Salmond aide fury over Sturgeon 'falsehoods' about late FM
He then described the claims about Alex Salmond in Ms Sturgeon's memoir Frankly as: 'Falsehoods at worst, fabrications at best.'
Ms Sturgeon's book includes highly disputed claims Mr Salmond opposed gay marriage, failed to read the 650-page independence white paper and that he or an aide acting on his behalf may have been responsible for the leak to the Daily Record about the Scottish Government investigation into sexual harassment complaints against him.
She also denied there had been any "conspiracy" to ruin Mr Salmond's reputation - a claim the former Alba Party leader maintained until his death at the age of 69.
Ms Sturgeon said her former mentor "would have rather destroyed the SNP than see it succeed without him". She also claimed he "impugned the integrity of the institutions at the heart of Scottish democracy - government, police, Crown Office", adding: "He was prepared to traumatise, time and again, the women at the centre of it all."
Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond fell out dramatically in 2018 after it emerged her government had investigated misconduct complaints made against him by two female civil servants.
Mr Salmond had the probe struck down at the Court of Session as unfair, unlawful and "tainted by apparent bias", and was awarded £512,000 in legal costs.
He was later cleared of 13 sexual assault charges at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2020. He launched the Alba Party as a rival to the SNP a year later.
The former First Minister, who admitted he could have behaved better towards women on occasions, had always denied any criminality.
He sued the Scottish Government in November 2023 alleging there had been misfeasance by various civil servants under Ms Sturgeon and sought damages of around £3million.
Ms Sturgeon's claims have fuelled intense ill feeling among Mr Salmond's family, friends and political allies.
On Sunday, it emerged that the resolve of Mr Salmond's widow Moira had to proceed with the case was strengthened by attacks on her late husband in Ms Sturgeon's memoir, published last week.
The SNP was approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
UN case will determine who is entitled to call an indy referendum
However, Campbell seems to be under the illusion that either Westminster or the United Nations (UN) will grant us independence when in reality neither will for different reasons. In the case of Westminster, they lose territory, people, revenue and power, so they will never grant us the right to hold another referendum or grant us independence even if the polls were at 100% in favour. As such, we need a way forward to hold a legal referendum that Westminster can't do anything about. READ MORE: Every plan to achieve indy must be subject to the test of practicality With the UN, they act as a final court in international matters of decolonisation. As with any court, it is up to the petitioner to prove the case and by the same standard, for others to disprove the case. That can take a few years to reach a final decision. If we win, it doesn't mean that we automatically get independence, it means that the legal position of who can call an independence referendum changes from Westminster to Holyrood and it also means that the majority of UN members will back our claim if we become independent. It also means that whomever is in power in Holyrood at any time can call an independence referendum at a time of their choosing. In other words, Westminster can't veto a future referendum or tell us how many years we have to wait before the next one, and we can hold as many as we need to get the majority we need. I would say that's to our benefit. Yes, Campbell is correct in that we need to do a lot more to shift figures towards a large majority, but is it wasting the time of the UN to appeal to them for help when we have been at stalemate for the last 11 years and can't find a way forward, and the Westminster position is that we are subservient to them? After all, independence is the ultimate goal and that's a long-term solution and not a chant during a march with some flag-waving thrown in as well, no matter how enjoyable the marches are. READ MORE: Octopus Energy steps in as SNP members call to pause Scottish renewable projects One problem we have at present is the laws around electioneering outwith an official referendum/election. That effectively prevents open debate of all the issues from both sides, and we know that the Unionists don't want to debate the matter anyway. If you can't openly debate the issue, then you can't persuade the electorate to come over to the side of independence, and you can't persuade them that your points are valid. As it stands, if certain facts and figures have not been published in the red-top newspapers or by the BBC, then Unionists don't want to know them and claim that we are making them up. It was that open debate in 2014 that made a lot of people move from No to Yes. We need to be careful how we take the independence movement forward. Campbell isn't the first to advocate a more forceful protest and I've done so in the past myself so I'm not totally against the idea. However, I'm 70 years old with just a basic pension. The poll tax and bridge tolls were a long time ago now, it's time for us older ones to hand over the baton to the more active and just as willing Scots who want independence. Alexander Potts Kilmarnock IN his letter 'One election outcome in 2026 could open up multiple routes to indy' (Aug 18), Alistair Potter writes: 'The first-past-the-post plural voting system awards the majority of seats to the largest minority. Scotland uses the identical voting system in the constituencies, and then uses a list system to allocate seats on a proportional basis, which also serves the dual purpose of preventing a party that has done well in the constituencies from winning an even bigger disproportionate share of seats.' The plurality formula (known as FPTP or relative majority method) requires that to be elected a candidate only has to achieve a simple majority of votes (the largest amount of votes). READ MORE: SNP must not act as bystanders in run-up to next year's election List seats for the Scottish Parliament elections are allocated to the party or individual which has the highest regional figure at an allocation, after any recalculation has been made as a result of the previous allocation, NOT on a proportional basis. The effect of voting on the list for 'any indy party that is NOT the SNP' would be that the democratic legitimacy ends with the allocation of the first list seat because of the d'Hondt method being used in CONJUNCTION with FPTP. The sum of successful list allocation quotients for that party would be more than 400% greater than the actual votes received. The combination of the numbers of constituency seats won and list seats allocated (62 + 35) would be extremely disproportionate to the share of the vote (for the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections that would have meant 75% of the seats with only very slightly more than 50% of the vote). Scottish saying: Facts are chiels that winna ding – facts cannot lie. Michael Follon Glenrothes IT is refreshing to have a candidate for the Scottish Greens leadership stressing an environmental issue, in this case climate change ('I may be electoral risk but Greens need to focus on climate leadership', Aug 19). It makes a change from gender and other distractions. Remember, the Greens evolved from the Ecology Party, whose very name stressed environmental priority. Recognising the imminence of global population overshoot, they had a policy commitment to a birth rate well below the replacement rate (2.1 kids per woman). Some 25 years ago, however, that was airbrushed out of the 'Policy Reference Document' at a time when the gender brigade were taking over the party. READ MORE: Scottish Greens need to 'broaden appeal' outside middle class voters Sir David Attenborough has said there is no environmental problem which would not be eased through a lower population. Will the Greens take his message on board, especially now that even Scotland is in population overshoot as measured by our bio-capacity? George Morton Rosyth
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Comprehensive trade embargo would halt aggression by Israel
The severe human rights violations perpetrated by Israel in Palestine could be curtailed within a month through the implementation of a comprehensive trade embargo against Israel. This would entail prohibiting flights, maritime activities and tourism associated with the nation. Specifically, no overflights should be allowed through the airspace of civilised nations, no vessels should be permitted in territorial waters, and all engagement should be limited to communications through Israel's delegation at the United Nations – constituting an unequivocal boycott of what may be characterised as a terrorist state until the current regime, seen as criminal by many, is compelled to respond to the dissatisfaction of its own citizenry. READ MORE: Ken Loach protests against UK's Palestine Action terror label It is essential to acknowledge the complexities surrounding such an approach, particularly concerning the safeguarding of Israel from external assaults during a period of internal upheaval, with Iran being a potential aggressor. Moreover, Palestine must recognise that the reality of the situation has irrevocably changed, and the consequences of the controversial establishment of the Israeli state in 1947 must be confronted, even if it leads to heightened hostilities. Since its establishment, Israel has been a source of persistent conflict in the Levant, arguably contributing to many of the issues plaguing the Middle East today. An examination of the actions of the British government reveals a need for accountability. The superficial expressions of concern and ineffectual criticisms emanating from a government perceived as failing must be recognised for what they are: a façade intended to obscure its complicity and servitude to the current US administration. R Mill Irving Gifford, East Lothian I DISAGREE with Lorna Slater's suggestion concerning the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. Checks are indeed necessary, in terms of the human rights inclusion, on firms in Scotland that are still supplying materials that enable armaments being sold to Israel. But to go on and suggest that there is no point in having 'human rights' checks if they are never carried out is totally wrong and defeatist. Of course we do need to have the power in place that enables the government to carry out its duty in carrying out human rights checks. Why it does not do so I have no idea, unless it's anything like the English government and more concerned with the business ethic ... if there is such a thing in this case! READ MORE: Politicians across UK demand Keir Starmer impose sanctions on Israel The Scottish Government is making the same pathetic excuse as David Lammy, that such enterprise funding goes towards research, training and apprenticeships. In much the same way Lammy says that Westminster money is for parts for F-35 jets which are supplying Nato as well Israel. All these pathetic excuses are a load of bollocks as well as a load of baloney. We need whatever rules are in place where armaments sales to other countries are concerned, in order to hold governments to account when they are misused or not used. We all know that Scotland is almost surrounded by the seas and so needs protection of its land, sea and air. In his excellent piece in The National, Paul Laverty questions Ian Murray about the Israeli genocide. He raises Article 3 of the 1951 Genocide Convention, and says that direct action is an 'international obligation'. Laverty goes on to suggests that 'even a semi-competent monk administrator in the Middle Ages could organise a system where one recipient did not receive materials from a pool, if the will was there'. Says it all, really!! Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife APPALLING though the images from Gaza are, the fact remains that so long as Hamas refuse to release their hostages and also to recognise the right of Israel to exist, then Netanyahu has all excuses he needs to just carry on. Starmer's position has rightly been recognised as at best being 'confused' and at worst 'hopelessly inept'. It needs to be revised, and we need a new and co-ordinated international approach. The UK et al should commit to an immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, including acting to support its security and viability, conditional upon Hamas releasing the hostages and renouncing their long-held policy of seeking the destruction of Israel. Faced with this, what excuses would Netanyahu and the Zionists have left past sheer prejudice for ending hostilities and recognising that peace and justice go hand in hand? Of course, the international community would be looking for reasons to believe any commitment made by Hamas, but does anyone have a better option? Michael Collie Dunfermline
Scottish Sun
28 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Nicola Sturgeon hails JK Rowling amid 'complete f**kwit' trans row jibe
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NICOLA Sturgeon insists she still admires JK Rowling and buys her books - despite the Harry Potter author branding her 'a complete f**kwit'. The ex-first minister fired back in the war of words between the pair and called for the billionaire writer to face 'more scrutiny' over her stance on trans issues. Sign up for the Politics newsletter Sign up 3 Nicola Sturgeon admitted she still admires JK Rowling Credit: Alamy 3 The author penned a foul-mouthed review of Ms Sturgeon's new book Credit: PA 3 The former FM admitted still buying Harry Potter books despite her war of words with the author Credit: Getty Ms Rowling was a vocal critic of the gender recognition reforms championed by Ms Sturgeon and famously donned a t-shirt which branded the SNP MSP a 'destroyer of women's rights'. In her new autobiography, Ms Sturgeon said the stunt led to a surge of 'vile' abuse against her and made her feel 'more at risk' of physical harm. And in an interview with BBC Radio Ulster, Ms Sturgeon said: 'I have bought Harry Potter books for all of the kids in my life and I will continue to do so as long as they want to read them. 'I think she is an amazing talent and has done great things.' She added that Ms Rowling is 'absolutely entitled to speak her mind' but added: 'I don't admire the way some people have gone from speaking their minds on this issue to, almost it seems, to be punching down on trans people who have never harmed anybody at any point in their life. 'JK Rowling is absolutely entitled to her view, maybe putting herself up for a bit more scrutiny about her view would be helpful, but I don't criticise her for expressing her view. 'But I think I would like to see a bit less punching down on trans people to be perfectly frank.' In a scathing review of Ms Sturgeon's book, Frankly, the Harry Potter author slammed her for not addressing a string of scandals during her time leading the country including the delayed ferry scandal, deleted covid WhatsApp messages, drug deaths and education failings. But and her turned on her for the disastrous handling of the Isla Bryson saga when Ms Sturgeon was unable to say is the trans rapist - born male - was a man or a woman. Ms Rowling wrote: 'When asked on television whether bald, blonde wig-wearing Bryson was a man or a woman, the First Minister, whose composure and articulacy under fire had, for years, been her most potent political asset, made herself look – and forgive me for employing a PR term here – a complete f***wit.' Five of the biggest BOMBSHELL moments from Nicola Sturgeon's new memoir But Ms Sturgeon told BBC Radio Ulster's Nolan Show that she 'wasn't destroying women's rights', and added: 'Is it really the best way to elevate a debate, put a picture of yourself in a T-shirt with something like that? That is the point I am making.' Ms Sturgeon sparked fury when Holyrood debated proposals for her government to make it easier for trans people to legally change their gender - without any legal or medical certificates. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood but it was blocked by Westminster, with the changes never coming into force.
