23/10/2012 Newsnight Scotland

We will leave it there for the time being. Thank you.

Tonight, on Newsnight Scotland. What a day for Alex Salmond. Just

after breakfast these two MSPs quit the SNP in protest at the weekend

U-turn on NATO membership. And, just after lunch, this Labour

MSP called him a barefaced liar over whether he'd sought legal

advice on EU membership. So just before we all turn in for

the night, I''ll hear from the Deputy First Minister on what it

means for the Government and the party.

Good evening. Having won a narrow, hard-fought

and strategically important vote committing his party to supporting

NATO membership, Alex Salmond might have fancied a quiet day today,

maybe even a long lie. There are some days you want to

forget and today, well, it's not been 24 of the SNP's finest hours.

After a jolly weekend with friends, the party came back to the office

to find out that two of them, well, aren't friends any more. Jean

Urquhart and John Finnie, two of the long standing party faithful,

have resigned. Much to the surprise of many in Holyrood this morning.

Your reaction to losing two of your colleagues? I'm sorry I have no

idea what you are talking about. Can you give us the first SNP

reaction to these resignations? When did you hear? A-short time ago.

The party's U-turn on being part of NATO trampled on too many

principles for some. I'm not proud of. It it's the only thing I can do.

I have wrest eled on how remaining within the party I can square the

matter. I cannot advocate joining a first-strike nuclear alliance as

NATO is. Not everyone was on message. Are you considering

following them? No comment. comment. That is not the same as no.

No comment. Are you think being it? No comment. Thank you very much. So

Holyrood tried to move on. This was published. Yes, this is the result

of the Scottish Government's consultation on how the

independence referendum should be run. The results have been made

public. Now, after it's all been decided. Over 26,000 Scots took

part and 62% of them wanted a single question. 32% did not. Well,

that's all right then, the people got what they wanted. There was

more to come. The Deputy First Minister made this statement on EU

membership to try to end a long- running law on naval advice. It in

light of the Edinburgh Agreement by which both governments have agreed

the process of Scotland to achieve independence, I can confirm the

Government has commissioned specific legal advice from our law

officers on the position of Scotland within the European Union

if independence is achieved through this process. That's clear then.

They are now seeking legal advice. Weren't we told that the party had

already sought legal advice over EU membership? Have you sought advice

from your own Scottish law advisers in this man sner We, have, yes.

What did they say? You can read it in the documents we put forward.

What do they say? I can't give you the legal advice or reveal the

legal advice of law officers. You know that. What you can say is that

everything we publish is consistent with the legal advice that we

received. Have we all been misled? Labour accused you of lying over

the European question, have you? will deal with that in a few

seconds in Parliament. I have been described as a barefaced liar. The

quote that is used to justify this says me saying, in response to Mr

Neil "we have yes... You know I can't release the legal advice of

law officers, Andrew." That misses out 27 words across three separate

answers. It might not be over yet. Can I take this opportunity to not

restart my statement that I made earlier today. Can I also ask the

Government to take the opportunity for a full, frank debate on this

issue at the earliest possible opportunity and for the Government

to reveal all of the information that will allow for a full and

frank debate to take place. I will look forward to that debate at the

earliest possibility opportunity this week. Plenty to sleep on for

the SNP or will it be more of a restless night? I spoke to surg

surg surg I began by asking her if she could explain why the First

Minister told Andrew Neil that he had taken legal advice on an

independent Scotland's entry to the EU Nicola Sturgeon. He was talking

about general government documents which are underpinned by law

officers advice. He in that interview went on to specifically

say that he couldn't reveal either the fact of or the content of legal

advice. It was interesting today - He didn't say he couldn't reveal

the fact of. He was asked specifically, "Have you sought

advice from your own Scottish law officers on this matter?" He said

"we have, yes" he said he couldn't reveal the content but he couldn't

reveal whether or not there was advice? He said yes in terms of the

general debate. That is not what he said? He did use the word "debate"

If I ask you, have you received - have you sought legal advice on

whether Scotland would be a member of the European Union after

independence and you say said to me "we have, yes" are you saying I

would be wrong to take the inference - It's clear he is

talking about - It is not at all? It is. It's talking about the

general debate. He cites different legal authorities and he is talking

about government documents, all of which are underpinned by law

officers advice. That is what he was talking about. He was not

spaubging about -- talking about specific legal advice on the

specific issue. When he was asked whether you sought advice from your

own law officers on whether or not an independent Scotland would

continue to be part of the European Union, and he said "yes"? He was

talking about the general government documents on the

constitution that we published over the past few years, all of which

are underpinned by law officers' advice. You keep reading one

particular section of - I listened to the whole thing. Let me put it

to you this way. If I had watched this interview and gone into work

the next day and one of my colleagues said to me - I heard the

First Minister said they have taken legal advice on Scotland's position

if they were independent in the European Union, is that the case? I

would have said, watching that interview - yes, he told that to

Andrew Neil? Why did Labour have to take 27 words out of the quote that

they used? They had to do that in order to give it the meaning -

important bit was the bit they kept? I'm sorry I have read the

transcript. It's clear he is talking about the general debate

and not what I was talking about in Parliament about the specific

advice we have sought - In no point in that interview does Alex Salmond

say, "Andrew, I cannot tell you whether or not we have received

legal advice on Scotland's position in the European Union, don't you

understand Andrew"? He cites the convention the Ministerial Code

that enshrines that convention. was asked a straight-forward

question and to give a straight- forward answer. Saying over and

over again, no, he didn't say that is hopeless? I read the transcript.

The viewers can watch it? I hope they do. I hope people watch it and

look at the transcript. Fair-minded people who do that will see he was

talking in the generality - problem you have over this. If this

was Peter Mandelson or Tony Blair talking about the war in Iraq and

they came up with explanation like, this you would be the first person

who would be hooting with laughter and saying, have you heard such old

codswallop in your life? He made very clear what he was talking

about in that interview. If it was clear-cut as you are saying, if it

was clear-cut as Labour were saying today they wouldn't have had to

remove 27 words from the middle of a quote. They had to do that in

order to give it the meaning they wanted it to have. I shunned

shouldn't have said. That I'm sorry in I gave the wrong impression,

that wouldn't easest way to do it? He went to the Scottish Parliament

today and explained what he meant. I think people looking at that

transcript will see that is entirely what he meant. I don't

expect you to sit here tonight and agree with that I'm sure the

interview would be a bit boring for viewers. That's what he meant. I

think any fair-minded person watching it and looking at it would

see it in that totality. We have slopbld saying one thing and coming

-- Alex Salmond saying one thing. Today you turn up having taken the

Information Commissioner to court on the principle that you could not

say whether or not you had received legal advice and say, nah, we

didn't? The principle that we disputed with the Information

Commissioner is one that we are not conceding today. Yes, you are, by

saying you haven't sought legal advice you are telling us whether

or not - If you read the ruling you will see that the principle in

dispute is whether it's for the Scottish government or for the

Information Commissioner to take the final decision in these cases

on what is or is not in the public interest. That is the point of

principle. Now, we have got to the position today because of the

statement I made in Parliament today, we do not think it is

appropriate to continue to argue over that principle in this

particular case. It was an important principle yesterday, not

an important principle today? a point of dispute between the

Scottish government and the Information Commissioner - Why did

you get yourself into this position? When you got in this row

with the Information Commissioner you could say, it would be improper

for us to say, he would not argue with you? Why not say, we asked the

Lord Advocate we haven't sought advice - It's long standing. We

have taken the judgment that given the public debate over this, given

the fact that the impression has been created that we had legal

advice around what we were saying and we were somehow concealing the

legal advice. It's right we have done that. An important principle

today that contradicts the important principle you were

stating yesterday? We have reassessed our judgment on the

public interest in light of the public debate. We are in a position

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 193 seconds

They hope no more MSPs will be lost. What are the implications, they are

What are the implications, they are trying to provide a very united

front. Is this a big dent in it? could dent the majority for Alex

Salmond, but not on that issue. They have said they will continue

to have common cause with the SNP, especially on the constitutional

issue. They could not stomach the fact that they were a pro at NATO

party, nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. They did not want to unite

under the banner of new killer alliance under NATO. They will find

common cause on independence. We're not sure what will happen, but they

think they will get the seats. big issue is confidence? This has

been one of the narratives. You heard Alex Salmond, one of the

lines the the party were talking about was the incompetence. Are

they start having bad days like this, that confidence will be

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 193 seconds

Cooler air is on the way.. Not making much difference in terms of