Nicola Sturgeon tells of sectarian abuse she faced in Glasgow's Govan
Dozens of copies were displayed, and our sister title the Glasgow Times was able to purchase one.
She was the SNP candidate for Govan in the 1997 General Election a young "rising star" in the SNP.
Soon, she realised that there would be more to politics in this constituency than the issues of the day.
Read Next:
She said: 'I was chased away from one door with shouts of 'Fenian B******' ringing in my ears'.
She added that there were 'whispers percolating around the constituency that I was an active supporter of the IRA.'
The former First Minister said: ' It was deeply unpleasant and an unwelcome education in the darker 'arts' of political campaigning.'
The MSP recalled: 'Although I had grown up in Ayrshire, I had never experienced the depth of sectarianism I encountered in parts of Govan.'
She said the sectarianism was 'particularly perplexing' given she had 'grown up, nominally at least, as a Protestant in the Church of Scotland.'
What the abuse did was, she said, let her see what others had to endure.
She said: 'It was also horribly eye-opening to (see) what the Irish Catholic community has suffered for far too long.'
The root of the abuse, she said appeared to be because her campaign team would frequent the Govan Arms Pub, which she was known to be 'strongly Celtic supporting'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What J.K. Rowling misses about Sturgeon's memoir
When someone one day writes a true history of Scotland during the baleful tenure of Nicola Sturgeon and reflects on what brought about her downfall as first minister, 'Isla' Bryson might be worth a footnote but J.K. Rowling surely merits a chapter. No one has managed to articulate the opposition case to Sturgeon with the verve, intelligence and penetrating wit of the Harry Potter author. Rowling's review of Frankly, Sturgeon's recently published memoir, is in many ways as brilliant as her other mainly tweeted thrusts. It is incisive and damming, outclassing her adversary and doing so with courage humour and originality. In other ways though it misses the mark, failing, as many observers of Scottish politics do, to see the details in the rotting wood for the petrified forest of trees. What is good is Rowling comparing Sturgeon to Bella Swan, heroine of the Twilight series, in that it conjures the image of blood being sucked from the body politic of Scotland (the SNP have been positively vampiric in their predations). It also highlights the eternally adolescent quality of the Sturgeon persona, a woman who had never had a serious job outside politics, a woman who avoids all serious scrutiny (even yesterday she cancelled what could have been uncomfortable interviews with the media) a woman who didn't learn to drive until she was in her 50s, a woman who recently got a tattoo. Sturgeon never moved on from her teenage obsession with independence. She never seriously addressed independence's huge practical obstacles or seemed interested in doing so, and certainly does not attempt this in Frankly. She never seems to have acquired wisdom or depth or humility, and never truly managed to emerge from the shadow of a charismatic mentor – Alex Salmond. Rowling takes a well-aimed swipe too at Sturgeon's propagandistic assertions that the 2014 referendum was a glorious inclusive positive exercise in democracy, a revisionist mantra from the still active veterans of the Yes camp repeated so often it's in danger of becoming accepted as gospel truth. The actions of those Yes voters at the time would suggest otherwise. As Rowling says: 'Oddly, this message didn't resonate too well with No voters who were being threatened with violence, told to fuck off out of Scotland, quizzed on the amount of Scottish blood that ran in their veins, accused of treachery and treason and informed that they were on the wrong side of, as one 'cybernat' memorably put it, 'a straightforward battle between good and evil.'' She is also right to have a dig at Sturgeon's 'London friends' who were dazzled and beguiled by the first minister, and couldn't see or were not interested in hearing about her and her party's endless failings. Rowling points out that these serial calamities get no serious mention in the book. As she rightly says, the omission of any reference to Scotland's soaring drugs deaths figures in particular is, frankly, appalling. Rowling is also relentless and remorseless in highlighting the dangers of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRRB) and the culture of intolerance and vilification of any criticism Sturgeon engendered in its wake. Many political commentators focus on this piece of legislation in terms of its apparent consequences for Sturgeon's career, for her party, and for the broader independence cause, ignoring or downplaying the surely more important point that it relegated biological women to a sub category, putting them potentially in harm's way, and then told them to shut up and live with it. As Rowling puts it: 'She's caused real, lasting harm by presiding over and encouraging a culture in which women have been silenced, shamed, persecuted and placed in situations that are degrading and unsafe, all for not subscribing to her own luxury beliefs.' But where Rowling perhaps misses the target is in taking Sturgeon's support for the GRRB at face value, in assuming that her interest in self-ID was genuine and sincere. She says that Sturgeon was 'unshakeable in her belief that if men put on dresses and call themselves women they can only be doing so with innocent motives.' Really? Not everyone agrees with that, starting with Alex Salmond who once remarked that Sturgeon had never shown any interest in the issue of gender self-ID in the long time that he had known her, hinting in that Salmond-ish way that perhaps something else was going on. To find out what that something might be, one must, as so often with Scottish politics, depart the mainstream and head to the media by-waters, to the bloggers that pick through the rank smelling weeds of Scottish politics. Robin MacAlpine, a freelance journalist and former director of the Common Weal think tank (and independence supporter) has charted Sturgeon's shifting positions on gender issues over her career and sees them in purely strategic terms. As he puts it: 'Sturgeon and Murrell operated through fear… and their most aggressive punishers were young, digitally savvy activists – who happened to be strongly committed to trans politics. Sturgeon's most effective thug squad had to be kept placated. That (I believe) is why Sturgeon was so quick to announce gender ID legislation and so slow to produce it. She needed their rage, but not the legislative headache…' Which might explain the initial interest. But why then actually push for full enactment of self-ID? Why not just fudge the issue? MacAlpine explains: 'Then something else happened; the fall-out of the Salmond trial and the parliamentary inquiry. This nearly finished her career and some of the most dangerous revelations were down to her lack of a parliamentary majority when the Greens voted for disclosure. It is really important to understand the significance of this. Sturgeon was utterly desperate to close down the Scottish Parliament as a body that would scrutinise her and the way to do that was to have an overall majority bound by collective responsibility.' MacAlpine points out that Sturgeon could have had a parliamentary majority with the Scottish Greens in 2016. But she didn't pursue one, preferring to pass most of her legislation with votes from the Scottish Tories. MacAlpine calls the Bute House agreement an 'anti-transparency' move which he believes was designed to ensure total control at a critical moment and ensure the Greens were friends not foes. In other words, the GRRB perhaps had little to do with trans rights and was more about keeping a lid on a potentially explosive scandal. In which case, the cause of independence, her party's reputation, the women and girls of Scotland were expendable. Rowling ends by admitting she may have missed the point of Frankly, that perhaps it isn't intended to entertain, or enlighten but to serve as a CV distinguisher, and assist her on the way to her long coveted 'cushy sinecure' with UN Women. Well perhaps, though cynics might suggest that unlike the ferry Sturgeon 'launched' back in 2017, that ship has sailed. More likely Frankly is not just a CV distinguisher. It may just be a pre-emptive plea for mitigation.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
BBC Scotland slammed for ‘farcical' Debate Night impartiality ruling
The BBC hosted a 'Glasgow Special' episode of the show on the night of June 4 – a day before voters were set to go to the polls for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. The panel show featured the SNP's Glasgow Council leader Susan Aitken, Scottish Tory MSP Annie Wells, Scottish Labour MSP Paul Sweeney, Labour peer Willie Haughey and artist David Eustace. An SNP source at the time told The National that Debate Night appears to have 'thrown the BBC's proposed guidance on balance out of the window' by including two Labour representatives. READ MORE: BBC Scotland breached accuracy standards with Labour peer on Debate Night This was before we subsequently revealed that Eustace also appears to be a prominent Scottish Labour supporter. The Glasgow Greens submitted a formal complaint to the BBC, highlighting that it has far more elected representatives than the Tories – for example – and branding it a 'farce'. Now, the BBC have also responded to the complaint and argued that the panel makeup didn't breach its impartiality guidelines. 'While the composition of the panel would have been inappropriate for an item governed by the BBC's election guidelines, these apply in the case of by-elections only to coverage of the by-election itself or the constituency in which it is taking place,' the organisation's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) ruled. 'The item in question was unconnected with the impending by-election, and focused on the future regeneration of Glasgow, a topic on which (as the ensuing discussion illustrated) there is a large measure of cross-party agreement.' The statement added: 'The ECU considered the composition of the panel appropriate to the circumstances and found no breach of the BBC's standards of impartiality.' (Image: Supplied) This was a point that Glasgow Greens councillor Anthony Carroll (above) still took issue with, branding the decision 'farcical'. 'Even by the BBC's standards, this was a panel that was not representative of Glasgow. The Greens came 3rd in every constituency just last year, and the 3rd largest party in the council with 11 councilors – having just won a by-election last year for our party's first time ever,' he said. "And yet the BBC think a panel of two Labour representatives and a supporter of that party is somehow representative of the city, but it's clearly not. If the BBC wants to be representative of Glasgow's politics then Green voices must be included in these debates.' The ECU did rule, however, that it has breached its standards of accuracy by not making it clear that Haughey – as well as a Labour donor – is a Labour peer. The Scottish Labour candidate, Davy Russell, ultimately won the Hamilton by-election by a little over 600 votes with the SNP's Katy Loudon coming second.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
BBC Scotland breached standards with Labour peer on Debate Night
The BBC hosted a 'Glasgow Special' episode of the show on the night of June 4 – a day before voters were set to go to the polls for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. The panel show featured the SNP's Glasgow Council leader Susan Aitken, Scottish Tory MSP Annie Wells, artist David Eustace as well as both Scottish Labour MSP Paul Sweeney and Labour peer Willie Haughey. But the BBC didn't disclose that Haughey is a Labour peer – instead describing him as an 'entrepreneur' on social media and a Labour donor. READ MORE: Scottish 85-year-old pens scathing letter to Keir Starmer over immigration rules He has donated over £1 million to the party between 2003 and 2010. Now, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has ruled that it represented a breach of the BBC's standards of accuracy. 'The ECU accepted that the programme should have made Lord Haughey's status as a Labour peer clear and agreed that not doing so represented a breach of the BBC's standards of accuracy,' it wrote. 'It noted, however, that BBC Scotland had already published a posting to that effect on the Corrections and Clarifications page of the BBC website, and considered this sufficient to resolve the issue of complaint.' But it was the makeup of the panel (below) that drew particular anger from the SNP and the Scottish Greens. (Image: BBC/Twitter) An SNP source at the time told The National that Debate Night appears to have 'thrown the BBC's proposed guidance on balance out of the window' by including two Labour representatives. This was before we subsequently revealed that Eustace also appears to be a prominent Scottish Labour supporter. The Glasgow Greens submitted a formal complaint to the BBC, highlighting that it has far more elected representatives than the Tories – for example – and branding it a 'farce'. Now, the BBC have also responded to the complaint and argued that the panel makeup didn't breach its impartiality guidelines. 'While the composition of the panel would have been inappropriate for an item governed by the BBC's election guidelines, these apply in the case of by-elections only to coverage of the by-election itself or the constituency in which it is taking place,' the ECU ruled. 'The item in question was unconnected with the impending by-election, and focused on the future regeneration of Glasgow, a topic on which (as the ensuing discussion illustrated) there is a large measure of cross-party agreement.' The statement added: 'The ECU considered the composition of the panel appropriate to the circumstances and found no breach of the BBC's standards of impartiality.'
