AT ONE stage yesterday it was almost as if First Minister’s Questions had turned into an American version of Radio 4’s What the Papers Say.
First up was Labour’s Johann Lamont, who flicked through the pages of the Washington Post to find an article that she thought worth further examination.
Her eye fell on an editorial that was sceptical about Scottish independence. Reading from the organ, famous for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s exposure of president Richard Nixon, she repeated the paper’s concerns about the fate of the pound should Scotland go it alone.
Alex Salmond responded by doing his own paper round to argue for independence. Opening the Los Angeles Times, he quoted an article saying that the “most important difference” is that Scottish independence would make Scotland “master of its economy and natural resources”.
Looking up at Lamont, Salmond added: “I very much agree with that.”
Turning to the Wall Street Journal, Salmond found an article saying “the claim that Scotland is a subsidy junkie has already been proved a myth”.
Getting into his stride, Salmond added: “If that is known and understood to the Wall Street Journal, why hasn’t it reached the Labour party in Scotland?”
But he came closer to home to deliver his coup de grace. Referring to The Guardian’s interview with Lamont, Salmond quoted her talking about her frustration with politics “when you play the man and not the politics”.
Given that Lamont had prefaced her reference to the Washington Post by describing it as “the newspaper that exposed Richard Nixon’s corruption [and] knows a chancer when it sees one”, he had a point.
“When Johann Lamont has managed to call me stupid Wee Eck, a sucker, devious and a cork-screw,” Salmond said, “I think after that, comparing her with [what she said in] the interview, no wonder nobody believes a word she says.”