Inside the Scottish media row at Nicola Sturgeon's book launch
I was among a pack of print journalists who turned up as instructed to a room inside the Edinburgh Futures Institute. When I arrived, I was told to 'hover with intent' by a press officer as the broadcast journalists would be questioning the former first minister first, followed by a print huddle.
I was happy to wait, though I did feel confused as normally the print journalists would listen in to the broadcast interviews for any news lines that would later come out anyway.
READ MORE: Robin McAlpine: Why I won't be reading Nicola Sturgeon's book
As others joined me outside room 2.35, one of the journalists from The Sun emerged from the room to say we could go in. Happy days.
But as we all sat next to our broadcast colleagues, print journalists were then asked to leave the room, which sparked a bit of a row.
One by one reporters began to make their case this was the way we always did things, and Sturgeon had witnessed it many times before. One broadcast journalist stuck up for us and explained we were not about to get in the way or interject in their interviews, we would just be staying quiet and listening in before getting our turn to ask questions, which is standard procedure. She was more than happy to accommodate it and no one else argued. So, no issues right?
But we were told repeatedly this was the way it had to be, while being given little explanation as to why. The main argument seemed to be that Sturgeon was short on time. Surely though we would be saving time if we listened into the broadcast questions, so as not to repeat them? No?
No. The press officer duly left huffing and puffing before Sturgeon herself emerged to announce this would now be a 'combined huddle' of broadcast and print, and she would only have time to take the odd question from print after broadcasters.
READ MORE: Scottish Government hits back at Tory MSP over Nicola Sturgeon memoir claims
In more than three years of working for The National, I had never come across such an arrangement, because it simply doesn't work, particularly when there is a clock to contend with. With bulky camera equipment set up, it is very difficult for print journalists to catch the attention of the interviewee as they struggle for space, so the result was that two or three print journalists got a question in, despite several more being present.
I should add that the broadcast journalists were also promised one-to-one time with Sturgeon but did not receive it after she turned up late.
In the end, all the papers and broadcasters in Scotland got a grand total of 14 minutes with Sturgeon, who seemed ready to leave before she arrived. She gave very short answers to questions and kept wanting to move on, saying things like 'next question'. It felt like she was telling us she didn't want to be there and we were wasting her time.
So, when you're watching clips of Sturgeon this week from STV or Sky News or LBC, now you know what really happened the other side of the cameras.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Shock number of pubs closing EVERY week in Britain revealed – with crippling Labour tax hikes blamed
EIGHT pubs are closing down every week in Britain amid crippling running costs and tax hikes, figures show. Boozer bosses have blamed Labour policies for the 'heartbreaking' rate of closures. Government figures show 209 pubs were shut in the first half of the year. That brings the total number of pubs calling a permanent last orders in the past five years to 2,283. Industry chiefs said the employer National Insurance rise and increasing staff costs were responsible. Hospitality venues have also seen their business rates discount slashed, which has saddled the sector with an extra £215million of tax. Supported by The Sun's Save Our Sups campaign, pub bosses are asking Chancellor Rachel Reeves for relief in the autumn Budget. Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, said the Government needs to act quickly to stop more closures. She said: 'Unfortunately, a lot of these pubs never come back. It's absolutely heartbreaking. 'There is a direct link between pubs closing for good and the huge jump in costs they have just endured. Pubs and brewers are important employers and are really valuable to local communities across the country. 'They have real social value. The Government needs to act at the Budget, with major reforms to business rates and beer duty.' Alex Probyn, practice leader at tax services firm Ryan, warned the squeeze on pubs is intensifying. Tiny English village that inspired the world's longest running soap opera is home to cosy historic pub and country walks He said: 'Slashing business rates relief for pubs from 75 per cent to 40 this year has landed the sector with an extra £215million in tax bills. 'For a small pub, that's a leap in the average bill from £3,938 to £9,451. 1
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Fury as 'arch-hypocrite' Angela Rayner is selling off allotments... but not in her patch
has been branded an 'arch-hypocrite' after she campaigned for allotments in her own constituency but sanctioned their sell-off elsewhere. Before Labour came to power, Ms Rayner flagged up the work on community sites, describing one as a 'fantastic initiative'. But since the party has led the Government, the Deputy Prime Minister, who also runs the Ministry of Housing, has personally approved the sale of eight allotment plots across the country. The sites owned by councils are protected from development or sale under the Allotments Act 1925 but this can be allowed with a sign-off from the housing minister. Among the allotment plots sold under Ms Rayner's watch is one in Storrington, West Sussex, to make way for 78 homes. Two in Bolsover, Derbyshire, are also earmarked for closure. It comes as councils face a reported £8billion funding shortfall by the end of this Parliament. Earlier this month, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Ms Rayner had put the 'nail in the coffin' of allotments by allowing councils to sell off the land. An allotment holder himself, Mr Corbyn said it would 'fill many with deep dismay'. But just three years ago, Ms Rayner visited a community garden allotment in Droylsden, Greater Manchester, praising it as a 'fantastic initiative'. Writing on her website, she added: 'Those that work on the allotment say the initiative has also helped them through some tough times and reduced loneliness and isolation in the area. 'They hold regular open days where residents can turn up and take food for free. The fruit and veg bags are topped up with store cupboard essentials to help those struggling with the cost of living crisis.' She also hailed other projects in her Ashton- under-Lyne constituency and Curzon Ashton Football Club which runs an allotment programme for ex-servicemen and women suffering from loneliness. Tory housing spokesman Paul Holmes said: 'Ms Rayner has been exposed as an arch-hypocrite, the ultimate Nimby who thinks selling off everyone else's allotments is fine – just not in her back yard. 'By declaring war on Jeremy Corbyn's treasured allotments, she has sown the seeds for the next iteration of Labour's Left-wing civil war. Rather than trying to prune her rivals by any means necessary, perhaps she should grow up and focus on what the country really needs to cultivate.' But a Ministry of Housing spokesman said ministerial approvals for sales last year, half of which were under the previous Tory government and half under Labour, were lower than in previous years. He added: 'We know how important allotments are for communities and that is why strict legal criteria are in place to protect them. 'It is simply untrue to suggest there is any change in the policy. The rules have been in place since 2016 and have not changed.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Arts venues that want to ban ideas they don't like forfeit any claim to public funds. Defund them. Let them close...
When it announced its ban on Kate Forbes, which it now says isn't a ban, Summerhall Arts promised 'robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that prevent this from happening again'. The happening in question was an on-stage chinwag with the Deputy First Minister during the Edinburgh Fringe. Summerhall explained that it was concerned about 'attracting those who share Kate Forbes's views'. I thought the Edinburgh Fringe was nothing but people who share Forbes's views, but Summerhall was not talking about the Highlands MSP's support for the national impoverishment plan more commonly known as 'independence'. No, they were referring to her gender-critical views. Summerhall said: 'We do not believe LGBTQ + rights, nor their existence, is up for debate.' It cited concerns for 'the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ artists, staff and audiences' and said 'a designated relaxed space' would be available for anyone affected. Anyone affected by Kate Forbes? Are we talking about the same Kate Forbes? 5ft 2in? Likes the Bible? So young she makes Ross Greer look middle-aged? It's hard to imagine a functioning adult who would require a safe space to protect them from Forbes. Summerhall was going on like it was hosting Hannibal Lecter rather than the most senior woman in Scottish politics. This is the sort of fankle you get into when you believe, or pretend to believe, that political speech – and mainstream political speech at that – is violence and oppression and literally genocide. There are people who feared Scotland would become McGilead if Forbes, a practising Christian, was elected First Minister, who also think women should be shunned for wilful disbelief in the doctrine of self-identification. That is what this is ultimately about: heresy. Forbes does not accept that the material reality of sex is transformed by the assertion of an invisible inner essence called gender identity. For that, anathema is pronounced upon her and she is to be excommunicated from polite society. Kate Forbes is not the fundamentalist here. One would have thought even that clanjamfrie of self-regarding midwits, the Edinburgh arts world, would have learned its lesson from the Joanna Cherry incident. Two years ago, the Stand Comedy Club tried to cancel a Fringe event featuring the former Nationalist MP, blaming staff disquiet over her views on women's sex-based rights. Cherry, an advocate of some standing, gently suggested the club seek some legal advice since what it was proposing amounted to unlawful discrimination. The Stand duly consulted a Rumpole or two, only to be told Cherry was right. The ferret not only reversed but did so while reading a grovelling letter of apology. Talk of cowards who would rather placate crybully censors than stand up for free expression brings us inevitably to Amina Shah, the chief executive of the National Library of Scotland (NLS). NLS was originally intending to include The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht in its 'Dear Library' exhibition. Edited by journalist Susan Dalgety and civil service insider Lucy Hunter Blackburn, it's a collection of essays penned by the women who fought against Nicola Sturgeon's Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The authors include people with sharply contrasting political views. If you want the definitive, behind-the-scenes account of what the Scottish Government tried to do and how they were stopped, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht is it. I heartily recommend it. Amina Shah seems less enamoured. Upon learning the book would be part of the exhibition, some LGBT+ activists on the NLS staff allegedly demanded it be removed as it contained 'hate speech' and its display would pose 'severe harm' to library employees. We have library employees in Scotland who are afraid books might hurt them. Every day, it becomes less and less baffling that we burned so many witches in this country. Rather than suggest these people seek help, or at least alternative employment, Shah dropped the book from the exhibition. It's not so much that Scotland's chief librarian caved into censors, it's that she did so with a book whose authors risked everything rather than shut up when they were told to. You can't always judge a book by its cover, but when the cover reads 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht', you can probably judge the authors. They kicked up a fuss – rightly so – and Shah has been hit with criticism and, it is said, a donor boycott. That these women were bolshie is commendable but what matters above all else is that they were right. The most powerful people in every sector of public life, enterprise, academia and the arts insisted they were wrong, and not just wrong but cruel, and not just cruel but bigoted. Their meetings were disrupted, their events cancelled, their jobs threatened, and their reputations tarnished on social media. They were exaggerating and misrepresenting. They didn't understand the law and should be disregarded. But they were right. The Supreme Court ruling in favour of For Women Scotland didn't make them right, it merely confirmed they had been all along. I happen to broadly agree with the book's authors, but even if I didn't – and especially if I didn't – I would want to learn exactly what they believe, and how they went about turning those beliefs into one of the most successful political campaigns in modern British history. Instead, there is a pronounced incuriosity, not only an intolerance towards ideas but a total indifference. Ideas are interactive; that's the point of them. One idea meets another and you take the best from both to form an even better idea. Not any more. Now, there are good ideas and bad ideas, and the bad ideas should not be considered. In fact they must be suppressed, because they have the power to harm and to corrupt. Orthodoxy is back, baby. Only it's no longer forbidding clerics or moral crusaders demanding filthy, dirty books be put on high shelves, it's people who imagine themselves to be enlightened and rational and liberal. For dark comedy, nothing at the Fringe can compete with the spectacle of social progressives inadvertently forming a Mary Whitehouse tribute act. Summerhall Arts relies heavily, and the National Library almost exclusively, on taxpayer subvention. Arts funding can be controversial. Some think it subsidises the cultural pursuits of affluent and otherwise privileged people. The search for truth, beauty and humanity should not belong to any one class or sector. It is the hallmark of a liberal society, a society in which liberty is used not only for transient gratification but to better understand the human, the ideal and the transcendental. Unfortunately, our cultural sector seems to be overrun with leaders who believe themselves already in possession of the truth, and uninterested, if not instinctively opposed, to the exploration of other ideas. An arts sector so ideologically prescriptive that it will not countenance wrongthink in its venues or on its bookshelves is one that has forfeited any claim to public funds. Institutions like Summerhall Arts and the National Library of Scotland should not benefit from the spoils of liberal society while having at its load-bearing walls with doctrinal sledgehammers. Defund them, let them close, and invest in new institutions that value free minds and free expression.
