McLeish defending Salmond or McLeish?

While other media outlets seem to have emphasised Henry McLeish's suggestion that meetings between politicians and media executives should be recorded, the Courier's political editor has instead highlighted the former first minister's comments in defence of Alex Salmond in the wake of last week's disclosure of the details of the current first minister's meetings with Rupert Murdoch and other media executives.

Thus in an article (not online) titled 'McLeish comes to Salmond's defence on meetings issue', David Clegg kicks off by quoting the former Fife MP and MSP, who said that the SNP leader did "nothing improper, incriminating, illegal or irregular" in the course of his dealings with News International executives.

Which is all very well, but the alliteration in Mr McLeish's statement unfortunatley brings to mind his claim that the 'Officegate' affair was a "muddle, not a fiddle", subsequent to which he was forced to resign as first minster.

Of course, no one is claiming that Alex Salmond's courting of Rupert Murdoch amounts to anything illegal, but Mr McLeish also said: "I've been concerned about the weakening of our democracy, the weakening of our representation and the growing power of the printed press."

Indeed, but this seems to slightly contradict his staunch defence of Mr Salmond, but of course Mr McLeish will have done his own cosying up to the media during his term as first minister - the details of which the Labour party is currently under pressure to disclose - thus perhaps this is a case of Mr McLeish getting his excuses in early and in effect defending himself by the manner of his excusing Mr Salmond.

Naturally they're all at it, with the silky-smooth Stewart Hosie neatly deflecting questions put to him on Newsnicht about his party's relationship with the Murdochs by instead emphasising the SNP's transparency on the issue - not to mention the usual blather about "promoting Scotland" and "securing investment" - which in turn he used to highlight the other parties' lack of disclosure.

Meanwhile, another parallel between the murky worlds of Westminster and Holyrood politics is revealed in this morning's Scotland on Sunday. It's been disclosed that Sir Brian Souter's recent knichthood was as a result of a Scottish Government nomination, thus with the Stagecoach tycoon bankrolling the SNP's two Holyrood victories this latest revelation has highlighted the Nationalist's role in the Westminster 'cash for honours' inquiry.

However, the emphasis is very much on the Scottish Government rather the SNP Government, because the latter are defending themselves on the basis that nominations are made by civil servants on an independent Honours Committee rather than by elected politicians.

Which perhaps demonstrates that the civil servants weren't bothered about how it would all look, but the reason for this indifference is perhaps harder to fathom. Lack of political nous? To emphasise their impartiality? To drive a wedge between Sir Brian and the SNP?

But in any case shouldn't the SNP make it absolutely clear where they stand on the issue of the UK's honours system?

Of course, with important backers and donors like Sir Brian, Sir Sean Connery and Jim McColl OBE all more than willing to accept Her Majesty's titles and baubles the SNP are somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place in this regard, with Sir Brian's position on same-sex relationships merely likely to exacerbate the Nationalists' current difficulties on this matter.

But, irrespective of the source of the nomination, either Sir Brian will be made to look even more hypocritical if he supports Scottish independence when the referendum is called, or the SNP will be without a major donor. On the other hand, Sir Sean's acceptance of a knichthood has never stopped him campaigning for Scottish independence, all the way from his tropical island to boot.

Also, given the way that the SNP has been moving on the independence-union continuum, what's the betting that the UK honours system could be retained as part of an 'independent' Scotland?!