:00:19. > :00:24.Welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up, Salmond under the
:00:24. > :00:31.spotlight. He says his phone was not hacked but his bank account
:00:31. > :00:34.accessed by the Observer. At Westminster, the former -- fall-
:00:34. > :00:37.out from the Leveson Inquiry continues, with the Lib Dems
:00:37. > :00:42.refusing to back the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. What will
:00:42. > :00:47.this mean for the coalition? Within the past half-hour Alex
:00:47. > :00:51.Salmond has started giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry into media
:00:51. > :00:55.ethics. He has been questioned about his relationship with Rupert
:00:55. > :01:01.Murdoch and spoken about the constructive tension they had. I am
:01:01. > :01:07.joined by our commentator, Hamish Macdonell. What has been happening
:01:07. > :01:12.so far? Until now nobody has known whether Alex Salmond's phone has
:01:12. > :01:17.been hacked. He has always said, I will tell the Leveson Inquiry.
:01:17. > :01:20.Today he said there was no evidence his phone was tapped by any
:01:20. > :01:25.newspaper but he has said that there does seem to be evidence that
:01:25. > :01:29.his bank account was accessed by the Observer newspaper in 1999. To
:01:29. > :01:36.start with we really had a very general introduction about the
:01:36. > :01:40.press and politicians and Mr Salmond's views on them. He
:01:40. > :01:44.lamented the blurring of news and comment within newspapers but said
:01:44. > :01:50.that that was often a price worth paying for democracy. What do you
:01:50. > :01:55.think other key points he has to answer at this afternoon's session?
:01:55. > :01:59.The attention will be focused on the lobbying he did on behalf of
:01:59. > :02:04.News Corp in its bid to get control of BSkyB. He has been reasonably
:02:04. > :02:07.open about that and admitted he has done that but of course we have the
:02:07. > :02:12.support that the Sun gave to the SNP and we want to know, was there
:02:12. > :02:16.a link between the two. Thank you for that. Let's cross live to the
:02:16. > :02:23.Royal Courts of Justice in London, where Alex Salmond is being
:02:23. > :02:29.questioned by the Council for the inquiry, Robert Jay QC.
:02:29. > :02:35.That seems to be a happier position and then being the Hound, or the
:02:35. > :02:38.hair, while the hounds are converging. Did he believe that the
:02:38. > :02:42.Scottish Sun was a floating voter that you might be able to win over
:02:42. > :02:51.by assuaging them or did you sense that they were a lost cause in that
:02:51. > :02:57.election? I think there are very few lost causes, Sir. I have even
:02:57. > :03:03.tried to persuade the Daily Telegraph, with manifest less
:03:03. > :03:12.success, to take a more sympathetic attitude to the SNP or Scottish
:03:12. > :03:19.independence. I have not spent much time on what me -- what may be a
:03:19. > :03:25.lost cause but I was tempted to persuade the sun in the run-up to
:03:25. > :03:30.2007 that the SNP and Scottish independence would be a good bet. I
:03:30. > :03:36.tried to persuade them that they should treat the SNP better. I tend
:03:37. > :03:40.not to regard the newspapers as lost causes, things changed and
:03:40. > :03:50.events changed and newspaper editorial lines change, so it is
:03:50. > :03:51.
:03:51. > :03:57.unwise to concede people being too a lost cause. In 2007 at the
:03:57. > :04:04.Scottish Sun backed the SNP. Was that a surprise to you? No. Once
:04:04. > :04:11.they had decided on it -- the editorial line, and the sun is not
:04:11. > :04:18.known for half measures. -- the Sun. I had a meeting with the Sun editor
:04:18. > :04:22.for Scotland, Rebekah Brooks, in the run-up to the 2007 election,
:04:22. > :04:27.basically putting forward the argument of why a change would be a
:04:27. > :04:30.good thing for Scotland and that the Sun should support it. I don't
:04:30. > :04:36.think from her evidence that she remembers the meeting but I
:04:36. > :04:40.remember it. It -- I think it was less than successful. I did get the
:04:40. > :04:44.impression, and I have acknowledged this before, but I was having more
:04:44. > :04:49.success with the editor of the Sun in Scotland, who will I believe it
:04:49. > :04:58.would have wanted to pursue a more even-handed approach, perhaps not
:04:58. > :05:07.supportive of the SNP, but more even-handed, but I think there was
:05:07. > :05:17.a message sent down but that was not appropriate. -- that that was
:05:17. > :05:19.
:05:19. > :05:29.not. Your list of meetings with proprietors, which is page one for
:05:29. > :05:34.
:05:34. > :05:44.35. -- 1435. Maybe if you could kindly turn it up. As with
:05:44. > :05:44.
:05:45. > :05:51.everybody else, you see a whole range of proprietors, quite a lot
:05:51. > :05:56.of Scottish regional press, as one would understand and expect. There
:05:56. > :06:01.are not really any discernible patterns, is that a fair summary?
:06:01. > :06:07.Yes, I think the only people I miss out are the Associated Newspapers,
:06:07. > :06:15.for the reasons that... Maybe they are the exception to my rule of no
:06:15. > :06:25.lost causes. There is no meeting with Paul Dacre or anybody in his
:06:25. > :06:26.
:06:26. > :06:29.group. Apart from that, I think it is a fairly good cross section. The
:06:29. > :06:36.magazine of the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Observer, which
:06:36. > :06:42.speaks for itself. Not many interactions with the Daily Record,
:06:42. > :06:50.I think it is fair to say. Perhaps not entirely a lost cause but
:06:50. > :06:55.presumably... I meet with the Daily Record pretty frequently. I
:06:55. > :07:05.certainly contact them pretty frequently. I see the Sunday Mail
:07:05. > :07:09.
:07:09. > :07:14.there on the second page. Maybe it is just the years that are here. Or
:07:14. > :07:23.maybe it is a case of more phone calls than meetings, but certainly
:07:23. > :07:32.eye-contact the Daily Record pretty regularly. -- eye contact. We look
:07:32. > :07:38.at the year 2008, David Dinsmore, then editor of the Sun in Scotland,
:07:38. > :07:47.he moved over right thing to be chief executive in 2011, but we
:07:47. > :07:52.will come up -- come to that. There is one meeting with Rebekah Brooks
:07:52. > :08:01.in July 2008. Can you remember anything about that occasion?
:08:01. > :08:05.I had met her before I was First Minister and that was a less than
:08:05. > :08:08.successful meeting, it was very unsuccessful. I think she asked me
:08:08. > :08:12.at one point if I could name somebody who would be the best
:08:12. > :08:19.person to -- to pursue the case against the SNP and independence,
:08:19. > :08:24.which I thought was an unusual question to ask. In July 2008, I
:08:24. > :08:31.think the meeting was after the SNP victory in the Glasgow East by-
:08:31. > :08:37.election, and I wanted to see her again to see if there had been any
:08:37. > :08:45.shift in opinion at that stage. But if there had been I did not detect
:08:45. > :08:52.it. You say generally regarded these interactions, paragraph 9 of
:08:52. > :08:58.your witness statement, that your discussion is mainly determined by
:08:58. > :09:01.the Prime relocation -- purpose of the occasion but it is not unusual
:09:01. > :09:07.for general discussion to touch on the editorial or reporting starts
:09:07. > :09:13.being adopted by the newspaper. Are we to understand by that that you
:09:13. > :09:20.will seek to persuade newspapers to modify their editorial stance to
:09:20. > :09:30.reflect the interests of either yourself or your party? Yes. I
:09:30. > :09:30.
:09:30. > :09:34.don't know that any politician I have ever come across... If anybody
:09:35. > :09:41.does not answer yes to that question they should not be under
:09:41. > :09:47.oath. Everybody tries to influence newspapers to treat them or their
:09:47. > :09:51.party or they cause more favourably. That is not the only reason for
:09:51. > :10:01.meet him -- meeting editors will stop off and there are specific
:10:01. > :10:04.
:10:04. > :10:08.campaigns and issues important to the governor. -- often there are. I
:10:08. > :10:15.am seldom in meetings with any member of the public where Scottish
:10:15. > :10:22.independence does not crop up as a subject. If you get time off for a
:10:22. > :10:26.game of golf, I would be surprised if your golfing partners do not
:10:26. > :10:35.mention the Leveson Inquiry. I have very few conversations were the
:10:35. > :10:44.subject of Scottish independence does not emerge. -- where. Does the
:10:44. > :10:52.contact you have with journalists, you observed earlier they briefed
:10:52. > :10:58.incessantly against Tony Blair. -- that you briefed. How do you
:10:58. > :11:07.believe it is appropriate for politicians to use the press?
:11:07. > :11:11.having a slight joke. I think it is proper for politicians in a posing
:11:11. > :11:14.parties to brief against the Prime Minister. It could be said to be
:11:14. > :11:21.the constitutional duty of an opposition party. Tactics are
:11:22. > :11:26.another matter but in terms of briefing and criticising Mr Blair,
:11:26. > :11:34.both in contacts with the press and in the House of Commons, they were
:11:34. > :11:39.trying to impeach him so they had substantial political differences.
:11:39. > :11:46.I think it is may be a different matter when it is people within
:11:46. > :11:50.your own party. I think that throws up a whole range of other issues.
:11:50. > :12:00.But their Rye techniques which broke up -- which are proper and
:12:00. > :12:06.improper to do. -- there are techniques. Discussions you had
:12:06. > :12:11.about editorial stance is which include support, or were they
:12:11. > :12:21.discussions along the lines of, we will support you if you do X, Y and
:12:21. > :12:21.
:12:22. > :12:31.Z. No. Do they make it clear to you which aspects of your policy they
:12:31. > :12:37.do not favour? Absolutely. More normally they tend to advocate
:12:37. > :12:47.things. I think possibly every newspaper every day advocates some
:12:47. > :12:47.
:12:47. > :12:51.change in government policy, or MPs' behaviour, so the meetings are
:12:51. > :12:56.about things they are arguing for that they want the government to
:12:56. > :13:01.listen to, and that is perfectly proper and fair in a democratic
:13:01. > :13:04.society. That is absolutely legitimate. Turning it round,
:13:04. > :13:08.editors and proprietors will make it clear to you what aspects of
:13:08. > :13:12.your policy they favour and moreover what aspects of your
:13:12. > :13:20.policy they would wish to do changed so that they might favour
:13:20. > :13:27.them, is that correct? Yes. My experience has been that they will
:13:27. > :13:32.certainly say which aspects of policy they favour and which they
:13:32. > :13:35.would criticise. I don't think they often say that if you change this
:13:35. > :13:39.policy will have a dramatic conversion. That does not happen.
:13:39. > :13:46.They will probably say that they will criticise you twice a week
:13:46. > :13:50.instead of six times a week. Editors, proprietors bring forward
:13:51. > :13:56.their views on what the government should and should not be doing and
:13:56. > :14:04.they are absolutely entitled to do that. If you are wise, you do two
:14:04. > :14:12.things, if people have good ideas, even newspapers, you should do them.
:14:12. > :14:20.And you should look for good propositions. But you can't have a
:14:20. > :14:26.Brigg quote -- quid pro score low relationship where you say, if you
:14:26. > :14:33.support us and we will make your newspaper the only one on sale. --
:14:33. > :14:38.quid pro quo. I am not suggesting such a deal, but each of you know
:14:38. > :14:44.what the other might want, is that fair? I think very few newspaper
:14:44. > :14:47.editors or proprietors leave you in much doubt of what their feelings
:14:47. > :14:51.are across a range of issues. I should say that most of these
:14:51. > :15:01.conversations I have had, even with newspapers which are very hostile,
:15:01. > :15:06.they are conducted in a very reasonable way. And of course what
:15:06. > :15:11.you are trying to say is to say, this is the policy we are pursuing,
:15:11. > :15:15.which is resulting in all of these good things. Alternatively, you are
:15:15. > :15:25.saying, are you being absolutely fair to what is a very good policy?
:15:25. > :15:26.
:15:26. > :15:31.You can appeal beyond the natural For example with the Daily Record,
:15:31. > :15:34.the fact that the Daily Record campaigns against Scottish
:15:34. > :15:41.independence and often at election times against the SNP doesn't
:15:41. > :15:45.necessarily mean that on every single issue they won't agree to
:15:45. > :15:51.give the policies of the Government or the SNP Government a decent
:15:51. > :15:56.shout. In that sense I go back to my point that there are very few
:15:56. > :16:00.lost causes. In paragraph 12 of your statement, page 13983 you
:16:00. > :16:05.giver some examples of the Scottish Government supporting media
:16:05. > :16:09.campaigns which have alined with your objectives. Most of those
:16:09. > :16:14.campaigns are uncontroversial in the sense that they don't have a
:16:14. > :16:23.political dimension. Save perhaps for the last one, which was Mark's
:16:23. > :16:28.Law. Can you tell us please when that scheme, the keeping children
:16:28. > :16:32.safe scheme, was introduced? Approximately when. Approximately
:16:32. > :16:40.it was in our first term of office. The discussions on this were taking
:16:40. > :16:47.place I think in 2008. It was a campaign that was supported heavily
:16:47. > :16:52.or led very heavily by the News of the World newspaper. They were
:16:53. > :16:58.arguing and the campaign was led by Margaret Anne comings, whose son
:16:58. > :17:02.Mark had been killed by a known sex offender in 2004. The argument was
:17:02. > :17:09.about what areas of information could be released in an area where
:17:09. > :17:17.a convicted sex offender had been released into the community. We
:17:17. > :17:22.decided after discussion to pilot a study in Dundee, which proved very
:17:22. > :17:27.successful. In our view it managed to get the correct balance between
:17:27. > :17:36.information to allow communities to feel reassured and safe and on the
:17:36. > :17:42.other hand the avoidance of what might be turned vigilante behaviour.
:17:42. > :17:46.That's a balance that had to be struck. I think the introduction of
:17:46. > :17:51.the information that was released with the first pilot scheme in
:17:51. > :17:54.Dundee, which has now been rolled out across the country, has general
:17:54. > :18:01.support among child protection organisations and the police and
:18:01. > :18:11.other authorities. It is I think an example of a high-profile campaign
:18:11. > :18:15.resulting in a change in policy. Although not perfect, I think
:18:15. > :18:20.nonetheless it has resulted in an improvement in the situation. I
:18:20. > :18:25.think that would be generally acknowledged. It wasn't necessarily
:18:25. > :18:29.the exact nature of the original campaign, the policy that's Devon
:18:29. > :18:33.introduced. The disclosure is a controlled disclosure and a
:18:33. > :18:39.responsible one, but one which I think most people would say has
:18:39. > :18:42.resulted in an improved situation. Mr Salmond, before we look at your
:18:42. > :18:47.interactions with News International, in order to put into
:18:47. > :18:53.it context you've provided us with a mass of other exhibits, which
:18:53. > :19:02.reveal your interactions with other media groups. Can we dip into those
:19:02. > :19:09.to see the picture? First of all, interaction with the BBC Trust.
:19:09. > :19:17.This is at AS8, tab 9. We can deal with this economically I'm sure. It
:19:17. > :19:22.related to the future of a Gaelic station in Scotland called BBC
:19:22. > :19:27.Aleppo, I think that's pronounced. That's not bad at off. Tinge Gallic
:19:27. > :19:31.viewers watching this will be very impressed indeed. Thank you very
:19:31. > :19:35.much Mr Salmond. The point you were making is that it was a concern
:19:35. > :19:41.that it wasn't carried on Freeview. You wrote to the chair of the BBC
:19:41. > :19:49.Trust in 2008 pointing out that concern. There was then some
:19:49. > :19:55.correspondence. After a period, Sir Michael Lyons, in December 2010, a
:19:55. > :20:00.two-year period, informed you that the trust has approved BBC Aleppa
:20:00. > :20:06.for charge on Freeview. This is page 14003. Is this an example of I
:20:06. > :20:11.suppose a form of lobbying. Would no doubt say in the public interest,
:20:11. > :20:18.which was successful, is that fair? Yes, it took a wee bit of time but
:20:18. > :20:23.we got there in the end. It has a number of great aspects to it. Its
:20:23. > :20:27.viewership is significantly greater than the Gallic-speaking population
:20:27. > :20:33.of Scotland, which although it should be said that they are one of
:20:33. > :20:37.the few stations to show football matches, all 90 mints of them,
:20:37. > :20:41.which might explain some of that. They've been highly successful and
:20:41. > :20:44.obviously being on the Freeview platform has allowed them even
:20:44. > :20:51.greater success. It is also one of the areas which although
:20:51. > :20:56.broadcasting as a reserved function, the Scottish Parliament votes funds
:20:56. > :21:00.for that BBC channel and the Scottish Government have consulted
:21:00. > :21:04.and appointments to that station, so it is not an exception but it's
:21:04. > :21:09.a slight difference in the other range of broadcasting. Yes, that
:21:09. > :21:17.was a campaign which was supported not just by the Scottish Government
:21:17. > :21:22.but across a range of the political parties. It resulted in success.
:21:22. > :21:26.There's a similar exchange of correspondence on a different issue.
:21:26. > :21:31.This concerns STV. The background here on my understanding was that
:21:31. > :21:35.Ofcom were conducted a review of public service broadcasting and STV
:21:35. > :21:40.were concerned for its future, is that broadly speaking right? Yes,
:21:40. > :21:50.that would be fair comment. there was a meeting, if you look at
:21:50. > :22:00.tab 16 at AS15, Mr Salmond, page 14010, there was a meeting on 8th
:22:00. > :22:01.
:22:01. > :22:07.January 2009 with the chief executive of STV and others. This
:22:07. > :22:10.concerns the homecoming I think. Could you briefly tell us about
:22:10. > :22:18.that? Homecoming was an initiative that the Scottish Government was
:22:18. > :22:23.supporting in 2009. It was the anniversary of the birth of Robert
:22:23. > :22:26.Burns, our national poet. We decided to degree ignite it as a
:22:26. > :22:33.year of homecoming. It was immediately after the financial
:22:34. > :22:37.crash and the impact of recession. It was obviously a helpful move in
:22:37. > :22:41.terms of Scottish tourism, although it had been designed long before
:22:41. > :22:47.the financial crash. We were anxious to make sure that the
:22:47. > :22:52.homecoming was given the maximum coverage across the media. It had
:22:52. > :22:57.something like 400 events around Scotland. The aim was to attract
:22:57. > :23:03.people from around the world with Scottish ancestry to come back, the
:23:03. > :23:08.homecoming aspect, to Scotland for that special year and sort of
:23:08. > :23:11.relate back to their home country. Although our definition of Scottish
:23:11. > :23:15.includes people of Scottish ancestry and anybody with an
:23:15. > :23:18.affinity to Scotland. You have to opt out if you don't want to be
:23:18. > :23:23.Scottish in our definition. We are trying to attract a maximum number
:23:23. > :23:29.of people interested in Scotland to come and see Scotland in 2009.
:23:29. > :23:31.There were about 400-plus events around the country. It was a
:23:31. > :23:36.substantial success. Not everyone success was successful but over the
:23:36. > :23:39.piece it was successful. We are repeating nit 2014. That's our live
:23:39. > :23:46.coverage of the Leveson Inquiry. We'll be back with it shortly.
:23:46. > :23:51.Let's pick up on a few points with our commentator for the afternoon,
:23:51. > :23:54.Hamish Macdonell. Before we came on air we heard he hadn't had his
:23:54. > :24:00.phone hacked but his bank account was accessed by the Observer
:24:00. > :24:03.newspaper. What have we seen since 2.30pm? It has been intriguing,
:24:03. > :24:07.political for the media and political junkies like you and I.
:24:07. > :24:13.Alex Salmond has lifted the lid on this round of secret, private
:24:13. > :24:18.meetings in the higher echelons of the media and politics in Scotland,
:24:18. > :24:24.which involves proprietors and first Ministers, meetings bond my
:24:24. > :24:32.pay grade and probably yours as well. He met newspaper editors and
:24:32. > :24:37.proprietors from a range of associations, except one. He said
:24:37. > :24:43.it would be a waste of both their times as views are so entrenched on
:24:43. > :24:47.both sides. He revealed two meetings with Rebekah Brooks. Those
:24:47. > :24:53.didn't result in any change to her newspapers but he felt they were
:24:53. > :24:59.cricketive at the time. He asked if there were conditions attached to
:25:00. > :25:05.these meetings? He was firm on this, saying there was no conditions
:25:05. > :25:11.attached. They took place with both sides knowing where each other
:25:11. > :25:15.stood, but he said there was a quid pro quo. Sometimes with some
:25:15. > :25:22.success but most of the time without much at all. We are
:25:22. > :25:27.watching Robert Jay CV C, counsel for the inquiry. What do you think
:25:27. > :25:31.Alex Salmond still has to answer? Frpt it comes down to this central
:25:31. > :25:37.point of Alex Salmond lobbying the UK Government on behalf of News
:25:37. > :25:40.Corp and winning the support of the Scottish Sun in the 2011 Scottish
:25:40. > :25:44.elections, and is there any contact with the two. I've been ill pressed
:25:44. > :25:49.with the way Robert Jay has gone around this. He is circling the
:25:49. > :25:52.issue, talking about a range of different meetings between Alex
:25:52. > :25:57.Salmond and different newspapers. My feeling is he is going to circle
:25:57. > :26:00.in on the key meetings later, having established there is this
:26:00. > :26:02.general pattern and then he is going to come down to specific
:26:02. > :26:09.meetings and ask those same questions on conditions attached
:26:09. > :26:13.and what was to be gained on either side. How you think Alex Salmond
:26:14. > :26:18.herself is performing? He does seem rerelaxed in the chair. He is very
:26:18. > :26:22.relaxed, very confident. He see as worldwide audience if not a
:26:22. > :26:26.national audience to push his case, to push Scottish independence. He
:26:27. > :26:30.is in no trouble whatsoever at the moment. Hamish, thank you. We'll be
:26:30. > :26:32.back with the Leveson Inquiry shortly.
:26:32. > :26:36.That inquiry dominate Prime Minister's Questions too, with
:26:36. > :26:39.David Cameron asked to explain why his deputy, Nick Clegg, won't be
:26:39. > :26:45.back him on the future of the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
:26:45. > :26:51.Here is a flavour of the debate. The Culture Secretary told this
:26:51. > :26:55.House on April 25th, and I quote, I made absolutely... It is no point
:26:55. > :27:01.the part-time Chancellor trying to give him the answer before I ask
:27:01. > :27:05.the question! I made absolutely no intervention in a quasi-judicial
:27:05. > :27:09.process that was at the time was the responsibility of the Business
:27:09. > :27:14.Secretary. Yet now we know he wrote a memo to the Prime Minister that
:27:14. > :27:19.said, if we block it, our media sector will suffer for years. Can
:27:19. > :27:22.the Prime Minister confirm that in that answer on April 25th, the
:27:22. > :27:25.Culture Secretary was not straight with the House of Commons?
:27:25. > :27:28.point about the Ministerial Code is that it is the job of the Prime
:27:28. > :27:35.Minister to make the judgment about the Ministerial Code, and I have
:27:35. > :27:41.made that judgment. I have quoted to him what Sir Alex Allan says.
:27:41. > :27:46.Sir Alex Allan is very clear that he couldn't usefully add to the
:27:46. > :27:50.facts of this case. I'm sorry that the whole political strategy behind
:27:50. > :27:58.his opposition motion has collapsed, but nonetheless that's the fact of
:27:58. > :28:03.the case. Now, he asks very specifically about the note that
:28:03. > :28:07.the Culture Secretary sent to me on 19th November. I would refer to him
:28:07. > :28:11.that in that note he specifically says it would be completely wrong
:28:11. > :28:15.to go against the proper regulatory procedures. And that is what I
:28:15. > :28:20.think the truth of what has happened in recent days is the
:28:20. > :28:25.Culture Secretary gave a very full account of his actions to the
:28:25. > :28:30.Leveson Inquiry. And he demonstrated that when it came to
:28:31. > :28:36.the BSkyB bid he took independent advice. He followed independent
:28:36. > :28:39.advice at the start of the process, which is in complete contrast to
:28:39. > :28:42.how the last Government behaved. Let's be clear what the Prime
:28:42. > :28:46.Minister is claiming. He is claiming that when the Culture
:28:46. > :28:50.Secretary told this House, I made absolutely no interventions seeking
:28:50. > :28:54.to influence a quasi-judicial decision, that a memo to the Prime
:28:54. > :28:58.Minister is insignificant in relation to a decision that the
:28:58. > :29:03.Government has to make. The first time in political history that
:29:03. > :29:10.that's the case. If the case is so strong of the Prime Minister, why
:29:10. > :29:14.is his deputy not supporting himle? Let me read what this note said on
:29:14. > :29:17.19th November. It would be totally wrong for the Government to get
:29:18. > :29:24.involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm's
:29:24. > :29:29.length. That is what he said. When he got responsibility... When he
:29:29. > :29:35.got responsibility for this dossier, he behaved in exactly that way. Let
:29:35. > :29:39.me just make one point. By the way, the whole reason we are discussing
:29:39. > :29:44.this take-over is because the last Government changed the law to allow
:29:44. > :29:50.a foreign company to own a British broadcasting licence. This is a
:29:50. > :29:55.point. This is a point that they conveniently forget. He asked me
:29:55. > :30:01.specifically about the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me be absolutely
:30:01. > :30:04.frank. What we are talking about here is the relationships that
:30:04. > :30:07.Conservative politicians and frankly Labour politicians have had
:30:07. > :30:12.over the last 20 years, with News Corporation, News International and
:30:12. > :30:16.all the rest of it. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they didn't
:30:16. > :30:24.have that relationship and their abstention tonight is to make that
:30:24. > :30:31.point. I understand that. It's Before the last general election
:30:31. > :30:41.the Prime Minister condemned crony capitalism, with a cosy club at the
:30:41. > :30:45.top of making decisions in their own interests. Is this not a pitch
:30:45. > :30:48.perfect description of the undignified courting of News
:30:48. > :30:57.Corporation by the Culture Secretary? When will the Prime
:30:57. > :31:03.Minister shows some judgement on this? -- show. If they are looking
:31:03. > :31:09.for volunteers for the Olympic team for hypocrisy, I think we could
:31:09. > :31:17.have be decathlete there. We had 13 years of pyjama parties, changing
:31:17. > :31:22.the law, sucking up to the Murdochs. What a lot of brass neck.
:31:22. > :31:28.The Leveson Inquiry dominating our proceedings today. Let's go to
:31:29. > :31:32.Westminster and speed to David Porter. A busy day in London, the
:31:32. > :31:39.House of Commons now discussing the conduct of the Culture Secretary
:31:39. > :31:44.Jeremy Hunt in relation to the Leveson Inquiry. Alex Salmond is
:31:44. > :31:48.giving evidence there as we speak. He has said that he had no
:31:48. > :31:54.knowledge of his own being hacked but he did make quite an
:31:54. > :31:57.extraordinary allegation, that he believed in 1999 details of a bank
:31:57. > :32:01.account of visit -- at his had been accessed. He believed that that had
:32:01. > :32:05.happened from the Observer newspaper. No response from them at
:32:06. > :32:10.the moment on that but I am sure as the day goes on we will have more
:32:10. > :32:15.reaction. Where are we with Leveson and the wider question of the media
:32:15. > :32:23.and the press? Joining me, three Scottish MPs, Margaret Curran and
:32:23. > :32:28.for John's Purslow. It is your party leader Art before at Leveson,
:32:28. > :32:34.did this come as a shock to you, him saying that he believed his
:32:34. > :32:38.bank details had been accessed? is not something he has spoken to
:32:38. > :32:42.me about before but it is clear that he does believe his details
:32:42. > :32:49.were access to. This really gets to the nub of it because this is not
:32:49. > :32:53.just about phone hacking. To the report identified any number of
:32:53. > :33:00.data breaches and I think we are now understanding the scale of what
:33:00. > :33:06.was going on. Margaret Curran, the rough and tumble of politics aside,
:33:06. > :33:11.this is fairly boring. I think the hub of this is an it -- the abuse
:33:11. > :33:18.of power that we see some news Corporation's carrying out, and I
:33:18. > :33:21.think that is what is being carried out. Mr Salmond is under wroth and
:33:21. > :33:26.undertaking be questioning but we need -- we need to know what the
:33:26. > :33:32.relationship was between him and News Corporation. We need to know
:33:32. > :33:36.what influence he promised them to put -- for commercial interest and
:33:36. > :33:40.what the political pay-off was. We need to know why he was the only
:33:40. > :33:50.senior British politician who was still engaging with the Murdochs
:33:50. > :33:51.
:33:51. > :33:57.after we knew about the hacking at Milly Dowler's own. -- phone.
:33:57. > :34:02.would appear that this is now going wider than just phone hacking.
:34:02. > :34:09.have not seen the evidence yet but it does not surprise me. When I was
:34:09. > :34:14.on the Culture, Media and support select committee, we did an inquiry
:34:14. > :34:19.and have it -- had evidence from Rebekah Wade among others that they
:34:19. > :34:23.were going through people's bins, or obtaining staff from private
:34:23. > :34:27.detectives and that was all part of that evidence. I am not surprised
:34:27. > :34:32.that there is more to this and I have always felt, from that inquiry
:34:32. > :34:37.on, but this is a more widespread tabloid press practice than just
:34:37. > :34:42.one company. Phone hacking seems to be particular to one company but
:34:43. > :34:47.there are wider gathering of data does seem to be fairly widespread.
:34:48. > :34:51.That is what this now seems to be coming out. What it must not do is
:34:51. > :34:58.detract from the key questions for the First Minister needs to answer
:34:58. > :35:04.about his interaction with News Corporation. What was the
:35:04. > :35:06.interaction between the First Minister and News Corporation?
:35:06. > :35:10.Scottish government has been incredibly transparent and all of
:35:10. > :35:15.this has been published. The numbers are out there. The entire
:35:15. > :35:19.Scottish cabinet met with News International less times than that
:35:19. > :35:23.Labour shadow cabinet. Less times in four years than the Labour
:35:23. > :35:32.shadow cabinet met in one year. All of the details of all of the
:35:32. > :35:37.meetings have been published. The real key thing here is that the
:35:37. > :35:41.Scottish government could not offer Murdoch anything. BSkyB this is an
:35:41. > :35:44.can only be taken by Jeremy Hunt in Westminster and that is what the
:35:44. > :35:49.debate this afternoon is about. It is the only place the decision
:35:49. > :35:53.could have been taken. We know from James Murdoch's evidence that they
:35:53. > :35:58.did welcome and thought it would be useful to have the source of Alex
:35:58. > :36:01.Salmond working on their behalf. The fact that the First Minister
:36:02. > :36:06.was offering to lobby for a private company I think it's a very serious
:36:06. > :36:10.issue. If you of being as transparent as you are suggesting,
:36:10. > :36:17.you will agree with the Labour Party but we -- when we say that
:36:17. > :36:22.can Pringle should be very clear about his involvement. If you are
:36:22. > :36:30.that transparent, as other parties have been, I think the SNP should
:36:30. > :36:34.be as well. Your colleagues are discussing the conduct of the
:36:34. > :36:39.Culture Secretary. Why was it that as part of a coalition government
:36:39. > :36:45.your party has decided it will sit on its hands and not support the
:36:45. > :36:49.Minister in that government? actually believe that Jeremy Hunt
:36:49. > :36:58.did a perfectly workmanlike job in his quasi-judicial role. We believe
:36:58. > :37:02.it is a separate issue, the way in which he has or has not appeared to
:37:02. > :37:07.the ministerial code. Our view is that there are questions to answer
:37:07. > :37:10.so it is proper that he should have been referred. The Deputy Prime
:37:10. > :37:14.Minister made that abundantly clear to the Prime Minister, that
:37:14. > :37:18.following Leveson, if those questions remain, they should be
:37:18. > :37:22.answered. There was no consultation, the Prime Minister took a decision
:37:22. > :37:26.without talking to the Deputy Prime Minister, and we object to that and
:37:26. > :37:31.we therefore are not going to be part of the supporting that view.
:37:31. > :37:38.At the same time, it is unthinkable that we all trooped across and
:37:38. > :37:43.followed Labour and defeated the government of which we Arpad. It is
:37:43. > :37:51.a very clear and principled decision that makes our irritation
:37:51. > :37:56.clear to the Prime Minister without threatening be coalition. I don't
:37:56. > :38:04.think that is a good argument at all. If you are saying we should be
:38:04. > :38:10.referred to the ministerial code, you should vote for the motion. I
:38:10. > :38:14.think the Scottish nationalists are supporting the motion, it is
:38:14. > :38:18.customary to support a motion you agree with. I can't understand the
:38:18. > :38:27.argument that you think the action was wrong but you won't take any
:38:27. > :38:31.decisive action to find that out, but will just abstain. It is a
:38:31. > :38:37.stunt, your motion, because it does not actually achieve anything. The
:38:37. > :38:42.only person who can do anything about this is the Prime Minister.
:38:42. > :38:46.It is the job of Parliament to give an opinion to the Prime Minister.
:38:46. > :38:56.Most votes in the House of Commons are sub-standard and require action
:38:56. > :38:56.
:38:56. > :39:00.of government. This would. Time has defeated us. Thank you very much. A
:39:01. > :39:10.lot to talk about here at Westminster, no meeting of minds so
:39:10. > :39:13.far. Thank you very much. Now back to
:39:13. > :39:17.the Leveson Inquiry, where the First Minister Alex Salmond has
:39:17. > :39:22.been giving evidence. Earlier he was asked if he had been a victim
:39:22. > :39:28.of the phone hacking scandal. Have you seen any evidence that
:39:28. > :39:33.your own phone has been hacked? have no evidence that it has and,
:39:33. > :39:40.given that my understanding is that Strathclyde Police have now
:39:40. > :39:49.completed the informing of potential victims, then I have not
:39:49. > :39:59.been contacted so I am not fully aware of the operational matters
:39:59. > :40:00.
:40:00. > :40:05.but what I can say is that I believe my bank account was access
:40:05. > :40:10.to buy the Observer newspaper some time ago, 1999, and my reason for
:40:10. > :40:14.believing that was that I was informed by a former Observer
:40:14. > :40:18.journalist who gave me a fairly exact account of what was in my
:40:18. > :40:28.back -- bank account that could only be known to somebody who had
:40:28. > :40:33.
:40:33. > :40:42.seen it. For example, I had bought some Tories for my young nieces. --
:40:43. > :40:50.toys. The shop was called Fun and Games, and I was told that this
:40:50. > :40:58.caused great anticipation at the unit at the Observer because they
:40:58. > :41:01.believed that it might be more than a conventional toy shop. They were
:41:01. > :41:05.very disappointed when they found that it was not. The point I am
:41:05. > :41:10.making is that the person concerned had detail which could only have
:41:10. > :41:18.been known by somebody who had full access to my bank account at that
:41:18. > :41:28.stage. He told me about a year later that this happened during the
:41:28. > :41:36.run-up to the 1999 election in Scotland. It has coloured my view
:41:36. > :41:46.of things, given the evidence produced and the more recent
:41:46. > :41:46.
:41:47. > :41:50.evidence of hacking activities. I believe that illegality was rife
:41:50. > :42:00.across many newspaper titles and that very little was done to uphold
:42:00. > :42:01.
:42:01. > :42:05.the criminal law. I am sure that people in England and certainly in
:42:05. > :42:11.Scotland will want that to be ratified.
:42:11. > :42:15.An excerpt from earlier. Let's pick up on that critical point with
:42:15. > :42:19.Hamish Macdonell. Very interested - - interesting to hear that his own
:42:19. > :42:27.was not packed but his bank account was. Yes, we have been looking in
:42:27. > :42:31.the wrong direction. He has some very serious allegations that one
:42:31. > :42:34.newspaper, the Observer, somehow got access to his bank account. He
:42:34. > :42:38.said that he feels that illegality was rife in some parts of the
:42:38. > :42:42.newspaper industry and did nothing was being done about it. These are
:42:42. > :42:46.serious allegations which will have to be answered. Thank you for now.
:42:46. > :42:51.Let's head back to the Leveson Inquiry at the Royal Courts of
:42:51. > :42:58.Justice, where Alex Salmond has just told Robert Jay QC but he has
:42:58. > :43:03.met Rupert Murdoch five times in the last five years.
:43:03. > :43:13.In October 2007 New Den meet with Mr Rupert Murdoch in New York. --
:43:13. > :43:18.
:43:18. > :43:24.you then meet. You speak to him at the meeting about the global
:43:24. > :43:34.Scottish network and he agreed to become a member, and you explained
:43:34. > :43:36.
:43:36. > :43:46.what the network is, is that right? You us. -- yes. He also gave me a
:43:46. > :43:49.
:43:49. > :43:53.copy of Senator Jim Webb's book, Born Fighting, a book about the
:43:53. > :43:57.Scottish and Scots Irish influence in American public life over the
:43:57. > :44:04.years, and he put forward the view that it starts with the Battle of
:44:04. > :44:08.Bannockburn and works on. I had not seen it before Mr Murdoch mentioned
:44:08. > :44:13.it in that meeting. I was very interested for a number of four
:44:13. > :44:18.reasons. Firstly, it is an excellent book, and secondly, and
:44:18. > :44:24.Jim Webb of course was elected on a ticket of opposing the Iraq war,
:44:24. > :44:30.despite his military background, and I was interested in the way
:44:30. > :44:40.that Mr Murdoch was keen on that book from a politician who was at
:44:40. > :44:42.
:44:42. > :44:52.odds with him on the issue of the ball in Iraq. -- the war. Moving on
:44:52. > :44:53.
:44:53. > :45:02.to Tab 89, this was the day after, I think, you had opened Euros
:45:02. > :45:12.central in Scotland and you were invited to attend a play called
:45:12. > :45:16.
:45:16. > :45:23.When I opened the News International officers in October
:45:23. > :45:27.2007, a big investment in Scotland, the Sunday newspapers was wrongly
:45:27. > :45:33.supporting the Labour Party and anti SNP. I opened the offices
:45:33. > :45:38.because it was a significant investment in the Scottish economy.
:45:38. > :45:46.The Black Watch rather follows on from there. I was making about John
:45:46. > :45:50.Webber's book. The Black Watch is a very good, anti- Iraq play. The
:45:50. > :45:55.National Theatre for Scotland had produced it and were supporting
:45:55. > :45:59.touring it internationally. I did have a thought that it might be a
:45:59. > :46:03.play which Mr Murdoch wouldn't agree with, but none the less would
:46:03. > :46:09.find of some interest and put forward a different perspective on
:46:09. > :46:14.the walls in Iraq, very much a squaddie's perspective. I accept he
:46:14. > :46:20.didn't manage to goal which I am sorry about, but none the less, if
:46:20. > :46:24.you get the chance, C Black Watch. There was then some correspondence
:46:24. > :46:34.about the Ryder Cup, of which we are going to pass over. We are
:46:34. > :46:35.
:46:35. > :46:40.going to look at and 93, which is paid 14125. We are now in February
:46:40. > :46:46.2009. For Rupert, many thanks for taking the time to speak to me
:46:46. > :46:51.earlier this week. That must have been a phone call. Yes. You invite
:46:51. > :46:56.him to be guest of honour for the gathering on the celebrations in
:46:56. > :47:00.July. You also discussed the possibility of Sky covering the
:47:00. > :47:06.pageant as an exclusive programme and -- programming opportunity. You
:47:06. > :47:15.see that? Yes, I do. Mr Murdoch passed on your letter to Sky, we
:47:15. > :47:20.see that from page 14127. We know from your witness statement that
:47:20. > :47:28.Sky wasn't interested. Is that fair? It's not they weren't
:47:28. > :47:32.interested. I have to confess, I offered an exclusive broadcasting
:47:32. > :47:36.opportunity on the gathering of the pageant to the BBC and to STV as
:47:36. > :47:40.well as skied. Obviously only one of them could have availed
:47:40. > :47:45.themselves of the opportunity. At the end result was none of them
:47:45. > :47:52.availed themselves of the opportunity. However, all of them,
:47:52. > :47:55.Sky, BBC and STV, covered the event as a new story. It got
:47:55. > :47:59.extraordinary wide coverage as a news story. There were many
:47:59. > :48:04.international cameras there as well as national ones. But it would have
:48:04. > :48:08.greatly helped the organisers of the event, which was one of 400
:48:09. > :48:14.events in the home coming year, if they'd had a broadcaster covering a
:48:14. > :48:19.pageant. It would have helped them with sales and all sorts of things.
:48:19. > :48:23.I was trying to interest a number of broadcasting companies in that
:48:24. > :48:31.opportunity. Although they did not avail themselves of the opportunity,
:48:31. > :48:39.they did cover it in the news coverage. Moving through the
:48:39. > :48:47.correspondence to a later date, we are now in January 2011. Mrs Page
:48:47. > :48:53.14130. This refers to a meeting you had in London, the week before with
:48:53. > :49:01.Mr James Murdoch. When he invited you for lunch. Do you recall that?
:49:01. > :49:04.Yes. I met James Murdoch in London in January, 2011. This is a letter
:49:04. > :49:10.which basically confirms some of the elements of the discussion at
:49:10. > :49:19.that meeting. Some issues which I wanted to put on the record because
:49:19. > :49:24.they were both very interesting and Before we go into the detail, was
:49:24. > :49:28.that the first occasion you met with Mr James Murdoch? Yes. Your
:49:28. > :49:32.witness statement refers to two meetings. Can you remember when the
:49:32. > :49:38.second meeting was? The second meeting was much later in the year,
:49:38. > :49:43.towards the end of last year. On the same issue, and there's two
:49:43. > :49:48.basic issues. One was a discussion about the impact of the
:49:48. > :49:52.consolidation of BSkyB ownership would have in terms of investments
:49:52. > :50:00.in Scotland. The meeting later in the year was something raised ti
:50:00. > :50:05.first meeting was about the impact of outsourcing changes to BSkyB's
:50:05. > :50:09.outsourcing in Scotland, which initially we felt had the danger of
:50:09. > :50:14.being a bad result for Scotland. Perhaps even the loss of up to
:50:14. > :50:18.2,000 jobs, but actually ended up being a jobs gain. BSkyB for
:50:18. > :50:26.security reasons were reducing the number of outsources from I think
:50:26. > :50:31.six to in the event a company called Hero won one of the two
:50:31. > :50:35.contracts. The end result was a jobs gain. When I say to James
:50:35. > :50:40.Murdoch I was pleased with your comments observing that Scotland is
:50:40. > :50:44.the gold standard to business outsourcing, that's what it refers
:50:44. > :50:50.to. BSkyB is a huge employer in Scotland. We are talking about more
:50:50. > :50:57.than 6,000 full-time jobs in addition to the 2 now outsourcing
:50:57. > :51:03.jobs and temporary jobs. It is vital in Dunfermline, Livingston
:51:03. > :51:07.and elsewhere. Some 36% of BSkyB's total global employment is in
:51:07. > :51:11.Scotland. They are in the top ten of Scottish private sector
:51:11. > :51:17.employers, so it is a matter of great importance. The argument
:51:18. > :51:20.being put forward by Mr Murdoch was an expansion of the digital
:51:21. > :51:25.platform on a European-wide basis would result in additional
:51:25. > :51:30.investment and that Scotland would be well placed in that context to
:51:30. > :51:33.benefit, given the strength of the Scottish offer. In terms of
:51:33. > :51:38.competitiveness. To benefit from that additional investment.
:51:38. > :51:43.refer there to the impact of consolidation of BSkyB ownership.
:51:43. > :51:50.So plainly you had in contemplation that the stage the BSkyB bid, is
:51:50. > :51:55.that right? That's correct. Prior to this it had been indicatening a
:51:55. > :51:59.phone call - I'm sure in a phone call actually - I wanted to meet Mr
:51:59. > :52:03.Murdoch to discuss this in particular. This was one of the key
:52:03. > :52:06.things I wanted to discuss, to understand better the argument that
:52:06. > :52:10.the consolidation of ownership would result in additional
:52:10. > :52:13.investment and that Scotland was rel placed. To be fair, I'm going
:52:13. > :52:18.to be more than fair, they can speak with a great deal of
:52:18. > :52:23.authority, if a company has 36% of its global workforce in Scotland,
:52:23. > :52:28.they speak from a position of some credibility. I think it is fairly
:52:28. > :52:34.clear from what you just said, Mr Salmond, that from the date of this
:52:34. > :52:39.meeting with Mr James Murdoch you are in favour of the bid, is that
:52:39. > :52:42.right? Ways in favour of what benefited the Scottish economy.
:52:42. > :52:46.Remember, I've got no responsibility for broadcasting
:52:46. > :52:52.policy, for plurality in the press. But I do have responsibility for
:52:52. > :52:56.jobs and investment in Scotland. That is my statutory responsibility.
:52:56. > :52:59.Indeed it is reflected not just in the fact that it is my
:52:59. > :53:02.responsibility but in our Ministerial Code in Scotland that
:53:02. > :53:08.this is one of the responsibilities that you must pursue. So I would
:53:08. > :53:12.tend to put an emphasis on the jobs and investment aspects of this. It
:53:12. > :53:17.was for others to consider other matters. Specifically what I was
:53:17. > :53:23.prepared to do and said I was prepared to do would have been to
:53:23. > :53:27.speak to the relevant Secretary of State to say jobs and investment
:53:27. > :53:32.going to be a consideration along with other things that they had to
:53:32. > :53:36.consider when these matters were brought to decision? At the
:53:36. > :53:41.appropriate time. As circumstances turned out, that appropriate time
:53:41. > :53:44.never arose. But I was certainly prepared to argue for that. I would
:53:45. > :53:47.certainly say that's entirely a legitimate preoccupation and
:53:48. > :53:52.argument that the First Minister of Scotland or any Scottish Minister
:53:52. > :53:56.should put forward. I think we are going to pause now for our short
:53:56. > :54:02.break, but there'll be further questions arising out of this.
:54:02. > :54:07.Thank you. All rise. Let's pick up on some of the issues raise there
:54:07. > :54:11.had with Hamish Macdonell. Just a critical point being brought up
:54:11. > :54:15.before the break about BSkyB and their involvement in Scotland. This
:54:15. > :54:22.goes back to the First Minister's aserious that his involvement with
:54:22. > :54:28.the company was he was trying to protect Josh jobs. We spoke about
:54:28. > :54:32.the tactics that Robert Jay was using. General questions and
:54:32. > :54:37.getting down to the core focus, the meet thags Alex Salmond had with
:54:37. > :54:43.James and Rupert Murdoch to discuss the BSkyB bid. Alex Salmond has
:54:43. > :54:47.been completely open about this, saying he supported it for reasons
:54:47. > :54:50.of employment, the Scottish economy and came one good figures. He
:54:50. > :54:54.talked there about BSkyB having 36% of their global workforce in
:54:54. > :54:57.Scotland and the company being in the top ten of private sector
:54:57. > :55:02.employers in the country. He said from that point of view they have
:55:02. > :55:05.credibility. He only looked at it from an economic point of view, not
:55:05. > :55:08.from any other reason, as he didn't have responsibility for
:55:09. > :55:12.broadcasting. He has faced fierce criticism from Labour over his
:55:12. > :55:17.connections. It has been brought up at First Minister's Questions. But
:55:17. > :55:20.that's the point, that's been his defence, about that 36% of the
:55:20. > :55:23.workers being in Scotland and that's his job as First Minister.
:55:23. > :55:27.What's different probably about the First Minister's evidence to
:55:27. > :55:31.Leveson and his approach to Leveson is he has never shid away from the
:55:31. > :55:34.tact that he supported the bid, and he in a sense lobbyed the UK
:55:34. > :55:38.Government in support of the bid. He said yes, he did that because it
:55:38. > :55:41.was in Scotland's interest. Whereas there is some difficulty about some
:55:41. > :55:45.of the other politicians involved, because perhaps they didn't have
:55:45. > :55:50.that basis. But we are still then left with this one central question
:55:50. > :55:53.of was there some kind of pay-back in return for supporting the bid?
:55:53. > :55:58.Was there something which pushed the Scottish Sun to support the SNP
:55:58. > :56:02.in the 2007 elections? We haven't yet got to that. Do you think
:56:02. > :56:07.that's what's going to be addressed when they come back from the break?
:56:07. > :56:11.You spoke of Robert Jay QC circling around the issue, maybe going in
:56:11. > :56:16.for the kill. Do you think that's what's going to happen? I would
:56:16. > :56:20.presume so. You can never tell how these inquiries are going to work
:56:20. > :56:28.out or how counsel are going to approach them. Robert jaib has
:56:28. > :56:33.talked about the Sun's -- Robert Jay has talked about the Sun oes
:56:33. > :56:36.support. He is talking about meetings that Alex Salmond had with
:56:36. > :56:40.James Murdoch and Alex Salmond's support for the bid. Those two
:56:40. > :56:45.things standing separately. It only needs him to try to get a link
:56:45. > :56:49.between the two. A link I suggest that Alex Salmond will almost
:56:49. > :56:55.certainly deny. Let's widen this out to the other parties involved
:56:55. > :57:00.as well. Jeremy Hunt under a lot of pressure as well. Lib Dems not
:57:00. > :57:03.supporting the Government in a vote today. They are abstaining on a
:57:04. > :57:07.Labour motion, calling for the ministerial standards of
:57:08. > :57:11.(Inaudible) to be call to investigate his links with BSkyB?
:57:11. > :57:14.This is seen as one of the biggest tests of coalition to date. My
:57:14. > :57:18.personal view is this vote is something of an St James's Palace
:57:19. > :57:23.valve. It is letting the steam out. It is allowing all that pent-up
:57:23. > :57:27.pressure, that Lib Dem ang tore escape, and keep the coalition
:57:27. > :57:30.together. I think that's fairly important, as there are two parties
:57:30. > :57:34.in the coalition here. They have different views on this. There's a
:57:34. > :57:37.suspicion as well that at the heart of this is the Deputy Prime
:57:38. > :57:40.Minister, who is just more than a little bit miffed that he wasn't
:57:41. > :57:45.consulted by the Prime Minister when he decided to back Jeremy Hunt.
:57:45. > :57:50.And that's why they are taking such a strong stand on it. It sounded
:57:50. > :57:54.like John Thurso, the Lib Dem MP, was making that point. He said the
:57:54. > :57:57.handling of the Government had been clear, straightforward and
:57:57. > :58:01.principled. It did seem that Nick Clegg's pride had been hurt by the
:58:01. > :58:05.fact that the Prime Minister hadn't consulted him. I think there is
:58:05. > :58:09.slightly more to it than that. But it does seem to be at the root of
:58:09. > :58:14.it that Nick Clegg is clearly angry. He is Deputy Prime Minister. He has
:58:14. > :58:18.a role as far as Cabinet Ministers are concerned. He rel felt on this
:58:18. > :58:22.case, that David Cameron, as soon as Jeremy Hunt got in to any
:58:22. > :58:25.trouble, David Cameron rode in and supported him, without scoult
:58:25. > :58:28.consulting the Deputy Prime Minister. David Cameron is there
:58:28. > :58:33.tomorrow? David Cameron at the Leveson Inquiry tomorrow. The I
:58:33. > :58:37.can't wait. Hamish, thank you for your analysis this afternoon.
:58:37. > :58:42.There is more on the Leveson Inquiry and Mr Salmond's appearance
:58:42. > :58:47.there on Newsnight Scotland tonight at 11.00pm on BBC Two.