:22.advice we have sought - In no point in that interview does Alex Salmond
:08:22. > :08:29.say, "Andrew, I cannot tell you whether or not we have received
:08:29. > :08:32.legal advice on Scotland's position in the European Union, don't you
:08:32. > :08:36.understand Andrew"? He cites the convention the Ministerial Code
:08:36. > :08:39.that enshrines that convention. was asked a straight-forward
:08:39. > :08:45.question and to give a straight- forward answer. Saying over and
:08:45. > :08:50.over again, no, he didn't say that is hopeless? I read the transcript.
:08:50. > :08:54.The viewers can watch it? I hope they do. I hope people watch it and
:08:54. > :08:58.look at the transcript. Fair-minded people who do that will see he was
:08:58. > :09:02.talking in the generality - problem you have over this. If this
:09:02. > :09:05.was Peter Mandelson or Tony Blair talking about the war in Iraq and
:09:05. > :09:15.they came up with explanation like, this you would be the first person
:09:15. > :09:16.
:09:17. > :09:21.who would be hooting with laughter and saying, have you heard such old
:09:21. > :09:25.codswallop in your life? He made very clear what he was talking
:09:25. > :09:29.about in that interview. If it was clear-cut as you are saying, if it
:09:29. > :09:32.was clear-cut as Labour were saying today they wouldn't have had to
:09:32. > :09:36.remove 27 words from the middle of a quote. They had to do that in
:09:36. > :09:39.order to give it the meaning they wanted it to have. I shunned
:09:39. > :09:43.shouldn't have said. That I'm sorry in I gave the wrong impression,
:09:43. > :09:46.that wouldn't easest way to do it? He went to the Scottish Parliament
:09:46. > :09:48.today and explained what he meant. I think people looking at that
:09:48. > :09:52.transcript will see that is entirely what he meant. I don't
:09:52. > :09:57.expect you to sit here tonight and agree with that I'm sure the
:09:57. > :09:59.interview would be a bit boring for viewers. That's what he meant. I
:09:59. > :10:06.think any fair-minded person watching it and looking at it would
:10:06. > :10:13.see it in that totality. We have slopbld saying one thing and coming
:10:13. > :10:17.-- Alex Salmond saying one thing. Today you turn up having taken the
:10:17. > :10:23.Information Commissioner to court on the principle that you could not
:10:23. > :10:26.say whether or not you had received legal advice and say, nah, we
:10:26. > :10:31.didn't? The principle that we disputed with the Information
:10:31. > :10:34.Commissioner is one that we are not conceding today. Yes, you are, by
:10:34. > :10:39.saying you haven't sought legal advice you are telling us whether
:10:39. > :10:42.or not - If you read the ruling you will see that the principle in
:10:42. > :10:44.dispute is whether it's for the Scottish government or for the
:10:45. > :10:48.Information Commissioner to take the final decision in these cases
:10:48. > :10:52.on what is or is not in the public interest. That is the point of
:10:52. > :10:55.principle. Now, we have got to the position today because of the
:10:55. > :10:59.statement I made in Parliament today, we do not think it is
:10:59. > :11:02.appropriate to continue to argue over that principle in this
:11:02. > :11:07.particular case. It was an important principle yesterday, not
:11:07. > :11:10.an important principle today? a point of dispute between the
:11:10. > :11:14.Scottish government and the Information Commissioner - Why did
:11:14. > :11:19.you get yourself into this position? When you got in this row
:11:19. > :11:27.with the Information Commissioner you could say, it would be improper
:11:28. > :11:33.for us to say, he would not argue with you? Why not say, we asked the
:11:33. > :11:37.Lord Advocate we haven't sought advice - It's long standing. We
:11:37. > :11:40.have taken the judgment that given the public debate over this, given
:11:40. > :11:45.the fact that the impression has been created that we had legal
:11:45. > :11:54.advice around what we were saying and we were somehow concealing the
:11:54. > :11:57.legal advice. It's right we have done that. An important principle
:11:57. > :12:01.today that contradicts the important principle you were
:12:01. > :12:05.stating yesterday? We have reassessed our judgment on the
:12:05. > :12:15.public interest in light of the public debate. We are in a position
:12:15. > :12:15.
:12:15. > :15:28.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 193 seconds
:15:28. > :15:30.They hope no more MSPs will be lost. What are the implications, they are
:15:30. > :15:35.What are the implications, they are trying to provide a very united
:15:35. > :15:41.front. Is this a big dent in it? could dent the majority for Alex
:15:41. > :15:45.Salmond, but not on that issue. They have said they will continue
:15:45. > :15:52.to have common cause with the SNP, especially on the constitutional
:15:52. > :16:00.issue. They could not stomach the fact that they were a pro at NATO
:16:00. > :16:07.party, nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. They did not want to unite
:16:07. > :16:12.under the banner of new killer alliance under NATO. They will find
:16:12. > :16:19.common cause on independence. We're not sure what will happen, but they
:16:19. > :16:26.think they will get the seats. big issue is confidence? This has
:16:26. > :16:34.been one of the narratives. You heard Alex Salmond, one of the
:16:34. > :16:38.lines the the party were talking about was the incompetence. Are
:16:38. > :16:48.they start having bad days like this, that confidence will be
:16:48. > :16:48.
:16:48. > :18:25.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 193 seconds
:18:25. > :18:29.Cooler air is on the way.. Not making much difference in terms of