What Salmond actually said about Putin

[NickB]

.

The hysterical media coverage yesterday of some innocuous comments by Alex Salmond about Vladimir Putin in GQ magazine was primarily there to distract attention from his well- received speech in Bruges.

The comments in GQ were from an interview conducted six weeks ago, on 14th March. (The interview will be published in the edition of GQ due out on 1st May).

Asked about Putin, Salmond said: "Well, obviously, I don't approve of a range of Russian actions, but I think Putin's more effective than the press he gets I would have thought, and you can see why he carries support in Russia."

Pressed on whether he admires the Russian leader, the First Minister said: "Certain aspects. He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing. There are aspects of Russian constitutionality and the inter-mesh with business and politics that are obviously difficult to admire. Russians are fantastic people, incidentally, they are lovely people."

That's all folks.

[jimcee]

In the interests of fair play, I would like to take exception to some of the remarks made by the previous poster.
A certain Mr Salmond made some injudicious comments about a Mr Putin recently.
Injudicious comments are nothing new on this website as there have been instances of this recently from several sources.
However, our administrator, who regards Mr Salmond as the next person to be canonised, and who can do no wrong, seeks to trivialise the utterings as being " Hysterical Media Coverage" and that the remarks were "innocuous " and that Mr Salmond's speech was well received ( a whole transcript of the speech appears elsewhere on this site, if you can be bothered to wade through it - it is mainly a pro-independence diatribe aimed at convincing the Europeans that Scotland is on their side).
But to come back to the Putin issue - I find it hard to take anybody seriously who will not admit that their idol can occasionally have a lapse of judgement, and will fight tooth and nail to justify their injudicious remarks.
A suggestion - N.Bowles - you would have served your cause more by hoping it would go away and nobody else would bring it up, rather than stepping into the breech and trying to defend the indefensible.
This may put me near the borderline (or even over it) but sometimes things like this have to be challenged.

[NickB]

.
Well Jim,

Let me just refresh your memory with the exact words Salmond used, as you apparently didn't bother reading them before opening up with your scattergun of indignation..

Asked about Putin, Salmond said: "Well, obviously, I don't approve of a range of Russian actions, but I think Putin's more effective than the press he gets I would have thought, and you can see why he carries support in Russia."

Pressed on whether he admires the Russian leader, the First Minister said: "Certain aspects. He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing. There are aspects of Russian constitutionality and the inter-mesh with business and politics that are obviously difficult to admire. Russians are fantastic people, incidentally, they are lovely people."

Now, perhaps you can give me your detailed analysis of his words and explain to me exactly why they are 'indefensible', because, frankly, I don't get it.

~ Is it the word 'effective' you object to?

~ Do you disagree with the statement that Putin carries support in Russia?

~ Do you think the restoration of Russian pride is an inherently bad thing?

~ Do you object to the statement that Russians are lovely people ?

I'm sorry Jim, but I just don't get it. What you seem to be telling me is that because your newspaper of choice (the Telegraph I presume?) tells you to be outraged by these anodyne remarks everyone shoujdl be outraged. There is absolutely nothing in these words to upset anyone apart from those determined to be upset by anything and everything the Archdemon Salmond says.

[Innes Newton]

I think Jim is absolutely right.

Alex Salmond does seem to regularly show poor judgement. That's why he supported Fred the Shred of RBS. That's why he put Al Megrahi's human rights ahead of his victims. That's why he spoke of his admiration for Vladimir Putin. Who is beginning to demonstrate some of Adolf Hitler's traits. Alex Salmond has poor judgement. Especially of the truth.

But what is more galling is that people like you support every gaffe he makes, blindly following HIM like some demi-God hanging off every word he utters (Adolf Hitler was adored in a similar way). It's only right people question your sanity when presented with the reality of the situation.

Salmond is a dangerous man for Scotland.

[NickB]

That's why he spoke of his admiration for Vladimir Putin.

The only thing Salmond said he admired Putin for was that "He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing"

It is interesting that you object to this, Innes.

There is of a side to the independence movement that is all about restoring (Scottish) national pride, and of course that appals you. You and your fellow UKOKS want to make us all understand that we can never be a real country, that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to ever govern ourselves.

So I see why restoring national pride is not high on your list of admirable traits - though paradoxically enough you bang on about British pride often enough.

Tell me Innes, what is the difference between a Russian's pride in his country, a Scot's pride in his country and a BritNat like yourself's pride in the UK ? Is one (yours) OK while the other two are just petty, dangerous nationalism ?

[jimcee]

Well obviously I have to make some sort of reply to all those accusations.
First of all, let me say that I have no access to all the transcripts that N.Bowles seems to be privy toI only have recourse to the headlines on the newspapers on display at the entrance to Tesco.
From these it appeared that Mr Salmond had made remarks which rather supported Mr Putin's actions in the recent conflict in Ukraine.
To me this was counter to the current reportage of the situation where Ukraine was exercising it's independence (a thing close to Mr Salmond's heart) and Mr Putin was having none of this and throwing his might behind Russia in the standoff. As an outsider who has never been closer to Ukraine than Poland, I know little about internal politics, but history is full of large powerful nations imposing their will on ones that cannot fight back (lots of examples if you request them).
Anyway, back to Mr Salmond - for a start, why did he have to get involved - unless it was to prove that he was able to take a place on the world stage.
Now dealing with the points in his statement "He carries the support of Russia" No brainer - of course he has the support of Russia - but probably not so much support in Ukraine (where the problem is).
2) " He restored Russian pride" Did Russian pride needed restoring? and did the man in the street in Moscow feel chuffed?
3) "Russians are fantastic people, incidentally, they are lovely people" - that is fatuous to the extreme
- nobody is going to say that the any other nation are a load of rubbish and are of no account.
But what has the character of the Russian people got to do with Mr Putin and his endorsement by Mr Salmond?

[Innes Newton]

Nick....Yes, you, the Englishman. What about you having a bit of pride in your country, Britain? You can be English and British, Scottish and British, but you insult both English by turning your back on the country of your birth, and Scots by pretending to be one just because you live there. Where is your pride in the country that gave you a start in life, an education, a passport to the world?

A great statesman needs to be one step ahead. Instead of saying he admired Putin, Salmond should have slammed Putin for his stance on homosexuality, murdering dissidents in London, sending spy planes towards Scotland, provoking and undermining the government in Ukraine and for being so corrupt, there is no equal in history. And that's not to mention all sorts of other nasty things he is doing elsewhere, such as supporting Assad in Syria and the suppression of peoples who want the right to self-determination. Yes Salmond supports Putin raising pride in their nation in the same way Hitler did with the Third Reich.

End of.

[NickB]

First of all, let me say that I have no access to all the transcripts that N.Bowles seems to be privy toI only have recourse to the headlines on the newspapers on display at the entrance to Tesco.

I have quoted the exact words that Salmond used in his interview with GQ magazine. (You will be able to get a copy on Thursday in most newsagents).

Nothing he said in any way condoned Russia's actions in the Ukraine - quite the opposite.

How you can presume to 'debate' based on your interpretation of some newspaper headlines you have seen on the way into Tescos in preference to examining the actual words Salmond said beggars belief.

.

[NickB]

Nick....Yes, you, the Englishman. What about you having a bit of pride in your country, Britain?

People like you make me ashamed of 'Britain'. (No such country, actually . . . . )

Scotland is my country.

[Innes Newton]

Disowned or exiled?

[NickB]

Disowned or exiled?

Seems to me I have lived in Scotland considerably longer than you ever did.

[NickB]

First of all, let me say that I have no access to all the transcripts that N.Bowles seems to be privy toI only have recourse to the headlines on the newspapers on display at the entrance to Tesco.

You must have missed the Times headline at the end of September :

Vladimir Putin: The Times International Person of the Year

Anyway . . . back to my point, which you have so ably assisted me in making Jim. The UK papers chose to blow out of all proportion a few words out of an interview Salmond actually gave 6 weeks ago in preference to reporting on his Bruges speech.

[Innes Newton]

So, you support Putin?

For me he has always been the baddie. And now we are beginning to see his real metal. We should all be a little afraid.

[NickB]

So, you support Putin?

For me he has always been the baddie. And now we are beginning to see his real metal. We should all be a little afraid.

Of course I don't support Putin. Neither does Salmond.

What a strange black and white world you live in.

[jimcee]

This is getting ridiculous - you two trading insults over nationality.
Getting back to Mr Putin - I Newton has put out a large dossier of things which make him less than desirable as a leader to be proud of (all of which seem to be true) yet our esteemed leader (currently) seems to favour his credentials.
Nick, you cannot deny that Mr Salmond had a good word to say for Mr Putin, in whatever context, but surely that was a bit misguided under the circumstances.
I do not expect you to agree with this statement as your blinkered view on the situation will not permit you any deviation from the fact that anything issuing from Mr Salmond is a pearl of wisdom beyond reproach, and if others take exception to it, then they are at fault - and not your guru.

[NickB]

Nick, you cannot deny that Mr Salmond had a good word to say for Mr Putin, in whatever context, but surely that was a bit misguided under the circumstances.

What circumstances ?

The interview was given on the 14th of March. At that point in time the Crimean referendum had not been held and Russia had not annexed Crimea.

Why do you think the newspapers chose to write lurid articles about that interview six weeks later on the day of Salmond's Bruges speech? It was hardly 'news', was it ?

Just coincidence ?

[Innes Newton]

The interview was given on the 14th of March

That's rubbish Nick. Putin's subversion in Ukraine was worldwide news in February. ( http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... der-putins ) Long before Salmond made his comments in March.

Once again you defend the Great Leader when there is no defence for doing so.

[NickB]

That's rubbish Nick

It's not rubbish. Everything I said in the brief post above was true. The Crimean referendum and annexation happened after the interview had been given on March 14th.

You are far too keen on sweeping defamatory statements, Innes. I don't suppose there is any point in asking for an apology though, so let's move on :

Why do you think the newspapers chose to report this obscure six week old interview on the day they did ?

Do you really believe that newspapers don't manipulate the 'news' for their own ends, to fit their own editorial stance ?

[Innes Newton]

The interview was given on the 14th of March. At that point in time the Crimean referendum had not been held and Russia had not annexed Crimea

I'm not making a defamatory sweeping statement at all. I'm saying everyone knew what Putin was doing to destabilise Ukraine in the middle of February, yet Salmond, when interviewed a month later cannot find it in himself to, at the very least, criticise Putin for his attacks on homosexuality, murdering dissidents in London, sending spy planes towards Scotland, provoking and undermining the government in Ukraine and for being so corrupt, there is no equal in history. And that's not to mention all sorts of other nasty things he is doing elsewhere, such as supporting Assad in Syria and the suppression of peoples who want the right to self-determination.

Presumably the papers thought this story was more interesting and more revealing than the grovelling, patronising speech Salmond gave to the EU.

[NickB]

Salmond, when interviewed . . . cannot find it in himself to, at the very least, criticise Putin for his attacks on homosexuality, murdering dissidents in London, sending spy planes towards Scotland, provoking and undermining the government in Ukraine

Do you not understand how an interview works?

Salmond was asked some questions. He answered them.

He specifically said obviously, I don't approve of a range of Russian actions.

I am rather assuming that range of actions includes all the things you list. What do you think he was referring to by 'a range of actions' ? Bare chested horse riding ? NO, I rather suspect that if the interviewer had asked him to elaborate he would have gone on to give a very similar list to your own.

I've given you the whole text on the 'admiration for Putin' thing. Why don't you actually read it instead of frothing at the mouth?

Or are you like Jimcee, taking your opinions wholesale and uncritically from the newspaper headlines at the supermarket door ?