You are here: Home » News »

We can expect Salmond’s apology soon, right?

February 6, 2012 8:05 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

A few weeks ago the SNP attacked Tom Harris over the creation of a “Downfall” parody that mocked Alex Salmond and senior Nat Joan McAlpine. He was later forced to resign. At the time I said that the reaction to Harris’s video had been an overreaction, but the SNP described the video as:

“silly, negative nonsense”

So Alex Salmond would need to be really stupid to make a Nazi reference of his own, right? Yet according to the Scotsman:

“Mr Salmond used the term “Gauleiter” – the name for a regional Nazi party leader – to describe BBC political adviser Ric Bailey”

I presume Mr Salmond’s apology will be forthcoming? Otherwise his party would be guilty of gross hypocrisy…

20120206-200514.jpg

Related posts:

  1. Apology from our editor
  2. A retraction and apology to John Harris
  3. I can’t expect everything – because I can’t always be sure I’m right
  4. What can we expect from the Lib Dems in the next four days?
  5. Balls makes regulation apology – but remember what the Tories wanted
  • Franwhi

    Get real Mark.  Alex Salmond called the BEEB producer a Gaulitier – very few peeps even know what it is so it hardly had the same impact. Insults certainly lose some of their force when you have to explain their provenance. Ian Rankine the writer just called the BEEB Stalinist for decommisioning a Radio Scotland arts programme so have we to get all offended about that too. Conor Pope is blogging right alongside you on the synthetic rage in the tabloids when some underling called the queen a scrounger. Tom HarrisMP didn’t “resign” over the Hitler clip – he quit his ‘made up’ job as Labour e-communications blogging czar -(surely that’s your job in any case ?)  Who knows maybe he didn’t really want the post in the first place or maybe just went off in a hissy fit -either way he’s doing even less now than he was before for the same easy money.   I didn’t think you were so po-faced -Anyway what about the BEEB taking Scottish licence payers money but not delivering the goods in terms of impartiality and regional balance  - that’s a real scandal. BTW it was the same producer who booked Nick Griffin for Question Time a few years ago yet acted to cancel the TV appearance of a democratic socialist and legitimate Scottish politician so maybe he’s the one who needs to explain his actions and apologise. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001102865655 John Ruddy

      But Salmond knew what it was. He knew very well what a Gauliter was. 

      I think you have mistaken what impartiality means, if you think that it is ensuring that the First Minister gets the chance to make political statements without response.

      • Franwhi

        This was the least political of TV appearances – it was a soft soap piece to comment on the six nations rugby fixture between Scotland and England in his role as statesman. Just as Cameron will likely be doing ad nauseum during the Olympics. The lack of BEEB impartiality is well noted up here eg Jeremy Paxman drawing comparison between Salmond and Mugabe in their last interview, the BEEB asking Salmond if his judgement was lacking when he cheered on Sir Fred’s success at RBS – as did every other politician at that time including the Labour party who gave him the knighthood in the first place-
        then this latest fiasco which has one part of the BEEB – the London Branch – overruling the decisions of programme makers in the regional branch of BBC Scotland.  This has nothing to do with Salmond’s response – he’s hardly a shrinking violet and I would say quite relishes ‘response’. He doesn’t need any favours done on that score. Rather, it’s about even handedness and balance and as we approach fundamental deicsions on the constitution of Scotland we need to have utmost confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our foremost public service broadcaster.     

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne

           That’s exactly the problem! It was a soft soap piece, and the BBC should not be giving free publicity to any ploitician simply to burnish their public profile.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            Next time David Cameron or Ed Miliband or that Cameron clone, whatisname, appear on The One Show I expect you top be outside the BBC holding a placard saying “Down with this sort of thing!”

          • John Ruddy

            And Alex Salmond has appeared on the One Show. It is instructive to compare his appearance with that of the other leaders.

            He is the only one who made partisan comments.

            As I have said elsewhere, Salmond has the ability to politicise anything. He was invited to Perth racecourse a while back (as a well known lover of the turf accountant and horse racing). Presumably he was expected to talk about Horse racing, or the bookies etc. He didnt, he managed to make everything about independence.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            I saw that.

            The male host tried to ambush him with an England scarf and the man accepted it graciously

            Us frothing at him as “satan incarnate” helps no one

          • http://twitter.com/matt_j_little Matthew Little

            The male one also ambushed Cameron by asking him “how he sleeps at night”. I’m starting to think your’re a CyberNat pretending to be a labour supporter on here.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            He did do that at the end.

            I didn’t claim the bloke was for anyone in particular. I’m saying that John saying that Salmond shouldn’t even be allowed on TV lest he turn it into a PPB is silly.

            We accept leaders of other parties being on TV or Radio, what is so special about Salmond?

            As to your thoughts, you are entitled to them. You are wrong, and “cybernat”. In the name of the wee man!

            They don’t have horns and tails you know. People of all parties post on the internet, you may notice you are doing that yourself?

            Why should that distinguish you?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne

             I would certainly oppose it. I wouldn’t be frothing at the mouth about it, because I’m not a cyber-nat.

          • John Ericsson

             I don’t remember seeing you outside Richard and Judy with your placard with Tony Blair was on.

            Maybe you just weren’t in Liverpool that day

          • Anonymous

            But the BBC and ITV were always doing that with Blair appearing for cosy sofa chats on Light Entertainment shows – when he was PM!, Des O’Connor, Richard& Judy… is that any better?

        • Anonymous

          I’ll get into trouble here with someone or other. But:

          Iam a leader.
          This is a sporting event.
          I shall appear statesmanlike.
          It is not 1936.
          One nation, one people, one leader.

          (But Gauleiter is a legitimate reference)

        • John Ruddy

          I too live in Scotland. The “lack of BEEB (why the caps?) impartiality is well noted up here” is simply not true! I think you meant “the SNP think the BBC are biased against us, but no one else thinks that”.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            Well, WE don’t think that, but then the Beeb is on our side.

            David Dimbleby stops Nicola Sturgeon talking about Scottish issues, but allows matters affecting London

            We have people who used to work for our party in the News arm of the BBC in Scotland.

            in London they have a noticable representation from the Tory party and Tory newspapers

            Quite frankly it is embarrassingly blatant sometimes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne

       Good God, that’s incoherent.

      In response to what I think is your actual point, Griffin on Question Time was different. That’s a politician appearing on a political programme. An unpleasant politician, but still in an environment where he could be treated critically.

      Salmond’s case is different. He just wanted cheap publicity in the full knowledge that sports presenters weren’t going to give him any scrutiny. That’s entirely different question from QT and the BBC stance here is consistent – Gordon Brown was desperate to go on Match of the Day to talk about Raith Rovers before the 2010 election and the BBC wouldn’t let him.

      This is a very simple and very ordinary story. Normal procedure is followed leading to Alex Salmond not getting what he wants, leading to Alex Salmond having a hissy fit, leading to cybernats having a hissy fit to the power of ten.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

        As I recall, Mr Salmond was INVITED.

        He did not demand to be on the programme. he was INVITED

        One of the stipulations of that invitation was that he must not discuss politics

        then the invitation was cancelled for POLITICAL considerations, without involving BBC Scotland

        I think you are right, normal procedure. Labour supporters twist story to fit our own narrative. We are our own worst enemy sometimees

        • John Ruddy

          Yes, he was supposed to not talk about Politics.

          But then someone with a bit more sense, who has seen every other “non-political” appearance by Salmond, realised that that was simply not going to happen.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            Why not go the whole hog. Ban him from speaking on TV, “deny him the oxygen of publicity”

            Because that works doesn’t it.

            So, OK, for our leaders, like Tony Blair to do the soft stuff, but not our political opponents.

            Doesn’t that start to sound like the thing the Nats are accusing people of?

          • John Ruddy

            I have no problem with Alex Salmond the politician appearing on political programmes, alongside other politicians, being asked political questions.

            I have a problem with Alex Salmond the politician appearing on non-political programmes, with no other politicians making political statelemts which arnt challenged.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

            That’s a hostage to fortune given how many political programmes are there where people of non-SNP stripe are invited to comment where the SNP get no redress, or the only input from the SNP is a taped bit over which others are allowed to comment.

            The SNP supporters complain about that you know.

            And it still doesn’t address why is it OK for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to do this in their time, but not Alex Salmond?

            How would you policy NOT make us seem hypocritical and self serving?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne

             Nonsense. Would you like to provide evidence of Blair appearing on Grandstand? Of course you wouldn’t, because you’re being purposefully dishonest.

          • Anonymous

            OK he did not go onto grandstand but he bloody did enough grandstanding.

          • John Ericsson

             Gordon Brown ASKED to be on Match of the Day

            Does that count?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne

       Good God, that’s incoherent.

      In response to what I think is your actual point, Griffin on Question Time was different. That’s a politician appearing on a political programme. An unpleasant politician, but still in an environment where he could be treated critically.

      Salmond’s case is different. He just wanted cheap publicity in the full knowledge that sports presenters weren’t going to give him any scrutiny. That’s entirely different question from QT and the BBC stance here is consistent – Gordon Brown was desperate to go on Match of the Day to talk about Raith Rovers before the 2010 election and the BBC wouldn’t let him.

      This is a very simple and very ordinary story. Normal procedure is followed leading to Alex Salmond not getting what he wants, leading to Alex Salmond having a hissy fit, leading to cybernats having a hissy fit to the power of ten.

    • Chilbaldi

      This is a hysterical SNP diatribe.

      Salmond knew full well what he was saying, so why don’t we just accept the obvious facts.

      Salmond made a distasteful slur, as did Tom Harris MP.

      Salmond saw an opportunity and made political capital out of Harris’s naivety. Harris is out of a job. We haven’t done the same with Salmond.

      It’s as simple as that.

      Re Salmond’s cancelled appearance on the BBC – if you can’t see why that would be inappropriate with an independence referendum in the offing you need a reality check. The only argument that Salmond has at the moment is patriotism – Scotland the brave, Scotland this, Scotland that – and that is all he would have beenn peddling during a Scotland v England match. It would have been a free party political broadcast.

      • John Ericsson

         ”In the offing”

        It’s over TWO years away. OVER two years

        get a sense of perspective, it’s a long time between last Saturday and then for that appearance to matter

    • Hugh

       ”Ian Rankine the writer just called the BEEB Stalinist for decommisioning
      a Radio Scotland arts programme so have we to get all offended about
      that too”

      Yes, because nothing says Stalin like shrinking the state broadcaster.

  • John Ericsson

    The SNP did not attack Tom Harris, they dismissed it as “more of the same, what can you expect” from him.

    Labour (Either Johann Lamont or Ed Miliband depending on who you believe) demanded his resignation, probably because the man is a liability.

    “Gauleiter” as a term for a functionary not above throwing their weight about is a word taken into the English language. It has lost almost all of the political overtones it once had, unless it is uttered by an SNP person, in which you can hear the faux-outrage as far away as The antipodes

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

    Tom Harris was a loose cannon.

    He habitually misrepresented matters to portray the SNP and their supporters (who are people we are trying to woo to Labour if you recall) as fascists

    He seemed to be infecting his supporters, with one of his Labourhame sub-admins going onto a Green/Labour website to call SNP as “Anti-English racists”, a charge he pursued on a SNP blogger’s site

    The SNP as a party just dismissed him as “What do you expect”. It was our Party who achieved Harris’s resignation, we gave the SNP supporters an open goal, given his history, when Johan Lamont appointed him in charge of the Scottish party’s “New Media” efforts.

    As to this. I’m sorry. Really? I grant you I’m near 50, so maybe older than many of your readers, but gauleiter is a word English got from German meaning a person of some authority who throws their weight about. It does not mean “Nazi”

    We are doing ourselves no favours, and we risk making the SNP even more of Underdogs as they currently appear, and the British people love an underdog

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36910622 Edward Carlsson Browne

       Gauleiter does mean Nazi. It is not used in other English contexts. A person of authority who throws their weight around is called many thing, but Gauleiter is not one of them unless you are intending to go Godwin.

      What’s more, Tom Harris’ tendency to be a tosser is not an excuse for other Scottish politicians to behave in a similarly abusive manner.

  • http://twitter.com/matt_j_little Matthew Little

    I’m sorry but the “gauleiter is a word English got from German meaning a person of some authority who throws their weight about” line isn’t going to wash. It’s been the SNP line since Salmond made the mistake but Alex Salmond is a smart man, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he used the word. There are other words he could have used that don’t have Nazi connotations. He choose not to. He should apologise as should Joan McAlpine and Mike Russel(the Education minister) who both have said recently that people who don’t agree with the SNP are “anti-scottish”. This is all very reminiscent of the Nats of old. 

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

      As I have said before, if we are going to be taken seriously we have to stop selectively quoting people.

      The real words are too easily cast back at us making us look dishonest, just as Alan Cochrane of the telegraph was when his own use of the word “gauleiter”was revealed from a Scotland on Sunday post and the Telegraph went into moderation meltdown.

      She referred to a specific set of actions as being “anti-scottish”

      Similarly Cathy Jamieson (one of ours) used similar terms in a piece which is still on the Scottish Labour website
      http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/anti-scottish-tories-cant-be-trusted

      Mr Salmond also referred to a “tin-pot dictatorship”, also words used by Neil Findlay (also one of ours, in this case referring to the SNP)

      We can’t have a line where “Anything we say is OK, but if the SNP say it they should resign then be burned at the stake, or maybe burned at the stake and then resign”

      It is hypocritical of us

      • http://twitter.com/matt_j_little Matthew Little

        Hypocritical of us, but not of the Nats. I think you’ve rather muddled yourself there…

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/YKKV4T45HGX7KIDF2TYPJ2QAGU Robert

          No. It’s only hypocritical of the Nats if they cry for blood over it.

          Perfectly consistent

  • Anonymous

    Scotland 6 – England 13.

    I think Mr Salmond has suffered enough for his silly remark.

    • http://twitter.com/matt_j_little Matthew Little

      It was a try. That’s all I’m saying.

  • concernedlabourscot

     To claim that preventing Alex Salmond from voicing his sentiments, however neutral they may be, during a Scotland Vs England match would somehow be censorship and bias is completely hypocritical.  It is unfortunate that the BBC did not have the foresight to see that his mere presence in the build up to the match would further politicise the game; it is not what he says on camera that is the issue with which many take umbrage.  It is the fact that in being there he perpetuates the SNP’s over-arching nationalist paradigm – being Scottish means being nationalistic, being Scottish means voting for independence and fighting the English, being Scottish means accepting that the one group have a monopoly over your sporting events, your victories and your cultural pride.  So here’s the Calcutta cup, here’s Alex Salmond, the voice of our iconic quest for victory against the evil enemy of the south; he succeeds in becoming further imbedded in the shared psyche of the population as being somehow synonymous with who we are, what we are, who we are supposed to be.  I am not scaremongering.  I am not ‘anti-Scottish’.  I believe in a devolved parliament as a means to greater social equality.  I also believe in individuals having the capacity to take a step back from their own nationalist or unionist sentiments and take a critical, analytical view of what is actually happening to the politics of country and see the inherent problem that emerges when one party has a monopoly of power.  I love rugby; the day I switch on a six nations game and see one of our political figureheads on the pundit’s sofa or elsewhere is the day I turn off.  The only relevance Alex Salmond could have had in the context of that game was as a spokesman for nationalist ideology; however well it may be hidden behind his jovial façade of sportsmanship it is clear that the First Minister would have seen this as an opportunity to catch the citizens of Scotland at their most patriotic and rubber stamp his own identity indelibly on the combined pride of a nation.  We are a nation of individuals. Wake up, take a step back, and look at what is happening if you truly care about the democracy of this country. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
                                                                                      

  • Redshift

    With respect to the SNP, I think we need to stop the mudslinging and speak about some proper issues.

    Personal attacks and mudslinging is what people do when they are failing to dictate the political agenda and usually therefore losing. 

    Frankly, if the Scottish Labour Party picked 5 defining issues and positively campaigned hard and well on them (one of them should be a position on the referendum but I would argue it should be a positive argument for devo max, rather than just attacking independence all the time) then they wouldn’t get panned by the SNP so easily.

    They have stolen our social democratic clothing with simple common sense policies, whilst Labour was tarnished in government. They are winning that credibility argument of being the party most ‘on your side’. That allows them to also put independence on the table.

    If you want to change that, you need to a simple message and to put it out hard by doing the grassroots work.  

  • Anonymous

    Wait until the next election lets see who has been the fool, labour or the SNP

  • AmberStar

    Please can we not reduce Scotland’s politics to being about two bickering egomaniacs: Salmond & Harris?

  • John Ericsson

    http://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.com/2012/02/fuss-about-nothing.html

    That is a list of extracts from Hansard, A list of MPs, including Labour MPs Paul Flynn, Jeremy Corbyn, David Blunkett (twice), Bob Cryer and Bruan Wilson who have all used the word ‘gauleiter’ in Westminster

    Unless you wish to be seen as hypocrites, I think you owe Mr Salmond an apology, or you should call for apologies from those MPs

  • Anonymous

    Not at all – the hypocrisy is the SNP’s – that’s the point that is being made…

  • seamus_macniel

    quite strange; from scotland and having lived in germany for over thirty years, i would be very surprised if “gauleiter” has been “eingeenglischt”, …. from my post graduate days in london; “weltanschauung”, yes, “angst”, most definitely, “weltgeist”, yes, …. and, of course, a few others.

    however, “gauleiter”? thinking of joining the snp, certainly believe in scottish independence and, if i do join the party, i will give alex free german lessons.
    http://sansculottism.wordpress.com/

Latest

  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Is party politics dying out?

    Is party politics dying out?

    By Mark Ferguson

    This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    By Mark Ferguson

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →