Former Salmond staffer rejects Sturgeon claims in book as ‘obviously false'
Geoff Aberdein, who worked for Mr Salmond when he was first minister, hit out at Ms Sturgeon, saying: 'I was brought up that you didn't speak ill of the dead.
'But I think if you're going to speak ill of the dead, at least make your claims accurate.'
He told the Holyrood Sources podcast that Mr Salmond's widow Moira was 'particularly upset and frustrated at a lot of what has been said' about her late husband, who died suddenly in October 2024.
Mr Aberdein continued: 'I think it was important to set out and correct the record not just because Alex is not in position to defend himself, but for myself as well and the series of other officials and civil servants that have contacted me.'
Claims that Mr Salmond was the person who leaked the story of the sexual harassment allegations against him are 'obviously false', Mr Aberdein insisted.
He said that when his former boss took the phone call to say the story about the allegations was being published by the Daily Record he was actually meeting lawyers to 'draft a legal summons to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's Government from making the allegations public'.
Mr Aberdeen said: 'To suggest Alex was simultaneously leaking documents deeply damaging to his reputation whilst at the same time paying lawyers a lot of money to get a court order to prevent publication of the same material is just utterly absurd.'
Mr Salmond went on to be acquitted of all the charges against him in a court case in 2020.
Mr Aberdein also dismissed claims by Ms Sturgeon that Mr Salmond 'didn't read' the white paper on independence which had been produced by the Scottish government in the run up to the 2014 referendum.
In her recently published memoir, Frankly, Ms Sturgeon spoke out about her 'cold fury' with her former leader over his 'abdication of responsibility' on the key document.
Mr Aberdein – who said he would not be reading the book – accepted that his former boss 'delegated the responsibility for drafting the white paper to Nicola Sturgeon'.
However he insisted: 'To suggest, as I think was the purpose of this story, that he wasn't engaged in the process of a prospectus for independence is utterly nonsense.
The former Salmond chief of staff also rejected claims that Mr Salmond was 'apparently against same-sex marriage' – saying that this was 'demonstrably false'.
Mr Aberdein told the podcast Mr Salmond had 'declared his personal support for gay marriage for the first time' in a newspaper article in April 2011.
And he added that while the SNP election manifesto that year had pledged to consult on the issue Mr Salmond 'chose to come out… excuse the pun, the turn of phrase, ahead of that result, to say that he personally supported it.'
With the SNP having won the 2011 Holyrood election, Mr Aberdein recalled 'being in the room with advisors, civil servants and indeed ministers about how we would go about reassuring different sections of our society about that legislation, particularly religious leaders and other civic leaders'.
He also made the 'obvious point' that 'if Alex Salmond didn't want legislation to be progressed, he was the first minister of a majority SNP government, it wouldn't have been progressed'.
Mr Aberdeen said: 'The point falls down on that alone.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
It's been a confusing week - and Trump's been made to look weak
It's been a confusing week. The Monday gathering of European leaders and Ukraine's president with Donald Trump at the White House was highly significant. The leaders went home buoyed in the knowledge that they'd finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe, and he had committed to provide American "security guarantees" to Ukraine. 0:49 The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week - we got some noise about American air cover - but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine - "it's Europe's problem" and all the rest of it. Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russia would have a problem with it. Trump's envoy's language last weekend - claiming that Putin had agreed to Europe providing "Article 5-like" guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket - was baffling. 0:50 Russia gives two fingers to the president And throughout this week, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine. "The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia," he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years. Remember that NATO's "eastern encroachment" was the justification for Russia's "special military operation" - the invasion of Ukraine - in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak. It's two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That's telling. 4:02 The bilateral meeting hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close - "within two weeks" - looks decidedly doubtful. Maybe that's why he went along with Putin's suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first. It's easier for the American president to blame someone else if it's not his meeting, and it doesn't happen. NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees - the ones Russia won't accept - will work. European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: "It's not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!" The argument goes that it's not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops. 5:57 Would Trump threaten force? The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements. The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: "Vladimir - look what I did to Iran...". But, of course, Iran isn't a nuclear power. Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a "security guarantee" is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future. Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don't see Trump's America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything. A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another "justification" to push back. Image and reality don't seem to match Among Trump's stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit. He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev - an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union. That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don't match. The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
4chan will refuse to pay daily UK fines, its lawyer tells BBC
A lawyer representing the online message board 4chan says it won't pay a proposed fine by the UK's media regulator as it enforces the Online Safety to Preston Byrne, managing partner of law firm Byrne & Storm, Ofcom has provisionally decided to impose a £20,000 fine "with daily penalties thereafter" for as long as the site fails to comply with its request."Ofcom's notices create no legal obligations in the United States," he told the BBC, adding he believed the regulator's investigation was part of an "illegal campaign of harassment" against US tech has declined to comment while its investigation continues. "4chan has broken no laws in the United States - my client will not pay any penalty," Mr Byrne began investigating 4chan over whether it was complying with its obligations under the UK's Online Safety in August, it said it had issued 4chan with "a provisional notice of contravention" for failing to comply with two requests for said its investigation would examine whether the message board was complying with the act, including requirements to protect its users from illegal content.4chan has often been at the heart of online controversies in its 22 years, including misogynistic campaigns and conspiracy are anonymous, which can often lead to extreme content being posted. 'First Amendment rights' In a statement posted on X, law firms Byrne & Storm and Coleman Law said 4chan was a US company incorporated in the US, and therefore protected against the UK law."American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email," they wrote."Under settled principles of US law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes. "If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in US federal court to confirm these principles."They said authorities in the US had been "briefed" on their response to Ofcom's statement concludes by calling on the Trump administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers to protect American businesses from "extraterritorial censorship mandates".Ofcom has previously said the Online Safety Act only requires services to take action to protect users based in the UK. UK backs down Some American politicians - particularly the Trump administration, its allies and officials - have pushed back against what they regard as overreach in the regulation of US tech firms by the UK and EU. A perceived impact of the Online Safety Act on free speech has been a particular concern, but other laws have also been the source of 19 August, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the UK had withdrawn its controversial demand for a "backdoor" in an Apple data protection system - saying she worked with the President and Vice President to get the UK to abandon its days later, US Federal Trade Commission chairman Andrew Ferguson warned big tech firms they could be violating US law if they weakened privacy and data security requirements by complying with international laws such as the Online Safety Act."Foreign governments seeking to limit free expression or weaken data security in the United States might count on the fact that companies have an incentive to simplify their operations and legal compliance measures by applying uniform policies across jurisdictions," he 4chan does successfully fight the fine in the US courts, Ofcom may have other options."Enforcing against an offshore provider is tricky," Emma Drake, partner of online safety and privacy at law firm Bird and Bird, told the BBC. "Ofcom can instead ask a court to order other services to disrupt a provider's UK business, such as requiring a service's removal from search results or blocking of UK payments."If Ofcom doesn't think this will be enough to prevent significant harm, it can even ask that ISPs be ordered to block UK access." Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Lucy Connolly to speak out for first time since being released from prison
Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for stirring up racial hatred against asylum seekers online on the day of the Southport murders, is expected to speak out on Friday for the first time since being released from prison. The 42-year-old, wife of Conservative councillor Raymond Connolly, left HMP Peterborough on Thursday morning and it is understood she will be doing limited media interviews a day after walking free. She spent time with her husband, daughter and parents on the day of her release and was pictured walking her dogs in the evening, the Daily Mail reported. Ms Connolly was handed a 31-month sentence after she posted on X: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X and was jailed at Birmingham Crown Court in October last year. The former childminder, from Northampton, was ordered to serve 40% of her sentence in prison before being released on licence. It is understood that Ms Connolly was a passenger in a white taxi which left HMP Peterborough via the vehicle airlock, a set of two gates exiting the prison, shortly after 10am on Thursday. Her case has sparked debate, with some criticising her sentence as excessive. Reacting to her release, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Connolly's sentence was 'harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting'. In a post on X, Ms Badenoch compared Ms Connolly's case with that of Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor who was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder at an anti-racism rally in the wake of the Southport murders. Writing on X, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Juries are a cornerstone of justice, but we shouldn't have to rely on them to protect basic freedoms. 'Protecting people from words should not be given greater weight in law than public safety. If the law does this, then the law itself is broken – and it's time Parliament looked again at the Public Order Act.' Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described Ms Connolly's case as a 'symbol of Keir Starmer's authoritarian, broken, two-tier Britain'. A bid to challenge her sentence at the Court of Appeal was dismissed in May, which was described by Mr Connolly as 'shocking and unfair'. The Northampton town councillor, and former West Northamptonshire district councillor, said his wife had 'paid a very high price for making a mistake'. But Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. He was asked in May about Ms Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' Ms Connolly was arrested on August 6, by which point she had deleted her social media account, but other messages which included further racist remarks were uncovered by officers who seized her phone. The post was viewed 310,000 times in three and a half hours before she deleted it.
