Sturgeon: I was not victim of ‘coercive control' by former mentor Salmond
She also said that her confidence could be 'knocked' by disapproval from Mr Salmond – saying her former boss and one-time mentor 'probably played on that a little bit'.
Advertisement
And while she said she had heard rumours of 'consensual affairs', she had no knowledge of any 'inappropriate sexual behaviour on his part'.
The former SNP leader spoke about her relationship with Mr Salmond as she appeared at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on Thursday.
Nicola Sturgeon was questioned on her relationship with her predecessor, Alex Salmond (Andrew Milligan/PA)
While she said they had an 'incredibly successful partnership' at one point, their relationship broke down after allegations against Mr Salmond emerged.
The former first minister went on trial on a series of sexual assault charges in 2020, with this resulting in Mr Salmond being acquitted of all the charges against him.
Advertisement
Speaking about him to broadcaster Kirsty Wark, Ms Sturgeon said: 'I did not have knowledge of inappropriate behaviour on his part, any inappropriate sexual behaviour.'
However, she said: 'I heard rumours over the years about affairs, consensual affairs. I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that that was none of my business, what consenting adults get up to is their business.'
Pressing the former first minister on her relationship with her predecessor, Ms Wark said that Ms Sturgeon's newly published memoirs, Frankly, portrayed Mr Salmond as 'almost Svengali like'.
The journalist added: 'In a way, there's almost like a thread of coercive control at some times in this book from Alex Salmond.'
Advertisement
Ms Sturgeon rejected this, saying she 'wouldn't describe it as that'.
She said Mr Salmond, who died in October 2024, had been 'an incredibly strong, incredibly charismatic individual', adding that for much of her life 'he was a force for good'.
Nicola Sturgeon was close friends with Alex Salmond but they fell out in the later years of his life (Jane Barlow/PA)
Speaking about him, Ms Sturgeon said: 'He encouraged me to reach beyond what I would have considered my abilities to be, he pushed me on.
'I once said, ages ago, that he believed in me before I believed in myself.'
Advertisement
But she added that 'his approval mattered to me and his disapproval knocked my confidence'.
Ms Sturgeon continued: 'Latterly, he probably played on that a little bit.'
Nicola Sturgeon, centre, with broadcaster Kirsty Wark, left, ahead of her appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival (Jane Barlow/PA)
Ms Wark suggested that Mr Salmond had 'definitely undermined' Ms Sturgeon 'a lot of the time'.
The former first minister, however, told her: 'He also bolstered me a lot of the time.'
Advertisement
Recalling Mr Salmond, Ms Sturgeon said that to describe him as a bully 'is maybe putting it too strongly', but she added that 'he could behave in a bullying manner'.
Asked if she challenged his behaviour, the former first minister stated: 'I don't think I did it enough, but yes, I did.
'I would on occasion, people would have seen me do it, when he was giving the hairdryer treatment to whatever member of staff, I would say, 'enough Alex'.'
But she added: 'I wish I had done it more.'
After she took over as leader of the SNP, Mr Salmond had advised her not to keep her then husband, Peter Murrell, in his post as chief executive of the party.
At the time, Ms Sturgeon rejected this, with Mr Murrell only stepping down from the role in March 2023 – the month after Ms Sturgeon announced her decision to step down as first minister and SNP leader.
She said: 'I can look back now and say, maybe, I should have taken a different decision.
'That is something I probably got wrong.'
The couple have now separated and, in March this year, the former SNP chief executive appeared in court charged with embezzlement following a police investigation into party finances,
However, Ms Sturgeon insisted that she 'did not think' her decision to keep her then-husband in his party role was the start of the the 'fissure' in her relationship with Mr Salmond.
'I don't think that created any tension between us,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender
A campaign group which won a legal victory on the definition of gender is taking action against the Scottish Government over policies it says are 'inconsistent' with the ruling. For Women Scotland's legal battle with Scottish ministers on the definition of a woman ended in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. However, the group said that it now has 'little choice' but to take further legal action as some policies regarding transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody remain in place – which the group said is 'in clear breach of the law'. The schools guidance for single-sex toilets says it is important that young people 'where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. The prison guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the women's estate if the person does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis to suppose that she poses an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women's estate. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. It has raised an ordinary action for reduction (quashing) of the policies relating to schools and prisons. In a statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. 'We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' For Women Scotland previously brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Yvette Cooper defends Palestine Action's proscription as a terror group
Yvette Cooper has defended her decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. The Home Secretary labelled Palestine Action as more than 'a regular protest group', adding that protest and free speech remain 'an important part of our democracy' which will 'always be protected'. But the organisation has carried out 'an escalating campaign', Ms Cooper said. Writing in The Observer, she added: 'Some may think it is a regular protest group known for occasional stunts. But that is not the extent of its past activities.' The Home Secretary said counterterrorism intelligence's 'disturbing information' about future attacks showed the organisation passed the tests to be proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act. 'Protecting public safety and national security are at the very heart of the job I do,' she said. 'Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, the Government would rightly be condemned for not acting sooner to keep people safe.' She said only a tiny minority of people who had protested in support of Palestinian people since the start of the Gaza conflict had been arrested. 'That is why the proscription of this group is not about protest or the Palestinian cause,' Ms Cooper said. 'In a democracy, lawful protest is a fundamental right but violent criminality is not.' On Friday, the Metropolitan Police said more than 700 people have been arrested for supporting the group since it was banned on July 5. The force said a further 60 people will be prosecuted for support of Palestine Action, while Norfolk Police said on Saturday that 13 people were arrested at a protest in Norwich. Last week, the Met confirmed the first three charges in England and Wales for offences under the Terrorism Act relating to Palestine Action. The three people charged were arrested at a protest in Parliament Square on July 5. More prosecutions are expected in the coming weeks, and arrangements have been put in place 'that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary', the Met said. Supporters of Palestine Action have described the ban as a 'gross abuse of power' that stifles expressions of support. The group was proscribed after activists allegedly broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and vandalised two military aircraft, causing £7m of damage. A High Court hearing is set to take place in November challenging the group's ban as a terror organisation.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has carried through one of the worst legacies of Tony Blair: ‘lawyer brain'
The recent spectacle of the Metropolitan police rounding up 500 peaceful protestors, half of them pensioners, for supporting a 'terrorist organisation' whose terrorist activities include spraying some paint on an empty plane does have one saving grace: it makes it clear what the Labour Party thinks about the public's right to dissent. Keir Starmer has been fond of juridical high-handedness for as long as he has been the Prime Minister: following the riots in Southport last year, he supported the police's round-up of over thirty people for their indiscretions on X, arguing that such posts were 'not free speech', and promising that online instigators would feel 'the full force of the law'. Now, the same treatment is being visited on middle-class, middle-aged liberals. Interestingly, though, rather than making any moral arguments in favour of the proscription, Labour partisans have decided that the best tactic is to keep repeating the statutes that enact it. Dan Jarvis argues that 'the UK's definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since'; Lord Hanson of Flint spent most of a recent Lords debate repeating the line 'the terms of the proscription are clear' (as if, say, the Nuremberg Laws weren't pretty clear too). The fact that anyone in the Labour Party finds this kind of thing even remotely satisfying, or even coherent, suggests that the party is in the throes of a very specific pathology: 'lawyer brain'. In its broadest form, 'lawyer brain' is the belief that legislation alone can solve all human problems, and that the law is the law, whether it is ethically sound or not. Anything can be justified, provided it meets arbitrary legal standards of legality. Elderly protestors can be arrested if they meet definitions of 'terrorism'. Online posters can be rounded up if they meet definitions of 'incitement'. It certainly seems to capture something about Keir Starmer – a former lawyer whose former nickname, according to a leaked 2022 Labour memo, was 'Mr. Rules.' In this respect, Starmer is part of a long case-history of 'lawyer brain' in the UK Labour Party. Perhaps the worst offenders came from the Blair government, whose seasoned lawyer-politicians – Tony Blair, Lord Irvine, Jack Straw – passed a frenzied set of statutes and constitutional reforms without much in the way of democratic consensus. Urban crime was to be tackled by the invention of new, quasi-criminal categories like the 'ASBO'; broken families were to be fixed with 'parenting orders'; political violence was to be tackled by an enormous raft of new anti-terror legislation, that conveniently rolled back all those bothersome rights to privacy and fair treatment under the law that prior statutes had codified. Much of this new legislation was nonsensical with loopholes; it caused the day to day running of the country to be beset by legal challenge, and left a lot of citizens – peaceful protestors, for example – with far fewer rights than they had before. In Blair's New Labour, 'lawyer brain' took root for one reason above all else: it was the perfect instrument for justifying the actions of a party which technically had a large mandate, but which was, in real terms, haemorrhaging public support. 'Lawyer brain' was a kind of magic: given that whatever was lawful was, by definition, right, all an incumbent party had to do was write new legislation, invent new legal categories, and it could be justified in any pursuit – abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, invading Iraq. It's no wonder Starmer – who possesses what must be one of the greatest discrepancies between parliamentary majority and public popularity in British history – is so susceptible to it. But government by diktat also has its drawbacks. As convincing as the arguments of 'lawyer brain' are to other lawyers, they remain unimpressive to the public. In Blair's case, the final straw came with Lord Goldsmith's mealy-mouthed declaration of the legality of the invasion of Iraq. In Starmer's, it seems to be working through accretion. Almost every well-touted 'communication failure' of Starmer's can be explained by the same, mad legalism: the man won't talk about gilt markets, or pension funds; he has to keep talking about the OBR and its arcane rules. He seems incapable of assessing the morality of what's going on in migrant hotels, or Gaza; he can only about international law, as though he were still back in the halls of Matrix Chambers. No wonder he has slumped to remarkable depths in the polls, and is facing considerable dissent from within his own party. He is on the verge of discovering what most of us knew already: that lawyers might be pretty good at getting their way, but they're not exactly well-liked.
