The First Minister of Scotland, the Rt Hon Alex

¶Salmond MSP

¶4.1 As I have explained,15 although the remit of this Inquiry extends to all parts of the UK, I have

not sought to make any recommendations of exclusive application to Scotland (or indeed Wales or Northern Ireland). As for Scotland, the pattern of devolved and reserved competence in media matters in Scotland is not straightforward. For example, broadcasting regulation and competition rules in Scotland fall to be dealt with on a 'reserved' basis (that is on a UK- wide basis, with decision-making resting with the UK Government and Parliament). Press standards, and the commercial interests of the press more generally, fall to be considered on a 'devolved' basis: the Scottish Government and Parliament can choose either to make their own policy and law for national application or to support a UK-wide approach. What follows must be considered with that in mind.

¶4.2 Mr Salmond was asked about his expectations from the Inquiry in terms of the application of its recommendations to Scotland. He said this:16

"Well, I think that rather depends on what the Inquiry comes up with, Mr Jay. If the Inquiry comes up with a proposition which accords with public support, which is eminently sensible and points the way to a better future, then I think the Scottish Parliament would be very foolish not to pay close attention to it. If on the other hand,

¶I which I don't believe for a minute will happen, it came up with a solution which was

either over-prescriptive, restricted press liberty, then I think the Scottish Parliament might wish not to apply that. So I think that rather depends on the proposition that emerges from this Inquiry. I wish you well in the deliberations and I assure you we're looking with enormous interest."

¶4.3 Mr Salmond said this, by way of his general views on his personal approach to relationships within the press:17

1419

¶Chapter 7 | Further Political Perspectives on Relationships with the Press

"Q. ... [s]o are we to understand by that that you will seek to persuade newspapers to modify their editorial or reporting stance to reflect the interests of either yourself or your party? A. Oh yes. I mean, I don't know of any politician I've ever come across who – well, if anybody doesn't answer yes to that question, they certainly shouldn't be under oath at an Inquiry. All politicians try quite legitimately and properly to influence newspapers to treat them or their party, or in the case of myself, their cause of Scottish independence, more favourably. That's not the only reason for meeting editors. Often there are meetings about specific issues, specific campaigns, things that are important to that newspaper or important to the government, and a range of these meetings would be covered by that category."

¶4.4 Mr Salmond spoke about his relationship with Rupert Murdoch: they had evidently made

significant personal connections. They shared Scottish roots and heritage. Mr Murdoch's grandfather was a Church of Scotland Minister within Mr Salmond's old constituency. Mr Murdoch told the Inquiry that he was 'intrigued' by the notion of Scottish independence, and it is also clear that, over time, he came to be impressed by Mr Salmond's ideas and political acumen.

¶4.5 The personal element of the relationship evidently dated from relatively recent years.

Mr Salmond told the Inquiry that he recalled one telephone conversation with Mr Murdoch in November 2000, shortly after the US Presidential election, but that there was then no personal contact between them for nearly seven years.

¶4.6 The Scottish Sun, a News International title, was anti-SNP at the 2007 election (as indeed

was the Daily Record). Mr Salmond's relationship with Mr Murdoch changed after the 2007 election.

¶4.7 Bearing in mind the public interest in the transparency of relationship between senior

politicians (particularly in government) and senior figures in the press, on 4 August 2011 Mr Salmond had volunteered to publish a list of his meetings with newspaper proprietors, editors and media executives over the preceding years.18 This list, together with more recent evidence to the Inquiry, shows that Mr Salmond and Mr Murdoch met on five occasions over a five year period. The tone of these meetings was said to be warm and friendly.19 Mr Salmond also had two meetings with James Murdoch.20

¶4.8 It is apparent from the evidence that these meetings and conversations covered topics such

as common heritage, the issue of Scottish independence, and (although the evidence was less clear about this) corporation tax rates in Scotland. Doubtless Mr Salmond had the opportunity on these occasions to explain to Mr Murdoch the advantages, as he saw them, of Scottish I independence to the latter's commercial interests. He also invited Mr Murdoch to sporting events and the theatre. Significantly, on Mr Murdoch's side there was an invitation for Mr Salmond to be the guest of honour at the formal opening of New International's Eurocentral printing plant on 30 October 2007.

1420

¶PART I | The Press and Politicians

¶4.9 BSkyB is a significant employer in Scotland, directly responsible for 6,000 full time jobs and

2,000 outsourced and temporary jobs. Some 36% of BSkyB's total global employment is in Scotland.21 Mr Salmond's support for Mr Murdoch's bid to increase his holdings in BSkyB is discussed elsewhere:22 it is clear that he was prepared to lobby UK Ministers in furtherance of News Corp's case. He said that that was with the motive of furthering Scottish economic interests, including investment and employment opportunities.23 Mr Salmond was also hopeful that The Scottish Sun would support him in the May 2011 election, and his evidence was that the issue was raised with the Murdochs, for him to be told by them that it was a matter for the editors:24

"Q. Did you ever discuss with Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch support by their newspapers in Scotland for your party? A. I find certainly with Rupert Murdoch and with James Murdoch as well that if you do that, what they'd say was, "Go to the editors", and that's what they say, so you just assume that's what's going to be said, and they're perfectly right to say that and therefore that's what I've done. Q. Can we be clear on how many occasions then you have raised the issue with Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch? Are you able to assist us? A. I wouldn't explicitly raise it at meetings necessarily, because they'd always say, "Go to the editors". That certainly was Rupert Murdoch's practice, and I can't even remember, it may have cropped up in a James Murdoch meeting, but if so, he would say, "Go to the editors", and go to the editors I did, as I say, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Q. But that answer presupposes that you made a direct request statement to James Murdoch or Rupert Murdoch, "Would your papers support me?" and their answer is always, "Go and speak to the editors"; is that right? A. No, I don't think I've ever done it explicitly like that. It would be something like, "I take it I have to go and speak to the editors to get support for my point of view". Much more like that. It's chicken and egg. That's been the position certainly throughout – not just in the meetings I've had with Rupert Murdoch more recently in the last five years, but even if we go back to 2000, 2001. I mean, I can't speak for other people's experience, but that's been consistently what he says, so you just accept that's what he's going to say and therefore you anticipate that, so you don't actually – I don't think I've ever explicitly asked him for support for the party because the answer would be, "Go to the editors and argue the position." Q. In your witness statement, the way you formulate it at 13987, eight lines from

¶I the top of the page, you say quite generally: "In relation to questions about support

from particular titles, any such discussion with Rupert or James Murdoch was always met with a request to talk directly to the relevant editorial team." So you're making it clear there that if – or rather when you raised such a request with Rupert or James Murdoch, they told you to go and speak to the editors? A. I refer back to what I said a couple of minutes ago. I think probably the way I put it was "I take it I should go and see the sub-editor or go and see the Times editor or go and see the Sunday Times editor."

1421

¶Chapter 7 | Further Political Perspectives on Relationships with the Press

¶4.10 It was also put to Mr Salmond that the editorial direction for The Scottish Sun came from

¶Rupert Murdoch. His answer was:25

"Not according to Mr Murdoch. Mr Murdoch would say he was maybe part of discussions, but it was up to the editors. He would always say that."

¶4.11 In early March 2011 Mr Salmond made his 'pitch' to the editorial team of The Scottish Sun,26

and support from that paper was forthcoming later that month. Although Mr Salmond's understanding was that Mr Murdoch's editors rather than Mr Murdoch personally would decide which party to support, Mr Murdoch's evidence to the Inquiry was that, although he could not recall the matter specifically, The Scottish Sun's decision was one to which he contributed, and he was also able to explain the basis for it.27 Immediately after the general election the editor, Mr Dinsmore, wrote a personal letter of congratulation.28

¶4.12 The relationship between Mr Salmond and Mr Murdoch after the 2007 Election came to be one

of mutual respect and admiration, notwithstanding the fact that it was not built on frequent interactions between the two (very busy) men. Mr Murdoch could no doubt appreciate that he was dealing with a politician of considerable skill, resource and intelligence, and he may also have felt, and perhaps continues to believe, that the aims of the SNP are consistent with the long-term objectives of both News International and News Corp in Scotland. Mr Salmond clearly saw the advantages of securing political support from News International and The Scottish Sun, notwithstanding that the 2007 election had led to his becoming First Minister of a Coalition Government without support from The Scottish Sun or the Daily Record; and he would no doubt wish to do all that was properly within his power to achieve that.

¶4.13 Mr Salmond had been particularly keen to ensure that the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry

should make explicit reference to the missed opportunity afforded by Operation Motorman to address problems in the culture, practices and ethics of the press. He said this:29

"Well, I am concerned with it because I think there's a connecting thread which is that what seemed to me to be substantive evidence of illegality or illegal practices which was contained in the Information Commissioner – the English and Welsh Information Commissioner's report, Richard Thomas, I think, of December 2006 had been not left unlooked at because there had been a limited number of prosecutions, but even, for example, his proposal that breaches of data protection should be an indictable offence, as we call it in Scotland, and it's the same in England, you know, had been left, and most recently the revelations on hacking, I mean the connection is obviously that there was a substantial body of evidence that there had been a sequence of perhaps systematic illegal practices going on, and the response of the law and those who have responsibility for pursuing these things, whether the police or the prosecution services, had not been adequate, and therefore I suggested to the I Secretary of State that an explicit reference in the terms of reference to Operation Motorman would be helpful in making it clear that this was one key aspect, I hoped, of the Inquiry's consideration, and now as it happens, as you know, it was argued to me that it didn't have to be explicit because it was already implicit within the terms

1422

¶PART I | The Press and Politicians

of reference and fair enough … . I was really thinking of illegal practices. I think it's possible to consider – clearly this Inquiry is considering practices which are improper but not necessarily illegal. I mean, there are ways to access people's data which are not illegal and it might be argued that's a perfectly proper way to do things. You might – but I wouldn't put my senses on that. I was really driving at the illegality as opposed to the propriety."

¶4.14 Mr Salmond had this to say about the future:30

"First, and I would give primacy to this, is to uphold the law. I think it's – my view is it's extraordinary of the various aspects of this that I've spoken about that an assumed illegality can have been taking place on a huge scale and nothing substantial done about it. I made the point earlier about the lack of information that had been given to the Scottish authorities, which I feel very angry about. I can give you the assurance that's been given to me by the Lord Advocate that the criminal law will be upheld in Scotland without fear and favour, and I'm sure, given the circumstances in which this Inquiry has come into being, that will now be the case everywhere, but it has to be the case because, unless that's the case, nothing else that's suggested – I go back to the point – a voluntary or even a statutory code is not going to be enforced or enforceable if the criminal law is not being enforced and enforceable so I think it's absolutely invites that that's first in my hierarchy. Secondly – and maybe this is maybe why you think I'm a minimalist in this matter – I think the freedom of the press is important not just as a matter of practice but as a matter of principle. And while I salute and applaud those newspapers like, for example, the ones I mentioned in DC Thomson and there are others, who make an absolute virtue of saying, look, comments are in our editorial or in our columnists, fact is in our news columns. That's great, but it may be desirable but not only is the impossible to implement, in my opinion, this division between fact and comment, I actually do think there is a freedom for people within the law, the laws of not inciting hatred, to conduct themselves in a biased manner. It was Lord Northcliffe, wasn't it, who the phrase the "daily hate" was attributed to, but whether it's hate or bias, whatever you want to call it, I think that's a price we have to pay for the essential freedom of the press and you cannot have a free press which does what you want it to do, which always behaves itself. It has to behave itself within the law and within certain norms, which I'm going to come onto in a few seconds. Thirdly, in terms of redress from – well, the redress for illegal behaviour is clear enough, that should be a matter for criminal law to enforce that, but from other behaviour which might not be illegal but be wrong, then certainly on that, the redress

¶I must be open to all. There has to be the ability of individuals or groups, in my opinion,

to seek redress in an effective manner they can have confidence in. Rich people and powerful people will always have the civil courts and actions that they can pursue, but to be proper, the redress must be open to all. Fourthly, politicians. I think the move towards transparency is a good thing for both government and opposition politicians. I think the abidance by the Ministerial Code is – the Ministerial Codes are there for a reason and the reason I cited you to Scottish Ministerial Code is because we pay it close attention and so politicians and relationships should be guided by transparency in terms of what is now being done by everyone – LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is the Scottish Code in your exhibits?

1423

¶Chapter 7 | Further Political Perspectives on Relationships with the Press

A. I cited it earlier on, sir. If we haven't made it an exhibit, then I shall make sure it is done. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'd be grateful if you could send me a copy. A. And obviously the differences would tend to be it stresses areas where the Scottish ministers have particular competence, like the one on jobs and investment that I read out to you. But following the Ministerial Code is my fourth point. –"