13/06/2012 Politics Scotland

Welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up, Salmond under the

spotlight. He says his phone was not hacked but his bank account

accessed by the Observer. At Westminster, the former -- fall-

out from the Leveson Inquiry continues, with the Lib Dems

refusing to back the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. What will

this mean for the coalition? Within the past half-hour Alex

Salmond has started giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry into media

ethics. He has been questioned about his relationship with Rupert

Murdoch and spoken about the constructive tension they had. I am

joined by our commentator, Hamish Macdonell. What has been happening

so far? Until now nobody has known whether Alex Salmond's phone has

been hacked. He has always said, I will tell the Leveson Inquiry.

Today he said there was no evidence his phone was tapped by any

newspaper but he has said that there does seem to be evidence that

his bank account was accessed by the Observer newspaper in 1999. To

start with we really had a very general introduction about the

press and politicians and Mr Salmond's views on them. He

lamented the blurring of news and comment within newspapers but said

that that was often a price worth paying for democracy. What do you

think other key points he has to answer at this afternoon's session?

The attention will be focused on the lobbying he did on behalf of

News Corp in its bid to get control of BSkyB. He has been reasonably

open about that and admitted he has done that but of course we have the

support that the Sun gave to the SNP and we want to know, was there

a link between the two. Thank you for that. Let's cross live to the

Royal Courts of Justice in London, where Alex Salmond is being

questioned by the Council for the inquiry, Robert Jay QC.

That seems to be a happier position and then being the Hound, or the

hair, while the hounds are converging. Did he believe that the

Scottish Sun was a floating voter that you might be able to win over

by assuaging them or did you sense that they were a lost cause in that

election? I think there are very few lost causes, Sir. I have even

tried to persuade the Daily Telegraph, with manifest less

success, to take a more sympathetic attitude to the SNP or Scottish

independence. I have not spent much time on what me -- what may be a

lost cause but I was tempted to persuade the sun in the run-up to

2007 that the SNP and Scottish independence would be a good bet. I

tried to persuade them that they should treat the SNP better. I tend

not to regard the newspapers as lost causes, things changed and

events changed and newspaper editorial lines change, so it is

unwise to concede people being too a lost cause. In 2007 at the

Scottish Sun backed the SNP. Was that a surprise to you? No. Once

they had decided on it -- the editorial line, and the sun is not

known for half measures. -- the Sun. I had a meeting with the Sun editor

for Scotland, Rebekah Brooks, in the run-up to the 2007 election,

basically putting forward the argument of why a change would be a

good thing for Scotland and that the Sun should support it. I don't

think from her evidence that she remembers the meeting but I

remember it. It -- I think it was less than successful. I did get the

impression, and I have acknowledged this before, but I was having more

success with the editor of the Sun in Scotland, who will I believe it

would have wanted to pursue a more even-handed approach, perhaps not

supportive of the SNP, but more even-handed, but I think there was

a message sent down but that was not appropriate. -- that that was

not. Your list of meetings with proprietors, which is page one for

35. -- 1435. Maybe if you could kindly turn it up. As with

everybody else, you see a whole range of proprietors, quite a lot

of Scottish regional press, as one would understand and expect. There

are not really any discernible patterns, is that a fair summary?

Yes, I think the only people I miss out are the Associated Newspapers,

for the reasons that... Maybe they are the exception to my rule of no

lost causes. There is no meeting with Paul Dacre or anybody in his

group. Apart from that, I think it is a fairly good cross section. The

magazine of the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Observer, which

speaks for itself. Not many interactions with the Daily Record,

I think it is fair to say. Perhaps not entirely a lost cause but

presumably... I meet with the Daily Record pretty frequently. I

certainly contact them pretty frequently. I see the Sunday Mail

there on the second page. Maybe it is just the years that are here. Or

maybe it is a case of more phone calls than meetings, but certainly

eye-contact the Daily Record pretty regularly. -- eye contact. We look

at the year 2008, David Dinsmore, then editor of the Sun in Scotland,

he moved over right thing to be chief executive in 2011, but we

will come up -- come to that. There is one meeting with Rebekah Brooks

in July 2008. Can you remember anything about that occasion?

I had met her before I was First Minister and that was a less than

successful meeting, it was very unsuccessful. I think she asked me

at one point if I could name somebody who would be the best

person to -- to pursue the case against the SNP and independence,

which I thought was an unusual question to ask. In July 2008, I

think the meeting was after the SNP victory in the Glasgow East by-

election, and I wanted to see her again to see if there had been any

shift in opinion at that stage. But if there had been I did not detect

it. You say generally regarded these interactions, paragraph 9 of

your witness statement, that your discussion is mainly determined by

the Prime relocation -- purpose of the occasion but it is not unusual

for general discussion to touch on the editorial or reporting starts

being adopted by the newspaper. Are we to understand by that that you

will seek to persuade newspapers to modify their editorial stance to

reflect the interests of either yourself or your party? Yes. I

don't know that any politician I have ever come across... If anybody

does not answer yes to that question they should not be under

oath. Everybody tries to influence newspapers to treat them or their

party or they cause more favourably. That is not the only reason for

meet him -- meeting editors will stop off and there are specific

campaigns and issues important to the governor. -- often there are. I

am seldom in meetings with any member of the public where Scottish

independence does not crop up as a subject. If you get time off for a

game of golf, I would be surprised if your golfing partners do not

mention the Leveson Inquiry. I have very few conversations were the

subject of Scottish independence does not emerge. -- where. Does the

contact you have with journalists, you observed earlier they briefed

incessantly against Tony Blair. -- that you briefed. How do you

believe it is appropriate for politicians to use the press?

having a slight joke. I think it is proper for politicians in a posing

parties to brief against the Prime Minister. It could be said to be

the constitutional duty of an opposition party. Tactics are

another matter but in terms of briefing and criticising Mr Blair,

both in contacts with the press and in the House of Commons, they were

trying to impeach him so they had substantial political differences.

I think it is may be a different matter when it is people within

your own party. I think that throws up a whole range of other issues.

But their Rye techniques which broke up -- which are proper and

improper to do. -- there are techniques. Discussions you had

about editorial stance is which include support, or were they

discussions along the lines of, we will support you if you do X, Y and

Z. No. Do they make it clear to you which aspects of your policy they

do not favour? Absolutely. More normally they tend to advocate

things. I think possibly every newspaper every day advocates some

change in government policy, or MPs' behaviour, so the meetings are

about things they are arguing for that they want the government to

listen to, and that is perfectly proper and fair in a democratic

society. That is absolutely legitimate. Turning it round,

editors and proprietors will make it clear to you what aspects of

your policy they favour and moreover what aspects of your

policy they would wish to do changed so that they might favour

them, is that correct? Yes. My experience has been that they will

certainly say which aspects of policy they favour and which they

would criticise. I don't think they often say that if you change this

policy will have a dramatic conversion. That does not happen.

They will probably say that they will criticise you twice a week

instead of six times a week. Editors, proprietors bring forward

their views on what the government should and should not be doing and

they are absolutely entitled to do that. If you are wise, you do two

things, if people have good ideas, even newspapers, you should do them.

And you should look for good propositions. But you can't have a

Brigg quote -- quid pro score low relationship where you say, if you

support us and we will make your newspaper the only one on sale. --

quid pro quo. I am not suggesting such a deal, but each of you know

what the other might want, is that fair? I think very few newspaper

editors or proprietors leave you in much doubt of what their feelings

are across a range of issues. I should say that most of these

conversations I have had, even with newspapers which are very hostile,

they are conducted in a very reasonable way. And of course what

you are trying to say is to say, this is the policy we are pursuing,

which is resulting in all of these good things. Alternatively, you are

saying, are you being absolutely fair to what is a very good policy?

You can appeal beyond the natural For example with the Daily Record,

the fact that the Daily Record campaigns against Scottish

independence and often at election times against the SNP doesn't

necessarily mean that on every single issue they won't agree to

give the policies of the Government or the SNP Government a decent

shout. In that sense I go back to my point that there are very few

lost causes. In paragraph 12 of your statement, page 13983 you

giver some examples of the Scottish Government supporting media

campaigns which have alined with your objectives. Most of those

campaigns are uncontroversial in the sense that they don't have a

political dimension. Save perhaps for the last one, which was Mark's

Law. Can you tell us please when that scheme, the keeping children

safe scheme, was introduced? Approximately when. Approximately

it was in our first term of office. The discussions on this were taking

place I think in 2008. It was a campaign that was supported heavily

or led very heavily by the News of the World newspaper. They were

arguing and the campaign was led by Margaret Anne comings, whose son

Mark had been killed by a known sex offender in 2004. The argument was

about what areas of information could be released in an area where

a convicted sex offender had been released into the community. We

decided after discussion to pilot a study in Dundee, which proved very

successful. In our view it managed to get the correct balance between

information to allow communities to feel reassured and safe and on the

other hand the avoidance of what might be turned vigilante behaviour.

That's a balance that had to be struck. I think the introduction of

the information that was released with the first pilot scheme in

Dundee, which has now been rolled out across the country, has general

support among child protection organisations and the police and

other authorities. It is I think an example of a high-profile campaign

resulting in a change in policy. Although not perfect, I think

nonetheless it has resulted in an improvement in the situation. I

think that would be generally acknowledged. It wasn't necessarily

the exact nature of the original campaign, the policy that's Devon

introduced. The disclosure is a controlled disclosure and a

responsible one, but one which I think most people would say has

resulted in an improved situation. Mr Salmond, before we look at your

interactions with News International, in order to put into

it context you've provided us with a mass of other exhibits, which

reveal your interactions with other media groups. Can we dip into those

to see the picture? First of all, interaction with the BBC Trust.

This is at AS8, tab 9. We can deal with this economically I'm sure. It

related to the future of a Gaelic station in Scotland called BBC

Aleppo, I think that's pronounced. That's not bad at off. Tinge Gallic

viewers watching this will be very impressed indeed. Thank you very

much Mr Salmond. The point you were making is that it was a concern

that it wasn't carried on Freeview. You wrote to the chair of the BBC

Trust in 2008 pointing out that concern. There was then some

correspondence. After a period, Sir Michael Lyons, in December 2010, a

two-year period, informed you that the trust has approved BBC Aleppa

for charge on Freeview. This is page 14003. Is this an example of I

suppose a form of lobbying. Would no doubt say in the public interest,

which was successful, is that fair? Yes, it took a wee bit of time but

we got there in the end. It has a number of great aspects to it. Its

viewership is significantly greater than the Gallic-speaking population

of Scotland, which although it should be said that they are one of

the few stations to show football matches, all 90 mints of them,

which might explain some of that. They've been highly successful and

obviously being on the Freeview platform has allowed them even

greater success. It is also one of the areas which although

broadcasting as a reserved function, the Scottish Parliament votes funds

for that BBC channel and the Scottish Government have consulted

and appointments to that station, so it is not an exception but it's

a slight difference in the other range of broadcasting. Yes, that

was a campaign which was supported not just by the Scottish Government

but across a range of the political parties. It resulted in success.

There's a similar exchange of correspondence on a different issue.

This concerns STV. The background here on my understanding was that

Ofcom were conducted a review of public service broadcasting and STV

were concerned for its future, is that broadly speaking right? Yes,

that would be fair comment. there was a meeting, if you look at

tab 16 at AS15, Mr Salmond, page 14010, there was a meeting on 8th

January 2009 with the chief executive of STV and others. This

concerns the homecoming I think. Could you briefly tell us about

that? Homecoming was an initiative that the Scottish Government was

supporting in 2009. It was the anniversary of the birth of Robert

Burns, our national poet. We decided to degree ignite it as a

year of homecoming. It was immediately after the financial

crash and the impact of recession. It was obviously a helpful move in

terms of Scottish tourism, although it had been designed long before

the financial crash. We were anxious to make sure that the

homecoming was given the maximum coverage across the media. It had

something like 400 events around Scotland. The aim was to attract

people from around the world with Scottish ancestry to come back, the

homecoming aspect, to Scotland for that special year and sort of

relate back to their home country. Although our definition of Scottish

includes people of Scottish ancestry and anybody with an

affinity to Scotland. You have to opt out if you don't want to be

Scottish in our definition. We are trying to attract a maximum number

of people interested in Scotland to come and see Scotland in 2009.

There were about 400-plus events around the country. It was a

substantial success. Not everyone success was successful but over the

piece it was successful. We are repeating nit 2014. That's our live

coverage of the Leveson Inquiry. We'll be back with it shortly.

Let's pick up on a few points with our commentator for the afternoon,

Hamish Macdonell. Before we came on air we heard he hadn't had his

phone hacked but his bank account was accessed by the Observer

newspaper. What have we seen since 2.30pm? It has been intriguing,

political for the media and political junkies like you and I.

Alex Salmond has lifted the lid on this round of secret, private

meetings in the higher echelons of the media and politics in Scotland,

which involves proprietors and first Ministers, meetings bond my

pay grade and probably yours as well. He met newspaper editors and

proprietors from a range of associations, except one. He said

it would be a waste of both their times as views are so entrenched on

both sides. He revealed two meetings with Rebekah Brooks. Those

didn't result in any change to her newspapers but he felt they were

cricketive at the time. He asked if there were conditions attached to

these meetings? He was firm on this, saying there was no conditions

attached. They took place with both sides knowing where each other

stood, but he said there was a quid pro quo. Sometimes with some

success but most of the time without much at all. We are

watching Robert Jay CV C, counsel for the inquiry. What do you think

Alex Salmond still has to answer? Frpt it comes down to this central

point of Alex Salmond lobbying the UK Government on behalf of News

Corp and winning the support of the Scottish Sun in the 2011 Scottish

elections, and is there any contact with the two. I've been ill pressed

with the way Robert Jay has gone around this. He is circling the

issue, talking about a range of different meetings between Alex

Salmond and different newspapers. My feeling is he is going to circle

in on the key meetings later, having established there is this

general pattern and then he is going to come down to specific

meetings and ask those same questions on conditions attached

and what was to be gained on either side. How you think Alex Salmond

herself is performing? He does seem rerelaxed in the chair. He is very

relaxed, very confident. He see as worldwide audience if not a

national audience to push his case, to push Scottish independence. He

is in no trouble whatsoever at the moment. Hamish, thank you. We'll be

back with the Leveson Inquiry shortly.

That inquiry dominate Prime Minister's Questions too, with

David Cameron asked to explain why his deputy, Nick Clegg, won't be

back him on the future of the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

Here is a flavour of the debate. The Culture Secretary told this

House on April 25th, and I quote, I made absolutely... It is no point

the part-time Chancellor trying to give him the answer before I ask

the question! I made absolutely no intervention in a quasi-judicial

process that was at the time was the responsibility of the Business

Secretary. Yet now we know he wrote a memo to the Prime Minister that

said, if we block it, our media sector will suffer for years. Can

the Prime Minister confirm that in that answer on April 25th, the

Culture Secretary was not straight with the House of Commons?

point about the Ministerial Code is that it is the job of the Prime

Minister to make the judgment about the Ministerial Code, and I have

made that judgment. I have quoted to him what Sir Alex Allan says.

Sir Alex Allan is very clear that he couldn't usefully add to the

facts of this case. I'm sorry that the whole political strategy behind

his opposition motion has collapsed, but nonetheless that's the fact of

the case. Now, he asks very specifically about the note that

the Culture Secretary sent to me on 19th November. I would refer to him

that in that note he specifically says it would be completely wrong

to go against the proper regulatory procedures. And that is what I

think the truth of what has happened in recent days is the

Culture Secretary gave a very full account of his actions to the

Leveson Inquiry. And he demonstrated that when it came to

the BSkyB bid he took independent advice. He followed independent

advice at the start of the process, which is in complete contrast to

how the last Government behaved. Let's be clear what the Prime

Minister is claiming. He is claiming that when the Culture

Secretary told this House, I made absolutely no interventions seeking

to influence a quasi-judicial decision, that a memo to the Prime

Minister is insignificant in relation to a decision that the

Government has to make. The first time in political history that

that's the case. If the case is so strong of the Prime Minister, why

is his deputy not supporting himle? Let me read what this note said on

19th November. It would be totally wrong for the Government to get

involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm's

length. That is what he said. When he got responsibility... When he

got responsibility for this dossier, he behaved in exactly that way. Let

me just make one point. By the way, the whole reason we are discussing

this take-over is because the last Government changed the law to allow

a foreign company to own a British broadcasting licence. This is a

point. This is a point that they conveniently forget. He asked me

specifically about the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me be absolutely

frank. What we are talking about here is the relationships that

Conservative politicians and frankly Labour politicians have had

over the last 20 years, with News Corporation, News International and

all the rest of it. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they didn't

have that relationship and their abstention tonight is to make that

point. I understand that. It's Before the last general election

the Prime Minister condemned crony capitalism, with a cosy club at the

top of making decisions in their own interests. Is this not a pitch

perfect description of the undignified courting of News

Corporation by the Culture Secretary? When will the Prime

Minister shows some judgement on this? -- show. If they are looking

for volunteers for the Olympic team for hypocrisy, I think we could

have be decathlete there. We had 13 years of pyjama parties, changing

the law, sucking up to the Murdochs. What a lot of brass neck.

The Leveson Inquiry dominating our proceedings today. Let's go to

Westminster and speed to David Porter. A busy day in London, the

House of Commons now discussing the conduct of the Culture Secretary

Jeremy Hunt in relation to the Leveson Inquiry. Alex Salmond is

giving evidence there as we speak. He has said that he had no

knowledge of his own being hacked but he did make quite an

extraordinary allegation, that he believed in 1999 details of a bank

account of visit -- at his had been accessed. He believed that that had

happened from the Observer newspaper. No response from them at

the moment on that but I am sure as the day goes on we will have more

reaction. Where are we with Leveson and the wider question of the media

and the press? Joining me, three Scottish MPs, Margaret Curran and

for John's Purslow. It is your party leader Art before at Leveson,

did this come as a shock to you, him saying that he believed his

bank details had been accessed? is not something he has spoken to

me about before but it is clear that he does believe his details

were access to. This really gets to the nub of it because this is not

just about phone hacking. To the report identified any number of

data breaches and I think we are now understanding the scale of what

was going on. Margaret Curran, the rough and tumble of politics aside,

this is fairly boring. I think the hub of this is an it -- the abuse

of power that we see some news Corporation's carrying out, and I

think that is what is being carried out. Mr Salmond is under wroth and

undertaking be questioning but we need -- we need to know what the

relationship was between him and News Corporation. We need to know

what influence he promised them to put -- for commercial interest and

what the political pay-off was. We need to know why he was the only

senior British politician who was still engaging with the Murdochs

after we knew about the hacking at Milly Dowler's own. -- phone.

would appear that this is now going wider than just phone hacking.

have not seen the evidence yet but it does not surprise me. When I was

on the Culture, Media and support select committee, we did an inquiry

and have it -- had evidence from Rebekah Wade among others that they

were going through people's bins, or obtaining staff from private

detectives and that was all part of that evidence. I am not surprised

that there is more to this and I have always felt, from that inquiry

on, but this is a more widespread tabloid press practice than just

one company. Phone hacking seems to be particular to one company but

there are wider gathering of data does seem to be fairly widespread.

That is what this now seems to be coming out. What it must not do is

detract from the key questions for the First Minister needs to answer

about his interaction with News Corporation. What was the

interaction between the First Minister and News Corporation?

Scottish government has been incredibly transparent and all of

this has been published. The numbers are out there. The entire

Scottish cabinet met with News International less times than that

Labour shadow cabinet. Less times in four years than the Labour

shadow cabinet met in one year. All of the details of all of the

meetings have been published. The real key thing here is that the

Scottish government could not offer Murdoch anything. BSkyB this is an

can only be taken by Jeremy Hunt in Westminster and that is what the

debate this afternoon is about. It is the only place the decision

could have been taken. We know from James Murdoch's evidence that they

did welcome and thought it would be useful to have the source of Alex

Salmond working on their behalf. The fact that the First Minister

was offering to lobby for a private company I think it's a very serious

issue. If you of being as transparent as you are suggesting,

you will agree with the Labour Party but we -- when we say that

can Pringle should be very clear about his involvement. If you are

that transparent, as other parties have been, I think the SNP should

be as well. Your colleagues are discussing the conduct of the

Culture Secretary. Why was it that as part of a coalition government

your party has decided it will sit on its hands and not support the

Minister in that government? actually believe that Jeremy Hunt

did a perfectly workmanlike job in his quasi-judicial role. We believe

it is a separate issue, the way in which he has or has not appeared to

the ministerial code. Our view is that there are questions to answer

so it is proper that he should have been referred. The Deputy Prime

Minister made that abundantly clear to the Prime Minister, that

following Leveson, if those questions remain, they should be

answered. There was no consultation, the Prime Minister took a decision

without talking to the Deputy Prime Minister, and we object to that and

we therefore are not going to be part of the supporting that view.

At the same time, it is unthinkable that we all trooped across and

followed Labour and defeated the government of which we Arpad. It is

a very clear and principled decision that makes our irritation

clear to the Prime Minister without threatening be coalition. I don't

think that is a good argument at all. If you are saying we should be

referred to the ministerial code, you should vote for the motion. I

think the Scottish nationalists are supporting the motion, it is

customary to support a motion you agree with. I can't understand the

argument that you think the action was wrong but you won't take any

decisive action to find that out, but will just abstain. It is a

stunt, your motion, because it does not actually achieve anything. The

only person who can do anything about this is the Prime Minister.

It is the job of Parliament to give an opinion to the Prime Minister.

Most votes in the House of Commons are sub-standard and require action

of government. This would. Time has defeated us. Thank you very much. A

lot to talk about here at Westminster, no meeting of minds so

far. Thank you very much. Now back to

the Leveson Inquiry, where the First Minister Alex Salmond has

been giving evidence. Earlier he was asked if he had been a victim

of the phone hacking scandal. Have you seen any evidence that

your own phone has been hacked? have no evidence that it has and,

given that my understanding is that Strathclyde Police have now

completed the informing of potential victims, then I have not

been contacted so I am not fully aware of the operational matters

but what I can say is that I believe my bank account was access

to buy the Observer newspaper some time ago, 1999, and my reason for

believing that was that I was informed by a former Observer

journalist who gave me a fairly exact account of what was in my

back -- bank account that could only be known to somebody who had

seen it. For example, I had bought some Tories for my young nieces. --

toys. The shop was called Fun and Games, and I was told that this

caused great anticipation at the unit at the Observer because they

believed that it might be more than a conventional toy shop. They were

very disappointed when they found that it was not. The point I am

making is that the person concerned had detail which could only have

been known by somebody who had full access to my bank account at that

stage. He told me about a year later that this happened during the

run-up to the 1999 election in Scotland. It has coloured my view

of things, given the evidence produced and the more recent

evidence of hacking activities. I believe that illegality was rife

across many newspaper titles and that very little was done to uphold

the criminal law. I am sure that people in England and certainly in

Scotland will want that to be ratified.

An excerpt from earlier. Let's pick up on that critical point with

Hamish Macdonell. Very interested - - interesting to hear that his own

was not packed but his bank account was. Yes, we have been looking in

the wrong direction. He has some very serious allegations that one

newspaper, the Observer, somehow got access to his bank account. He

said that he feels that illegality was rife in some parts of the

newspaper industry and did nothing was being done about it. These are

serious allegations which will have to be answered. Thank you for now.

Let's head back to the Leveson Inquiry at the Royal Courts of

Justice, where Alex Salmond has just told Robert Jay QC but he has

met Rupert Murdoch five times in the last five years.

In October 2007 New Den meet with Mr Rupert Murdoch in New York. --

you then meet. You speak to him at the meeting about the global

Scottish network and he agreed to become a member, and you explained

what the network is, is that right? You us. -- yes. He also gave me a

copy of Senator Jim Webb's book, Born Fighting, a book about the

Scottish and Scots Irish influence in American public life over the

years, and he put forward the view that it starts with the Battle of

Bannockburn and works on. I had not seen it before Mr Murdoch mentioned

it in that meeting. I was very interested for a number of four

reasons. Firstly, it is an excellent book, and secondly, and

Jim Webb of course was elected on a ticket of opposing the Iraq war,

despite his military background, and I was interested in the way

that Mr Murdoch was keen on that book from a politician who was at

odds with him on the issue of the ball in Iraq. -- the war. Moving on

to Tab 89, this was the day after, I think, you had opened Euros

central in Scotland and you were invited to attend a play called

When I opened the News International officers in October

2007, a big investment in Scotland, the Sunday newspapers was wrongly

supporting the Labour Party and anti SNP. I opened the offices

because it was a significant investment in the Scottish economy.

The Black Watch rather follows on from there. I was making about John

Webber's book. The Black Watch is a very good, anti- Iraq play. The

National Theatre for Scotland had produced it and were supporting

touring it internationally. I did have a thought that it might be a

play which Mr Murdoch wouldn't agree with, but none the less would

find of some interest and put forward a different perspective on

the walls in Iraq, very much a squaddie's perspective. I accept he

didn't manage to goal which I am sorry about, but none the less, if

you get the chance, C Black Watch. There was then some correspondence

about the Ryder Cup, of which we are going to pass over. We are

going to look at and 93, which is paid 14125. We are now in February

2009. For Rupert, many thanks for taking the time to speak to me

earlier this week. That must have been a phone call. Yes. You invite

him to be guest of honour for the gathering on the celebrations in

July. You also discussed the possibility of Sky covering the

pageant as an exclusive programme and -- programming opportunity. You

see that? Yes, I do. Mr Murdoch passed on your letter to Sky, we

see that from page 14127. We know from your witness statement that

Sky wasn't interested. Is that fair? It's not they weren't

interested. I have to confess, I offered an exclusive broadcasting

opportunity on the gathering of the pageant to the BBC and to STV as

well as skied. Obviously only one of them could have availed

themselves of the opportunity. At the end result was none of them

availed themselves of the opportunity. However, all of them,

Sky, BBC and STV, covered the event as a new story. It got

extraordinary wide coverage as a news story. There were many

international cameras there as well as national ones. But it would have

greatly helped the organisers of the event, which was one of 400

events in the home coming year, if they'd had a broadcaster covering a

pageant. It would have helped them with sales and all sorts of things.

I was trying to interest a number of broadcasting companies in that

opportunity. Although they did not avail themselves of the opportunity,

they did cover it in the news coverage. Moving through the

correspondence to a later date, we are now in January 2011. Mrs Page

14130. This refers to a meeting you had in London, the week before with

Mr James Murdoch. When he invited you for lunch. Do you recall that?

Yes. I met James Murdoch in London in January, 2011. This is a letter

which basically confirms some of the elements of the discussion at

that meeting. Some issues which I wanted to put on the record because

they were both very interesting and Before we go into the detail, was

that the first occasion you met with Mr James Murdoch? Yes. Your

witness statement refers to two meetings. Can you remember when the

second meeting was? The second meeting was much later in the year,

towards the end of last year. On the same issue, and there's two

basic issues. One was a discussion about the impact of the

consolidation of BSkyB ownership would have in terms of investments

in Scotland. The meeting later in the year was something raised ti

first meeting was about the impact of outsourcing changes to BSkyB's

outsourcing in Scotland, which initially we felt had the danger of

being a bad result for Scotland. Perhaps even the loss of up to

2,000 jobs, but actually ended up being a jobs gain. BSkyB for

security reasons were reducing the number of outsources from I think

six to in the event a company called Hero won one of the two

contracts. The end result was a jobs gain. When I say to James

Murdoch I was pleased with your comments observing that Scotland is

the gold standard to business outsourcing, that's what it refers

to. BSkyB is a huge employer in Scotland. We are talking about more

than 6,000 full-time jobs in addition to the 2 now outsourcing

jobs and temporary jobs. It is vital in Dunfermline, Livingston

and elsewhere. Some 36% of BSkyB's total global employment is in

Scotland. They are in the top ten of Scottish private sector

employers, so it is a matter of great importance. The argument

being put forward by Mr Murdoch was an expansion of the digital

platform on a European-wide basis would result in additional

investment and that Scotland would be well placed in that context to

benefit, given the strength of the Scottish offer. In terms of

competitiveness. To benefit from that additional investment.

refer there to the impact of consolidation of BSkyB ownership.

So plainly you had in contemplation that the stage the BSkyB bid, is

that right? That's correct. Prior to this it had been indicatening a

phone call - I'm sure in a phone call actually - I wanted to meet Mr

Murdoch to discuss this in particular. This was one of the key

things I wanted to discuss, to understand better the argument that

the consolidation of ownership would result in additional

investment and that Scotland was rel placed. To be fair, I'm going

to be more than fair, they can speak with a great deal of

authority, if a company has 36% of its global workforce in Scotland,

they speak from a position of some credibility. I think it is fairly

clear from what you just said, Mr Salmond, that from the date of this

meeting with Mr James Murdoch you are in favour of the bid, is that

right? Ways in favour of what benefited the Scottish economy.

Remember, I've got no responsibility for broadcasting

policy, for plurality in the press. But I do have responsibility for

jobs and investment in Scotland. That is my statutory responsibility.

Indeed it is reflected not just in the fact that it is my

responsibility but in our Ministerial Code in Scotland that

this is one of the responsibilities that you must pursue. So I would

tend to put an emphasis on the jobs and investment aspects of this. It

was for others to consider other matters. Specifically what I was

prepared to do and said I was prepared to do would have been to

speak to the relevant Secretary of State to say jobs and investment

going to be a consideration along with other things that they had to

consider when these matters were brought to decision? At the

appropriate time. As circumstances turned out, that appropriate time

never arose. But I was certainly prepared to argue for that. I would

certainly say that's entirely a legitimate preoccupation and

argument that the First Minister of Scotland or any Scottish Minister

should put forward. I think we are going to pause now for our short

break, but there'll be further questions arising out of this.

Thank you. All rise. Let's pick up on some of the issues raise there

had with Hamish Macdonell. Just a critical point being brought up

before the break about BSkyB and their involvement in Scotland. This

goes back to the First Minister's aserious that his involvement with

the company was he was trying to protect Josh jobs. We spoke about

the tactics that Robert Jay was using. General questions and

getting down to the core focus, the meet thags Alex Salmond had with

James and Rupert Murdoch to discuss the BSkyB bid. Alex Salmond has

been completely open about this, saying he supported it for reasons

of employment, the Scottish economy and came one good figures. He

talked there about BSkyB having 36% of their global workforce in

Scotland and the company being in the top ten of private sector

employers in the country. He said from that point of view they have

credibility. He only looked at it from an economic point of view, not

from any other reason, as he didn't have responsibility for

broadcasting. He has faced fierce criticism from Labour over his

connections. It has been brought up at First Minister's Questions. But

that's the point, that's been his defence, about that 36% of the

workers being in Scotland and that's his job as First Minister.

What's different probably about the First Minister's evidence to

Leveson and his approach to Leveson is he has never shid away from the

tact that he supported the bid, and he in a sense lobbyed the UK

Government in support of the bid. He said yes, he did that because it

was in Scotland's interest. Whereas there is some difficulty about some

of the other politicians involved, because perhaps they didn't have

that basis. But we are still then left with this one central question

of was there some kind of pay-back in return for supporting the bid?

Was there something which pushed the Scottish Sun to support the SNP

in the 2007 elections? We haven't yet got to that. Do you think

that's what's going to be addressed when they come back from the break?

You spoke of Robert Jay QC circling around the issue, maybe going in

for the kill. Do you think that's what's going to happen? I would

presume so. You can never tell how these inquiries are going to work

out or how counsel are going to approach them. Robert jaib has

talked about the Sun's -- Robert Jay has talked about the Sun oes

support. He is talking about meetings that Alex Salmond had with

James Murdoch and Alex Salmond's support for the bid. Those two

things standing separately. It only needs him to try to get a link

between the two. A link I suggest that Alex Salmond will almost

certainly deny. Let's widen this out to the other parties involved

as well. Jeremy Hunt under a lot of pressure as well. Lib Dems not

supporting the Government in a vote today. They are abstaining on a

Labour motion, calling for the ministerial standards of

(Inaudible) to be call to investigate his links with BSkyB?

This is seen as one of the biggest tests of coalition to date. My

personal view is this vote is something of an St James's Palace

valve. It is letting the steam out. It is allowing all that pent-up

pressure, that Lib Dem ang tore escape, and keep the coalition

together. I think that's fairly important, as there are two parties

in the coalition here. They have different views on this. There's a

suspicion as well that at the heart of this is the Deputy Prime

Minister, who is just more than a little bit miffed that he wasn't

consulted by the Prime Minister when he decided to back Jeremy Hunt.

And that's why they are taking such a strong stand on it. It sounded

like John Thurso, the Lib Dem MP, was making that point. He said the

handling of the Government had been clear, straightforward and

principled. It did seem that Nick Clegg's pride had been hurt by the

fact that the Prime Minister hadn't consulted him. I think there is

slightly more to it than that. But it does seem to be at the root of

it that Nick Clegg is clearly angry. He is Deputy Prime Minister. He has

a role as far as Cabinet Ministers are concerned. He rel felt on this

case, that David Cameron, as soon as Jeremy Hunt got in to any

trouble, David Cameron rode in and supported him, without scoult

consulting the Deputy Prime Minister. David Cameron is there

tomorrow? David Cameron at the Leveson Inquiry tomorrow. The I

can't wait. Hamish, thank you for your analysis this afternoon.

There is more on the Leveson Inquiry and Mr Salmond's appearance

there on Newsnight Scotland tonight at 11.00pm on BBC Two.