How Alex Salmond helped us in the early days setting up The National

He has been widely described as a titan of the independence movement, a fact which is undoubtedly true. It was his life’s dream to see Scotland wrest control of its own fate from the grip of Westminster and he brought that dream closer to becoming a reality than any other politician.

Yet while recognising that truth, obituaries had a responsibility to also acknowledge that while he was cleared of the allegations of sexual misconduct he faced in more recent years, they still tarnished his reputation. The court proceedings revealed behaviours which were not acceptable from a serving first minister. His own lawyer, Gordon Jackson, was caught on video calling him “quite an objectionable bully” to work with and using the term sex pest”.

A very different picture emerged in descriptions from his family, who depicted Salmond as a “devoted and loving husband, a fiercely loyal brother, a proud and thoughtful uncle and a faithful and trusted friend”. You cannot read these words without appreciating their hearts are broken.

Days after his death, the different sides of Salmond remain impossible to reconcile. Human beings are not one-dimensional. Contradictory descriptions are hardly rare.

One person’s truth does not necessarily mean another’s is a lie.

READ MORE: Anger as private plane to bring Alex Salmond home and not RAF

Salmond’s death comes as this newspaper prepares to celebrate its 10th anniversary, a milestone few predicted it would achieve when it counter-intuitively launched after the referendum voted to remain in the Union.

Personally, Salmond’s death brought back my memories of the then first minister’s belief in the idea of an independence-supporting newspaper. It was difficult to see that ever happening at a time when every title on the newsstands either sat on the fence when it came to independence or, more commonly, strongly opposed it.

Salmond had, of course, succeeded in negotiating the first referendum on Scottish independence after the SNP had achieved a near-impossible majority in the Scottish Parliament in 2011. He had a clear appreciation of the advantages of one or more newspaper titles supporting the cause.

(Image: NQ) As the 2014 referendum grew nearer, it became apparent that the Sunday Herald, the newspaper I edited, was adopting a more positive position on independence. Many of our columnists either supported it or were moving towards doing so.

Salmond, who was first minister at the time, privately advocated that the title should publicly support independence and regularly made the case whenever we met.

His argument was strong and had merits … but drawbacks and dangers too.

It seemed to me that if the Sunday Herald were to make such a declaration, the timing had to be right. When it eventually did so, in May 2014, Salmond was naturally delighted but was very keen that other titles should do the same.

There were hopes that The Scottish Sun would back Yes after reports of Rupert Murdoch making supportive noises. Some even detected a softening in the anti-independence rhetoric in the Daily Record.

It was not to be. The Yes campaign went into the referendum with only the Sunday Herald on its side.

I remain convinced to this day that it was the right decision for the newspaper to take.

Many independence supporters dismissed the press as a relic of the past. They did not see the prospect of strong newspaper support for independence as important. Salmond did not agree. Although realistic about newspapers’ ability to sway voters, he understood the value of more mainstream media’s acceptance of pro-indy arguments.

READ MORE: Who is Tom Hunter? Meet the Scottish millionaire paying to bring Alex Salmond home

He would regularly phone me in the run-up to the referendum, and even after, to discuss and sometimes suggest stories for the Sunday Herald. I know he did the same with other editors. He always engaged with the press in an “enthusiastic” way.

He did not always agree with the stories we ran. He did not pull his punches. A man as passionate as Salmond was always going to have – and voice – opinions on press coverage.

When we launched The National months after the referendum result, Salmond had already announced he would be stepping down as first minister – a decision he would later describe as the biggest mistake of his life.

He and Nicola Surgeon were among the very small number of people we told of The National’s launch in advance. He was delighted at the news and was never anything less than supportive around the launch and after.

He dropped into our offices, played along when we signed up the humorous Angry Salmond Twitter parody account as a columnist, connected with us at social events … and he even made sure copies of The National were available through the Westminster library. When I stood down from the roles of Sunday Herald and National editor in 2015, he was one of the first people to contact me and invite me to dinner. Loyalty was one of his strongest traits. The nature of the allegations he later faced and the behaviours he admitted to made it impossible for me to return that loyalty, a decision I took after much thought and which I know was unpopular with some of his supporters.

That decision does not stop me being grateful for the support he gave me and this newspaper, or indeed his monumental impact on the independence cause. It’s yet another contradiction thrown up by the death of a complicated man.

The renewable energy hijack 

It’s galling to watch the results of Salmond’s tireless support for Scotland’s renewable energy being cynically hijacked by the Labour Party. Anas Sarwar is supposedly off to Germany to show how Scotland can become a “world leader in clean energy”. Yet Labour have failed to demonstrate how that energy can properly be used for the benefit of the people who live here.

We still don’t know how Keir Starmer’s much-touted GB Energy will fulfil his promised cut in our energy bills.

We can be certain it will have zero impact on the system recently described by Octopus Energy bosses as a “national scandal” waiting to happen. A system which pays green energy providers to switch off at peak times rather than provide cheaper, even free, energy. Indeed, GB Energy chair Professor Juergen Maier recently told a Commons committee that reducing energy bills is “not within the scope” of the Great British Energy Bill.

What very much is within the scope of the legislation is preserving a system that sees global energy providers massively increase their profits while the rest of us contemplate the prospect of freezing this winter.

READ MORE: Sir Tom Hunter revealed as private donor bringing Alex Salmond's body home

Of course, if the first 100 days of a Labour Government have shown us anything it is the folly of expecting Scotland’s new Labour MPs to lift a finger to protect the country’s interests.

When the Tories introduced the Internal Market Act – confirmed in Boris Johnson’s new book as an attempt to use Brexit as a means of undermining devolution – Labour opposed it. Will Starmer dump it now that he has the power to do so? Who knows. He won’t say.

It’s widely acknowledged that Scotland’s need to boost its working population requires a different approach to immigration. Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie recently suggested there could be “discussions” around a separate visa system.

Labour MP Torcuil Crichton recently posted on Twitter/X: “Depopulation is the biggest economic and social issue facing the Western Isles and rural Scotland. When it comes to immigration policy, one size does not fit all.’’

And his fellow Labour MP John Grady this week insisted that Scottish and UK Labour were “absolutely in favour of bringing talented people into Scotland”.

Yet Starmer has now ruled out any suggestion of introducing a separate Scottish visa system.

Sarwar told Scottish voters in the election to read his lips – austerity was over.

The austerity cuts included in Labour’s upcoming Budget are so extreme that members of the Cabinet are protesting about them.

The lesson for Scotland? When Scottish Labour MPs promise action to meet the country’s needs, expect the Labour Government to do the exact opposite.