Anyone who thought Alex Salmond’s political instinct was basically sound may need to think again.BBC: “'Snub' claim over Diageo meeting”
Herald: “Unity shattered as parties bicker over Diageo jobs”
Scotsman: “Salmond 'snubs' Diageo chief to go on TV show”
Scotsman editorial: “Salmond’s skewed priorities”
Press and Journal: “First minister denies Diageo snub”
Times: “Salmond 'snubs' Diageo talks for TV politics show”
Daily Mail: “Salmond snubs jobs summit... to draw a raffle”
Evening Times: “Salmond 'chose TV over meeting' with Diageo”
Record: “Unions blast Alex Salmond after claims he snubbed Diageo job talks - to appear on TV”
SU
I'm afraid on this one, you're wrong. This stinks of pure and utter political opportunism by Labour. Something that is becoming ever more immature and frankly predictable from a Scottish Party that is taking quite a while to go through their personal change curve.
Furthermore, by contacting the media, they have attempted to make this a bigger story than the potential job losses. This is the worst of Scottish politics and speaks volumes about Labour's priorities.
Let's be clear, the SNP are not exactly whiter than white on this occasion, but blatant media manipulation for political ends, when peoples' livelihoods are at stake, is by far the bigger sin.
Yawn.
The only people bickering here are Labour.
Salmond has already spoken to Diageo.
This is just the usual Labour whining and girning that everyone is sick of.
Andrew:
Actually, I've said nothing of any great substance to be “right” or “wrong” about!
Salmond and his advisors should have known how this would be viewed. That's why I'm limiting my comments to questioning his political nouse, or at least that of his staff.
The facts themselves are unclear due to conflicting accounts. For example, the Times has reported thus:
“The First Minister's official spokesman claimed that no definite meeting had been scheduled with Mr Walsh before Mr Salmond arrived at the BBC in London and that the first the SNP leader had been aware of a possible meeting was when he was about to go on air.”
But a Diageo spokesman said:
“The First Minister may not have been aware of it but we had made an arrangement with his office that there would be a time slot.”
Make of that what you will; I'm drawing no conclusions just yet. And in any case I would be disinclined to make too much of it. There is, as you said, a far bigger issue at stake.
Hi SU!
To be fair there is no "snub" here. The really lamentable aspect of the story is that a cross-party campaign has been shattered as a consequence of Labour's desperation to make political capital out of this crisis. It appears to me that some Labour party operatives are more concerned with nat-bashing than with genuinely protecting people’s jobs. So much for the "people's party".
Let’s demand that politicians cut out the point scoring and get back to prioritising people's livelihoods.
Well done for adding the Johnnie Walker petition btw!
I agree that political capital has been made. Do you think the SNP would have passed up the same opportunity, had the roles been reversed?!
But I can't see how the four-party consensus has been "shattered". The underlying issues haven't changed.
But to be fair the SNP didn't try to attack Labour over this even though there was the opportunity (remember the primary levers of the Scottish economy are still controlled by the Labour government at Westminster) and the Tories and Lib Dems have also (to their credit) largely avoided point scoring.
I hope your right about the consensus. I just feel that a consensus won't be at its most effective if one of the political parties involved is more focussed on political one-up-manship rather than the very important issue at hand.
Social Democrat:
Could you perhaps explain to me how which parliament controls the “primary levers of the Scottish economy” has any great bearing on Diageo’s prioritisation of its immediate business interests over the long term future of the Scotch whisky industry? Are you suggesting that if Scotland was independent the Diageo management would adopt a fundamentally different strategy?
The only party which hasn’t (yet) involved itself in point scoring is the Lib Dems. The SNP’s overblown, indignant response to Labour and use of attack as the best form of defence is of course its own form of politicking. I’ll give credit where it’s due: they’re very good at it!
Neither have the Tories entirely avoided point scoring. David Mundell has criticised both Labour and the SNP for “trying to outdo each other”. Attempting to claim the moral high ground can in itself be a form of politicking, albeit of a rather more subtle type.
Update: Kezia has gone for the jugular.
I’m still on the fence, but her argument definitely has merit — in particular this section:
“Now this is where the serious error of judgment lies. Salmond was meeting Mr Walsh in his capacity as Scotland’s First Minister, with the full force and powers of the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise behind him to barter with.
What tools did Angus Robertson have at his disposal? What authority does he have to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government? The Scottish people?”
So Kezia has gone for the jugular? So what?
Labour have been going for the jugular ever since May 2007.
Kezia supported Iain Gray for the leadership and works for George Foulkes.
As a definition of someone whose political instincts are basically unsound that's a good one.
Incidentally of course there won't be a political consensus.
The Port Dundas distillery is in Glasgow North East constituency.
Labour are trying to brand the SNP on the issue - we can expect to see this as the headline in their 'local news' campaign sheet.
Salmond draws raffle while Labour fight for jobs etc etc.
OK, so that's the ad hominem out of the road. I don't suppose you'd have any interest in addressing her actual point, would you?
Why won't there still be a political consensus? Is Diageo's proposed action suddenly justified?!
She doesn't have a point SU.
Salmond has already spoken with the CEO. He has a further meeting diaried for 22 July when the CEO gets back from China at which the business case to retain the present jobs - drawn up by John Swinney, Scottish Enterprise and Jim Murphy - will be set out.
Having the FM rush off to catch the CEO for 5 minutes at an airport would not have added anything to that case.
Only an idiot would think that it would and since Kezia is not a complete idiot I think it is rather obvious why they are trying this line out.
The difficulty - from Labour's point of view - is that polling consistently shows that Scottish voters trust the SNP more than any other party to stand up for Scottish interests. Clearly Labour have to try and find a way to put a dent in that trust. The issue for them is how far they can make their attacks plausible. The idea that Alex Salmond can't be bothered standing up for Scottish jobs because he'd rather be drawing raffles in London is inherently implausible. Even people who don't like the SNP are not going to believe that.
Of course Diageo's proposed actions are not justified. But there won't be any consensus because Labour are going to use it as an by-election issue, as I have just indicated.
Re: “Having the FM rush off to catch the CEO for 5 minutes at an airport would not have added anything to that case.”
Where has it been reported that Jim Murphy met Paul Walsh at an airport? Or is that just a wee bit of artistic licence?
And if such a meeting yesterday wouldn't have served any purpose, why did Alex Salmond's office arrange one?
Re: “Labour are going to use it as an by-election issue...”
Are you seriously accusing Labour of deliberately seeking to lessen the pressure on Diageo because they perceive possible electoral benefit?
Hi again SU!
"Could you perhaps explain to me how which parliament controls the “primary levers of the Scottish economy” has any great bearing on Diageo’s prioritisation of its immediate business interests over the long term future of the Scotch whisky industry?"
Well whichever government of whichever hue in whichever place that controls the levers of the economy has the responsibility of ensuring the country is an attractive one to invest in, grow in and retain a presence in. In my opinion both the Edinburgh and Westminster governments have a role to play in protecting Scottish workers in the whiskey industry. The point I was trying to make was that both the Labour and the SNP could have decided to attack each other over partisan, perceived derelictions from either government in order to score political points. Given the importance of the whiskey industry and the threat to real people's livelihoods I think it is hugely regrettable that Labour has decided to try and make political capital out of this. Perhaps they are more worried about their own political careers rather than those of their constituents?
“Attempting to claim the moral high ground can in itself be a form of politicking, albeit of a rather more subtle type.”
That’s indeed true but I don’t think it applies in this case. To be honest I don’t think the SNP or the Lib Dems (and perhaps to a lesser extent the Tories) have to make any attempt to claim the high ground. It is the Labour party that has lowered itself by using a threat to people’s jobs to try and score political points.
In the interests of fairness you could add the link
Salmond Urges Diageo to Reconsider job cut plans from 2nd July when Salmond had already met Managing director Brian Donaghey who agreed to allow Scottish government access to Diageo figures with a view to Salmond meeting Walsh in the near future to discuss alternatives.
I will grant you though that Labour have made hay out of this.
Jim Murphy did not meet Paul Walsh at an airport. That is where Alex Salmond would have met him however if he had kept the suggested appointment, which was the only time available. Given that Alex Salmond was already in the TV studio at the time - maybe even getting his make up on - it would have just been plain daft to have rushed off to the airport.
I am not suggesting that Labour want to take the pressure of Diageo. I do suggest however that the meeting of the 22 where John Swinney and Jim Murphy will set out an alternative business plan is the meeting that counts.
I am also suggesting that Labour's interest in this story is connected to the North East by-election because Port Dundas is in the constituency.
This was the quote from Willie Bain yesterday 'Glasgow's people have always fought for Glasgow's jobs. This will be no exception.
"People are angry at the company for asset-stripping the distillery like this. We also need to see more action from the Scottish Government. Jobs here are as important as anywhere else in Scotland and we need help to stop the lives of 150 families being destroyed like this."
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/petition-launched-to-save-glasgow-diageo-jobs
The next stage of course is to claim that Alex Salmond would rather be in London appearing on TV than fighting to save Glasgow jobs. The SNP don't care about Glasgow you see. Only Labour can be trusted to fight for Glasgow jobs. Glasgow people fighting for Glasgow jobs. Geddit?
It's crude and it won't work because it is not believable.
Indy said:
“Jim Murphy did not meet Paul Walsh at an airport. That is where Alex Salmond would have met him however if he had kept the suggested appointment, which was the only time available.”
Where has it been reported that the Salmond/Walsh meeting was to take place at an airport? I'm asking because the fanatical, vituperative cybernats on the Scotsman forum last night and today have been taking that as read.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1299916/?UserKey=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8141260.stm
Neither of those links appears to mention an airport. Four questions:
1. Which airport - Heathrow?
2. Where did you hear about the airport?
3. Did Angus Robertson meet Paul Walsh at that airport?
4. Do the cybernats have some kind of inside track?!
Don’t vex yourself, Indy. I’m guessing it’s just artistic licence again. The cybernats are forever just inventing things and presenting them as fact. Sometimes I wonder if some of them can differentiate between fact and perception. The airport story fits with the victim narrative.
John Z: “Diageo should accomodate our leader, not the other way around. They should have some respect for The Scottish Government.”
Electric Hermit: “Who is this arrogant little trud, Walsh? Alex Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland. He represents all the people of this country.”
Neil Waugh: “Where does it say that a First Minister of a country has to come bowing and scraping to a snaphead like Paul Walsh. Because the great man has a hole in his dairy? What a flippin' insult to the Scottish government and the Scottish people.”
SU - you are missing the rather obvious point that essentially the Scotsman has simply reproduced the Labour Party press release on this story which, since it leaves out all the essential facts, gives a completely false immpression and therefore provokes that kind reaction.
.
You think? Anyway, forget the cybernats. Where did you hear that the Annointed Chosen One of the Sovereign People of the Great and Ancient Nation of Alba had been slighted by being invited to meet with a commoner in a public place? ;-)
The more accurate story is in the Herald.
Basically Labour have indeed gone for the jugular, the Scotsman have printed their take on it verbatim, they wheeled out John Quigley who entirely co-incidentally (ha ha) happens to be the chair of the Scottish Trade Union and Labour Party Committe to make a faux statement on behalf of the workers and et voila - no one is remotely convinced.
They are being far too obvious; stuff like this actually makes people like Salmond, as despite being First Minister these co-ordinated attacks on him make him seem like the underdog.
Observer:
I just reminded myself of Quigley’s comment (below). How exactly does it make people like Salmond?
“Alex Salmond has snubbed Scotland. Nine hundred jobs are on the line and a Scottish community faces devastation. Alex Salmond, the self-professed Scottish Nationalist, has turned his back on Scottish workers, Scottish communities and the company to take part in a television raffle. This is outrageous behaviour. Diageo's site in Kilmarnock has been in existence since 1820, it has a proud history, and these workers deserve a real First Minister who is prepared to fight their corner.”
Because what John Quigley said wasn't true, and it is demonstrably not true - as was printed by the Herald and indeed the BBC.
And John Quigly wasn't speaking for the 900 members of UNITE who are at risk of losing their jobs - he was speaking for the Labour Party. His comment about ''self-professed nationalist'' betrays that. He was playing political football with his members jobs.
Stuff like that sickens people - and the SNP are likely to be the beneficiaries of that revulsion.
It makes people like Salmond because it is such a stupid and unbelievable attack.
It is an understandable that they want to go after him. Labour really need to undermine Alex Salmond because his personal poll ratings are so high. That is the explanation of why they constantly try to undermine his character, as well as SNP policies. However it backfires on them when they get it wrong as Observer has noted. Quigley’s comments are patently ridiculous, so it is Quigley’s reputation that takes the hit when he says something like that, not Salmond’s.
Why? It comes back to the whole plausibllity issue. To be believable, a political attack must be plausible. Look at where they have had some success with attacking Salmond – the Trump affair for example. That was a plausible attack. It wasn’t true but it was plausible because when people think about Alex Salmond they do not see him as one of life’s bureaucrats, they see him as the kind of person who likes to get things done, therefore the idea that he cut some corners to get a deal secured which would bring an economic benefit to Scotland is plausible.
However the qualities that Alex Salmond possesses which made the Trump attack plausible are the very qualities that make the Quigley attack completely implausible. Labour can’t expect people to believe two contradictory things at the same time. They can’t expect them to believe that 1. Alex Salmond broke the rules in order to bring jobs to Scotland. 2. Alex Salmond doesn’t care about Scottish jobs.
It may also be that Labour are thinking tactically of using the kind of ‘nationalist’ language the SNP uses when attacking Westminster to attack the SNP. But again this comes back to plausibility. Would anybody believe that Alex Salmond would snub Scotland, or turn his back on Scottish workers or Scottish jobs? Don't think so. You can’t out-nationalist a nationalist. The SNP can out-social democrat Labour - but Labour can’t out-nationalist the SNP. If Labour are to beat the SNP they have to try and undermine nationalist arguments, not deploy them. However they also know that the only way to regain voters lost to the SNP is to move into the SNP's territiry.
Tricky isn't it.
Such a lot of verbiage, but based on a false premise. You are conflating the pursuit of Scottish interests with nationalism. It’s a common error.
It is a fact that polling consistently shows that voters of all parties trust the SNP to stand up for Scottish interests, more so than any other party.
Therefore to base an attack on Alex Salmond on the premise that he - and by extension the SNP - can't be trusted to stand up for Scottish jobs is rather stupid.
Whether you or I believe that the pursuit of Scottish interests does or does not equate with nationalism is irrelevant.
We are talking about what the electorate as a whole believes, not any two individuals.
Indy
In my opinion, he's far more interested in scoring political points which he thinks will promote independence than in actually promoting Scottish interests, and if you polled people on that I think you'd be shocked at how many people would agree.
I have minimal sympathy for Salmond on this one. He was perfectly willing to turn the floor of Holyrood into a jeering playground, but clearly does not like it up him.
To the McBlairites, the bad guys are the opposing political party trying to make capital out of it!!! Of course they would.
Sorry, political proggies are accustomed to informing their audiences that a touted guest has had to withdraw at sudden notice.
>> Let's be clear, the SNP are not exactly whiter than white on this occasion,
Is this to be the new passive aggressive catchphrase? Previously, Salmond et al. were preeningly self-righteous about their virtue, but the moment some blooper comes up - this, or charging to the Westminster expenses - it's, oh, we're not whiter than white.
Not everyone is stupid, you know.
Alec - Salmond does not need your sympathy, this story died the day it was released. It died because it was a crap story that nobody believed.
I rest my case.
What delicious logic is being displayed in this thread!
Criticism of Salmond is, ipso facto, opportunism; criticism of Salmond is not just wrong, it's *inconceivable*. Salmond and the cult surrounding him is more Blairite than he and his supporters ever would confess.
When caught out, in my experience the Snuppie response is either to lie or go for vituperation. Indy is currently going for the first option in his churlish display of bad grace.
What happened here is that Salmond couldn't thole the idea of a single rumble of thunder being stolen by Murphy, so tried to muscle in. That's fair enough. I understand that, and would have less respect for him had he not.
Walsh obliged, but Salmond wished it to be on *precisely* his terms, and chose to stroke his ego in front of Nick Robinson and Anita Anand. At this point, I lost all sympathy for both his personal morals, and his judgement considering the upcoming byelection.
He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Serves him right. I weep for the Diageo workers, though.
So, the lie option here. In shameless self-publicity, we see both it and the vituperation option chosen with financing party politics through Westminster expenses.
Here I meant.
Alec - if Labour had put out a press release saying 'Salmond couldn't thole the idea of a single rumble of thunder being stolen by Murphy, so tried to muscle in' that might have been quite effective because it might even be true. Its certainly plausible.
Instead they got a compliant union official to say: 'Alex Salmond has snubbed Scotland. Nine hundred jobs are on the line and a Scottish community faces devastation. Alex Salmond, the self-professed Scottish Nationalist, has turned his back on Scottish workers, Scottish communities and the company to take part in a television raffle.'
And what happened? It went nowhere. I do not condemn them for trying to make political capital out of it but they failed because they are pretty crap at being opposition politicians.
The case still rests.