Michael Kelly: Bad day at the office for master of misdirection

Salmond’s alternative explanations of how he acted in the BSkyB affair are further proof of the duplicity of the SNP government, writes Michael Kelly

Things are going from bad to worse for our First Minister. Having been severely savaged over the various hidden costs of separation, and having had the economics of his renewable energy strategy destroyed by independent experts, he now finds himself pinned on the back foot over claims made about him by James Murdoch.

The question is not whether there is mutual admiration between News Corporation and Mr Salmond. Rupert Murdoch has been wined and wooed by the SNP while he responded by tweeting that Alex Salmond “is clearly the most brilliant politician in the UK”. Rather it should be asked, would a businessman whose contempt for politicians is well known have praised Salmond so highly if he did not believe that the First Minister was on his side as far as the takeover of BSkyB and other matters were concerned?

In this matter at least, it seems to me that News Corp did nothing wrong. The weakness is that the UK system leaves the final decisions on many matters concerning takeovers, mergers and competition in the hands of politicians. That opens the door to lobbying. Whether ministers should entertain the lobbyists is an entirely different matter. But Frederic Michel, News Corp’s head of public affairs, was just doing his job – and apparently doing it very well.

The SNP did very well, too. It had achieved the “quid” of any alleged deal as the Scottish Sun had already come out in its favour in the run-up to the Holyrood elections. That’s a fact. And News Corp had discussed its involvement in the Scottish economy in friendly meetings with Salmond. That’s another fact. It was, therefore unsurprising that James Murdoch this week confirmed the belief that Salmond would lobby the UK government in favour of the takeover. Both sides yesterday denied that this was Salmond delivering the “quo”. But such deals do not have to be spelled out. Tacit understandings can very easily be reached.

There are a number of disturbing aspects to Salmond’s initial denial of this scenario. First, why deny it at all? Unlike Jeremy Hunt, Salmond was not in any kind of quasi-judicial position over this matter. He could quite legitimately lobby the British government in favour of the takeover. The reasons for his denial were also curious. First he stated that James Murdoch’s position could not be credible as the Scottish government had “no determination over the ownership of BSkyB”. This is so out of line with the First Minister’s normal political stance as to be incredible. The First Minister always claims a locus in any matter that remotely involves Scotland, from European fisheries policies to Iraq.

The second part of his defence was pure Salmond sleight of hand. He pointed out that he never contacted Jeremy Hunt at all. That does nothing to prove or disprove whether he promised News Corp that he would make such an intervention. Maybe it just proves he was better at the political game than they were.

These same anomalies must have occurred to Salmond overnight because yesterday he came up with an alternative explanation. Version B was much better thought through. Yes, he did have a locus and would have lobbied on News Corp’s behalf, in their words, “whenever we need him to”. He just didn’t bother to make the call and Scotland’s interests, as well as those of the Murdoch empire were neglected through “a combination of circumstances”. Scotland’s watchdog didn’t bark.

This was serious before. Now with two conflicting explanations it goes to the heart of the integrity of the SNP government. The evidence builds up that misdirection is this government’s stock in trade. Salmond has known for weeks that he has been called to give evidence before Leveson. Why did his government wait until the allegations against him had been made before revealing that his presence was required? It follows the silence over the Doosan company’s decision not to proceed with its £170 million investment in renewable energy which was supposed to create 1700 new jobs. For the first time at First Minister’s Questions Salmond betrayed an embarrassment with his own answer when he claimed it was not his job to make company announcements when that’s what he’s been doing since he came to power.

The SNP’s reputation for competent government which has fooled such eminent Scottish businessmen as Jim McColl and Tom Hunter was gained when the SNP was a minority government, did nothing and blamed the inactivity on the combined opposition. Now there is no parliamentary obstacle to implementing its policies the cracks have begun to appear. Even “best friend” Donald Trump complains about the duplicitous nature of this government. Again, given the welcome Trump was accorded it is entirely credible he was promised a local ban on wind farms – assurances that so far are being denied.

Deception runs through this administration – and not just in these headline-grabbing matters. For months, Salmond has claimed his government has created 16,000 modern apprenticeships compared to Labour’s 11,000. It has just emerged in an answer from Damien Yates, chief executive of Skills Development Scotland, that, on a like-for-like basis, the number of apprenticeships remained broadly the same for 2010-11 as it was in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The extra that the government claims comes mainly from counting, for the first time, SVQ Level 2 qualifications.

This and other examples of double-dealing that keep emerging may simply be seen as the rough end of the political trade. But it takes on an even more serious dimension when it is practised in the build up to a vote on a fundamental, irreversible constitutional change.

At least the Culture Secretary had the courage to appear in the House of Commons yesterday with some sort of defence, while our First Minister fled to London for a meeting with the Institute of Directors. Is all this ducking and diving the distinct Scottish identity and culture that we are promised in post-referendum Scotland? Expect version C of the truth today.