“I met with Alex Salmond’s adviser today. He will call Hunt when we need him to.” (BBC)
If that’s not a potentially career-ending line then I don’t know what is.
There is little doubt that Rupert Murdoch has it in for David Cameron at the moment with sly pro-Indy digs on Twitter and considerably less sly front page digs at the Prime Minister’s Government in his tabloids. Rupert carries no such resentment towards the First Minister given Salmond has loyally, if foolhardily, stuck by his News International buddy. Of the little that I have seen ,the recent positive SNP coverage has been conspicuous. (I try not to look directly at The Sun, for health reasons).
The First Minister has denied the largely Lib Dem levelled allegations that there was a ‘quid pro quo’ deal done with Murdoch whereby the SNP gets an easy ride and News International gets something in return. It’s not the type of allegation that a politician would admit to without a fight and the Scottish media isn’t slow to pick up the scent when the SNP may have been wounded. No smoke without fire? Time will inevitably tell.
Even so, one has to wonder why this has all been worth the risk for the SNP. Rupert Murdoch is toxic right now with politicians, barge poles at the ready, doing all they can to stay away from him. Politicians except for Alex Salmond that is who had him round to Bute House for lunch as recently as February. The often childish mudslinging that has ensued isn’t completely lacking a point, who is the First Minister serving with this unseemly closeness? The Scottish public or the SNP? It’s difficult not to assume the latter with the referendum just over two years away.
Of course, the questioning from the opposition over Rupert Murdoch’s apparent favour for Salmond and the SNP may well backfire. The media mogul is after all preferring Salmond over the rest of them and, irrespective of what one may think of the hacking scandal, an endorsement of the First Minister from an intelligent and powerful man such as Rupert Murdoch carries plenty of weight. Sean Connery, no more.
Both sides insist that there was no deal and for as long as deniability remains in place, however conveniently constructed that may be, both sides may well get away with it but the scrutiny from opposition parties and investigative journalists is going to be intense and unless the quote above was incorrect or throwaway, I can’t see how it won’t prove to be career ending, though whose career remains to be seen.
Jeremy Hunt’s adviser resigned today, presumably in a bid to direct the flak away from the Minister, I suspect another such resignation will be close behind. A ‘shadow of sleaze’ surrounds this issue according to Ed Miliband, just how far north does it travel?
#1 by BaffieBox on April 25, 2012 - 1:00 pm
I entirely agree that that line has alarm bells ringing and the opposition are quite right to go for a jugular. It’s their duty to do so.
However, I’m finding it hard to focus on this story amid the usual hysteria that the Scottish political pack may have something to nail Salmond on. Again. Trying to filter out the usual partisan bickering and faux-outrage is increasingly difficult, making it hard to look at anything with impartial thought. They’ve cried wolf so many times, that it’s utterly pointless taking the opposition seriously so hopefully someone with some credibility can shine a light on the particular line above.
That said, it’s hardly conclusive proof of any. What exactly were Salmond et al going to do or say that would have purchase in Westminster? Courting Murdoch is something all parties have wanted to do, and most probably still do want support of his papers, but this has a bit to go before it starts becoming a problem for Salmond IMO. There’s not even been any incriminating evidence from ministers yet.
I’m turned off by the whole story, not because I dont want to see Salmond get his totties, but because it’s increasingly pointless listening to anything anyone in Scottish party politics has to say. In the grand scheme of things, this looks a 3 or 4 on the political richter scale.
#2 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 1:14 pm
It does look like a 3 or 4 on the richter scale but it looked like a 1 or 2 a couple of months ago. Who is to say that it won’t kick on from here?
I agree though that this is more of a political issue for Salmond than an actual issue but I doubt he’ll care much for the difference. If Scottish party leaders can resign for a small donation they didn’t need in a contest with one person in it, then they can resign for unseemly links with News International. Or their advisers can…
#3 by Don McC on April 25, 2012 - 1:34 pm
There is a difference between breaking the law and having the appearance, in some people’s eyes, of impropriety, Jeff.
As Baffie as said, the opposition, with the help of the MSM, have cried wolf so many times, this will have difficulty gaining traction, especially now that the Scottish lib dems are mentioned in the same e-mails. Willie Rennie is now in the uncomfortable position of his party having courted NI to a similar extent and got less favourable press for it (what was he castigating the FM about a few weeks ago re masterful negotiating skills?), giving the appearance that the complaints are just jealousy.
#4 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 1:41 pm
I’m not aware that Wendy broke the law. I would have thought it was her agent rather than herself.
Incidentally, I still don’t really know why Wendy stepped down as it was not, for me, an insurmountable problem. I had always assumed that it was for political reasons, i.e. once tarred with a certain brush, you can’t shake it off. My point is that this ‘could’ happen with Salmond here, depending on how this pans out.
I agree about your point regarding Willie Rennie. Their incessant pursuit of this issue is a gamble; they might luck out and happen across a smoking gun email or they might find that constantly repeating ‘Murdoch, Salmond, News International’ just makes you look a bit childish. Still questions to be answered at this juncture as far as I can see though. Again I note that email quote on the BBC.
#5 by BaffieBox on April 25, 2012 - 3:19 pm
Oh I definitely agree there needs to be proper scrutiny of Salmond – my previous post wasnt in any way thinking we should go easy on him. It’s in the interests of independence that he is given a tough time, in the same way that majorities are bad for business – the closer the scrutiny, the higher the standard.
However, I refuse to take this seriously until someone with some integrity finds something a bit more credible than the hearsay noted above. The proverbial wet dream of the opposition parties whenever they think they have a sniff of Salmond or the SNP is utterly embarrassing, and only undermines their own case IMO. They’d get on far better by being competent and rational, preferably both at the same time, and a lot of them fail miserably to do so. Tavish Scott is leading that particular line well today.
I would actually have no problems with someone properly catching Salmond out, but it’s unlikely to come from any of those elected to do so.
#6 by Indy on April 27, 2012 - 8:57 am
Wendy broke the law, no shadow of a doubt about that. Whether it was a resignation issue is another matter but she accepted a donation from an impermissable donor, that’s a breach of the law and a very clear one.
#7 by Jeff on April 27, 2012 - 9:34 am
Well, as much as I don’t really want to go into something that happened, what, 3 years ago? 4? I’m not at all sure it was Wendy that took the money and not the election agent.
And anyway, even if that’s true, I still don’t think it was resignation matter unless I don’t appreciate the political ramifications of the situation. People wouldn’t have cared enough about the donation to hold it against he, but she resigned anyway, which is why I think there’s scope for something to stick to the SNP on this issue so closely that someone might have to step down. But, we’ll see. I hope not.
#8 by Indy on April 27, 2012 - 11:20 am
That doesn’t matter. In fact it was an internal election that she accepted the donation for but if it had been a parliamentary election makes no difference – the candidate has to sihn off the expenses as well as the agent. Both are responsible.
#9 by Richard on April 25, 2012 - 3:06 pm
Agreed it’s a big deal over hee haw. I mean:
“I met with Alex Salmond’s adviser today. He will call Hunt when we need him to.”
Come on. Like one phone call from the FM to a Tory London Cabinet Minister is going to magically open doors? Get real.
#10 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 3:07 pm
Why has Alex Salmond pulled out of BBC Question Time tomorrow if it’s not a big deal?
And the effectiveness of Salmond’s call isn’t really the issue, it’s the apparent willingness to make that call when NI “need him to” that is questionable.
#11 by R Pollock on April 25, 2012 - 3:45 pm
I agree with Jeff it is fishy that he has pulled out of question time. It could be that the heated atmosphere and random (and sometimes irrational) shouty-ness of such a debate may not be the correct vehicle to express the facts, however. What could be a nothing episode could be inflamed by appearing on an irrational show. I think one of the main weaknesses is that there isn’t really anything to suggest there was any impropriety by Alex Salmond; yet there’s no real concrete evidence to the contrary either; which is maybe what you need when faced to the type of environment that QT presents.
#12 by BaffieBox on April 25, 2012 - 3:58 pm
Has a family funeral. Allegedly. All sides would do well to take care about how they take that. 😉
#13 by Indy on April 26, 2012 - 9:48 am
I don’t think there is any need to say allegedly. Humza Yousaf who is one of his aides tweeted that the QT gig was not confirmed. Presumably because they did not know at that time the date of the funeral. No-one seriously thinks that QT comes over a family funeral.
#14 by David on April 25, 2012 - 1:14 pm
Salmond definitely has questions to answer about his actions here, no doubt about it. People will no doubt be lining up to defend him here, and I do generally support him, but he’s not above criticism and he really needs to learn to stop being bedazzled by the rich and famous, and getting bad headlines because this doesn’t benefit the cause of Scottish Independence in anyway, and can only damage it.
I just can’t see how cybernats are willing to line up and defend him over this, if it was anyone else they’d be baying for blood. Salmond just can’t be getting himself into these situations, it’s incredibly dangerous.
#15 by James on April 25, 2012 - 2:48 pm
Agreed. I hear semi-regular rumblings from within the SNP camp that suggest they’re anxious about how long he’ll keep getting away with this kind of thing without committing some fatal error. People who’d much rather a safer pair of hands took over to avoid jeopardising the referendum.
#16 by Commenter on April 25, 2012 - 1:25 pm
I realise News International is Mordor for lefties and Murdoch is… whoever the Mordor guy was, for lefties, but – what’s the huge scandal again here? Any communication with the forces of Mordor is beyond the pale, I expect.
I also can’t see how ‘cybernats’ can defend him, but that’s because I define ‘cybernat’ as that hyper-partisan leftie subset of SNP supporter. For those guys, live by the sword etc, applies. I don’t personally feel put on the spot on this subject though.
#17 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 1:29 pm
Your argument seems to be ‘why shouldn’t Salmond speak with Murdoch?’, my argument is ‘why should he?’. And, if it is business in the public’s interest (rather than, say, shoring up support for 2014) why are the details of what was discussed so sketchy? Surely there’s minutes somewhere. If not, why not?
#18 by Don McC on April 25, 2012 - 1:39 pm
It was quite recently that Milliband and Balls attended a social engagement held by Murdoch (Call-Me-Dave attended as well, if memory serves). Should any discussions held at this function have been minuted too, ready for publication should the need arise. Should Milliband, Balls and co now be considering their position? Salmond can at least claim he courted NI/Murdoch to get jobs/investment into Scotland. Milliband/Balls, etc. attended the function purely for their own grandisement.
#19 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 2:16 pm
Salmond should be able to clear his name without having to point fingers at Balls and Miliband, no?
Or are you saying that two wrongs make a right?
Note of course that neither of the Eds have NI emails saying they stand ready to provide support when asked…
#20 by Don McC on April 25, 2012 - 2:29 pm
No, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of the Unionists, Jeff. What is worse? Salmond having half a dozen conversations with Murdoch over the last 4 years (confirmed by Murdoch in his reply to Leveson enquiry questions), discussing Scotland, investment in Scotland, jobs in Scotland, etc. or Milliband and Balls socialising with Murdoch to further themselves only? You may think they are on par but they’re not.
As to standing ready to provide support, I’ve always like this, despite its slight spin:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/i-would-have-sacked-vince-cable-for-standing-up-to-murdoch-what-ed-miliband-said-16-months-ago-28229.html
#21 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 2:36 pm
Why is what Ed Miliband or Ed Balls do any of Wille Rennie’s business? Rennie being the main person taking these points to the First Minister.
#22 by James on April 25, 2012 - 2:49 pm
Also, “Labour are at it too” is a very poor defence. I know that. I know they were in cahoots with Murdoch and Trump and all the rest. But “we’re as pish as Labour” really won’t serve the SNP well.
#23 by David on April 25, 2012 - 2:55 pm
Especially when Labour have gone at least some length to apologise over the past and Salmond met with Murdoch only last month.
#24 by Don McC on April 25, 2012 - 4:31 pm
Actually, the point I’m making is that Labour are much worse. Half a dozen meeting and phone calls over a 4 year period is hardly an intimate relationship. Yet the labour leadership are quite happy to socialise with Murdoch when it suits them.
Like it or not, NI & BSkyB employ a lot of people in Scotland. Salmond would like them to employ a lot more. Ignoring Murdoch won’t make that happen. And a few meetings and phonecalls to encourage such increase can be done without the kissy-face allegations that some are making.
Lamont was interview this morning and asked, if she was First Minister, would she have refused to meet with Murdoch. I guess you know what her reply was. Sometimes the practicalities of office get in the road of ideology.
#25 by Don McC on April 25, 2012 - 4:24 pm
You made the claim that there was no evidence either of the Eds stood ready to offer support to NI. When I provide some evidence that throws doubt on your assertion, you suddenly claim we weren’t talking about the Eds. Fair enough.
#26 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 4:58 pm
I can’t get that link to work where I am; although from the headline alone I don’t think the BBC quote regarding Salmond is really comparable with Ed Miliband saying he would have sacked Cable over the BSB affair. It was, after all, correct for Cable to be removed from his position in light of his comments, irrespective of one’s views on how close a politician should be to Murdoch.
So I’m afraid I don’t agree that you “provided some evidence that throws doubt on your assertion”. Salmond is in a unique pickle here.
#27 by Alec on April 25, 2012 - 4:17 pm
Heads-up, there are more than two of what you call Unionists, and they don’t all take their cues from Milipede and Balls.
Plus, it was right to remove Cable. He was in a quasi-judicial role. If a judge announced his desire to have a suspect convicted at all costs, it wouldn’t make any difference if said suspect turned out to be guilty. The judge still would have overstepped his powers.
~alec
#28 by Commenter on April 26, 2012 - 9:22 am
“why should he?” [talk to Murdoch]
Green jobs are a feel good thing, but actual jobs are more important when it comes down to it. The media is influential. Salmond is a politician who wants to achieve things, such as winning an independence referendum, so he has to do more than just draw up a virtuous manifesto and polish his high ideals.
#29 by Alec on April 25, 2012 - 1:43 pm
Why should Salmond not speak to or attempt to curry favour with Murdoch? No reason whatsoever.
A problem would present itself if he had portrayed similar overtures by other politicians as an example of their venality, and his pursuit of Scottish Independence to be based on credible aims and not a reactionaryism which would be prepared to jettison any public displays of principle.
~alec
#30 by Angus McLellan on April 25, 2012 - 2:21 pm
“A problem would present itself if he had portrayed similar overtures by other politicians as an example of their venality”. If you believe that to be the case then a quote or two should be easy enough for you to find.
#31 by Alec on April 25, 2012 - 4:30 pm
Salmond’s desire for a close relationship with Murdoch and News Corp is accepted, and knowledge of it predates this.
I recall similarly dismissive responses being made in the months, weeks even days before news broke of hacking into some murdered teenage girl’s mobile phone.
~alec
#32 by Commenter on April 26, 2012 - 10:27 am
“A problem would present itself if he had portrayed similar overtures by other politicians as an example of their venality”. If you believe that to be the case then a quote or two should be easy enough for you to find – from Big Eck, specifically.
#33 by Dohnall Dods on April 25, 2012 - 2:41 pm
This is such a non story. In my last job I had plenty of contact with politicians of all parties. I wrote to and met Labour and Lib Dem Ministers, Green, Tory and SNP MSPs, and sought their help in influencing Westminster on a range of matters, including a hostile company takeover and a procurement decision in which we were trying to ensure our bid had as much political support as possible, That’s the way the system works.
The only difference between the work I did and the exchanges which Salmond has had appears to be that I wasn’t working for Murdoch. The other parties really do need to bear in mind the old adage “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
#34 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 2:47 pm
I understand your argument but aren’t you stepping on your own point with the ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ line?
It’s either ‘sinful’ to sup with Murdoch or it isn’t, you seem to be arguing both?
For me, it doesn’t seem to align with the duties and responsibilities of a national leader, and if it does then it should be communicated clearly as to why.
#35 by Nik on April 25, 2012 - 3:04 pm
This is a non-story for me, too. Why would a Tory MP listen to Alex Salmond, regarding BSkyB?
#36 by Callum Leslie on April 25, 2012 - 3:05 pm
I think the comparison of us to what Salmond has done is a little unfair.
Firstly, Willie wasn’t an MSP at the time. Secondly, Jim Tolson took it upon himself to get in touch with Vince Cable, as far as I am aware without any prior consent from the leadership. That is very different from the leader of the SNP, and our First Minister, offering to lobby someone outside of his party.
#37 by Angus McLellan on April 25, 2012 - 3:24 pm
But you’re missing the big grey quadruped in the chamber where the Lib Dems are concerned: the Sainted Vince.
Vince did exactly the same as Hunt, or so it seems to me. It makes no difference that he reached the opposite conclusion to Hunt. Lib Dem competition policy is based on who Vince hates. Tory media competition policy is based on who Jeremy Hunt likes.
#38 by Doug Daniel on April 25, 2012 - 8:33 pm
He’s not missing anything: he’s one of those “Lib Dem” people. Bear that in mind and then re-read what he said…
#39 by R Pollock on April 25, 2012 - 3:30 pm
Good question, Jeff. I’m a bit split on this one.
Think there is a few strands to this.
What’s good for the SNP/Alex/Independence in developing its core arguments in the eyes of voters?
What is morally correct?
How the relationship will be portrayed to the public?
How the public will perceive it?
Overall, I don’t think having a view on a takeover and being willing to voice that is morally wrong. If Salmond thought it would be “good for Scotland” then he should be supportive. What now needs to be examined is: “Why he thought it would be good for Scotland”. If there is a good answer we’ll know it’s all a lot of hot air. If not, there’s a problem.
I think it’s a good one for Scottish Labour. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations it provides an opportunity to link Salmond Murdoch Dodgy Toxic Deals. It’s a bit opportunistic but it’s what parties do.
Salmond is one of the big appeals of the independence camp or the SNP camp. He certainly isn’t universally popular but he garnishes far more votes than he loses. Much of the campaign in the future against the SNP and/or Independence will be personal. I think that this is good practice. It’s not a huge scandal (yet) but it encourages against complacency.
Personally, I do not like the “well everybody is upto it” line. I think the SNP should not use that line. They should defend their own ground. If they are sure they have nothing to hide; make that clear. If they have been upto something dodgy they’ve let us down. I really don’t think there’s evidence of the later though; certainly not yet.
Overall though I think that having a relationship with Murdoch is good for the SNP. It needs a fair hearing to progress its aims, it needs to have a working relationship with a large employer, and he is still an influential businessman with Scottish links. I personally don’t have a problem with it as long as there’s no impropriety involved. I’m not convinced that he’s the Great Satan people are making out, to be honest.
#40 by Dr William Reynolds on April 25, 2012 - 3:32 pm
I think the basis for the allegation that Alec Salmond offered something in return for favours has been succinctly analysed and trashed by many other people on the online media.I will leave it to those who are interested to examine the arguments.All I will say is that the idea that Alec Salmond could influence coalition politicians to favour Murdoch is so unbelievable that there is a need to ask whether people are asking the right questions,and why they are investing so much energy in this matter.I can see some leverage from his electoral mandate,enabling him to get some limited concessions for Scotland,but not favours to Murdoch.It doesnt stack up.
What is believable is that he wants publicity for Scottish independence.Well I want that as well.After decades of dealing with a predominately unionist supporting press that is understandable.It is not the case that two wrongs make a right (as has been suggested) ,it is the case that the evidence to support the alleged offense is flimsy.I welcome the fact that the Sun supported the SNP during the last election,but think this had more to do with sales of the newspaper than the alleged favours promised to Murdoch.
Pingback: Back Scotland, not the predatory rich « Better Nation
#41 by peter mccreadie on April 25, 2012 - 5:13 pm
let me see if i’ve got this right:
politician seeks the support of media mogul.
the end.
#42 by Jeff on April 25, 2012 - 5:26 pm
Hmm, close.
Politician agrees to lobby UK Government at time of media mogul’s choosing in exchange for favourable coverage in looming, nation-defining referendum.
The End.
#43 by Don McC on April 25, 2012 - 6:46 pm
You, of course, have the smoking gun that proves your allegations. Why don’t you show everybody your evidence that backs up your assertions?
#44 by Domhnall Dods on April 25, 2012 - 7:10 pm
Jeff my point was not that it was sinful or otherwise to speak to murdoch. I was saying that politicians and business people speak all the time. They routinely explore areas of mutual interest. The only people actually supping with the murdochs were the labour and tory leaderships. I’m not saying that was right or wrong either, but if Alex salmond was so wrong to speak to murdoch then we really ought to be hanging out to dry all politicians who have sought to curry favour with murdoch and all other media outlets for that matter. Messrs Cameron and milliband should be high up the list but I really don’t think that’s a route we should be going down.
I have in the past spoken to labour and SNP politicians seeking their support against a hostile takeover. I can tell you the SNP responded by mobilising the first minister, and the enterprise minister and a constituency msp. The labour party didn’t bother until a colleague who was a labour member spoke to them for me, and and then they got the message all wrong
#45 by Allan on April 25, 2012 - 7:12 pm
Well, the answer to your question is a resounding “no”, but most of us “Digger” watchers will have guessed that this relationship would involve tears at some point. Interestingly enough, i don’t think any “quid pro quo” would involve anything to do with BSkyB, in this respect once again the opposition leaders have missed a semi open goal. I suspect that the SNP’s new fould love of low corporation taxes has more to do with this than has been discussed so far.
Not that Scottish politicians are the only people to miss the obvious. At Westminster, the talk has been of the waving through of the BSkyB aquisition being the price for support at the last election. Anyone who remembers pieces for “The S*n” penned by Cameron & Hunt, published in July 2009, will know the real “Quid pro quo” – the scrapping of OFCOM and a tighter regulated BBC.
#46 by Doug Daniel on April 25, 2012 - 10:04 pm
Anyone who remembers pieces for “The S*n” penned by Cameron & Hunt, published in July 2009, will know the real “Quid pro quo” – the scrapping of OFCOM and a tighter regulated BBC.
Oooh, totally forgot about that. Good point!
#47 by Dr William Reynolds on April 25, 2012 - 7:27 pm
Hmm Jeff not even close:
Politician accused of lobbying UK government at time of mogul’s agreement in exchange of favourable coverage.
The tenuous nature of the evidence has been discussed in Scottish Times and I believe that it is certain that Alec Salmond never spoke to the UK goverment on behalf of Murdoch.
Okay,I can see that you have made up your mind.Lets just agree to disagree about this one.I have expressed my opinion so lets leave it at that.
#48 by Gerard on April 26, 2012 - 10:12 am
That’s a half denial there.
He didn’t speak to Hunt so therefore no offer of support was made?
You can offer to o something if required, but if you’re not required to do it then you never make the call. The offer was still made though.
On the same email that states the Sun want to back Salmond there is a line about Salmond supporting the bid. Now were there two separate meetings and the NI guy Michel just waited til they were both over before putting both lines into one email? Or is it possible that at the very meeting Salmond gained support for the SNP from the Sun he also gave asurances he would back the bid in a consulatation?
#49 by scottish_skier on April 25, 2012 - 8:14 pm
“Leveson Inquiry: Rupert Murdoch says Scottish Sun had to back SNP
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has said that if the Scots edition of the Sun had not supported the SNP then he would have faced a revolt in Scotland.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17844244
Yes, I imagine he would have had; from both the editorial team and the readers. If you look at newspaper sales in Scotland you will find that while all other paper sales were collapsing at twice the rate in Scotland compared to the UK (due to political bias against the SNP I assume), the Sun bucked the trend until that infamous anti-SNP head in noose front page ahead of the 2007 elections. That sent the Sun sales into rapid collapse too. I imagine the Sun staff told Rupert they needed to support the SNP or they would go the way of the Record, Scotsman [massive loss again reported today] etc…
Mr Murdoch backs winners to sell papers.
This will have zero impact on the SNP as there seems to be little to it. The opposition seem desperately hopeful that something will stick when if they want to bring back voters, they need to offer attractive policy and a positive vision. Personal attacks and negative smears only work in shifting voters when both parties have little to offer, i.e. people search for the least worst. That is not the case in Scottish politics with the SNP polling ~50% and AS with 60% of people satisfied on Scotland-wide polls to date.
Of course the big poll will be May 3rd.
#50 by Indy on April 26, 2012 - 1:34 pm
I think there is something to it but what the something is ain’t clear. From what I can gather from FMQs – though it was as clear as mud – there was a move to retrench call centre operations and cut the number so the SG were lobbying to keep jobs in Scotland – which is, of course, their job and I doubt anyone would criticise them for that. But there has obviously been crossover/confusion with BSkyB take over issue with different SNP members saying different things.
It is all too mixed up for the average joe or josephine to follow. They don’t have such an obsessive interest in politics that they would spend hours trying to work it out. Even I can’t be bothered!
#51 by Allan on April 26, 2012 - 6:58 pm
I remember blogging about the decision facing David Dismore as the 2010 Westminster Election approched, having seen the main edition of The S*n ditch Labour and support a party that much of Scotland is very hostile towards. Backing the SNP was probably the only commercial decision they could make.
Having said that, remember that Murdoch was talked into supporting Cameron (for Westminster 2010) by his son James and his CEO Rebeckah Wade/Brooks. Obviously that’s a decision he kind of regrets given the current nature of their “relationship”.
#52 by Doug Daniel on April 25, 2012 - 10:16 pm
In other news, the UK is officially in a recession.
This Leveson thing is a handy distraction…
#53 by Indy on April 26, 2012 - 9:45 am
Here is a thing Jeff for you to take into account and maybe for the psephologists to take a look at. I haven’t done any analysis but a vague reading of polls plus campaigning experience suggests quite strongly that the SNP won in 2011 by extending support base from the middle class to the working class. And that support for independence is strongest among the working class.
That’s why Ian McWhirter is wrong when he says there are no votes in flirting with the Murdoch press. There are. And it’s why Pat Kane is right when he tweeted “Impossible 2 get a decent case 4 #indy thru mass media. That’s Salmond’s Faustian deal. But a hard, cold game”
What is the nature of the game? It’s a calculation that people who support indy or even devo max now won’t be put off enough by Faustian pacts to vote for the Union – whereas every new voter we can gain can help push us over the winning line. It may put people off voting for the SNP of course -but that doesn’t matter. This is all about the referendum. If the SNP doesn’t win after independence because people don’t like some of the stuff we did to get there that doesn’t matter.