Alex Salmond: news and interviews on the former first minister
He first joined the party in 1973 and led the SNP into power when they won the Scottish Parliament election in 2007.
Alex Salmond, who grew up in Linlithgow, died of a heart attack last year at age 69.
Read on for all Alex Salmond news and interviews on the former first minister.
Alex Salmond news
As reported by The National, here is a selection of the latest Alex Salmond news stories.
Alba will build on the strategy left by Alex Salmond
Kenny MacAskill beats Ash Regan to be elected Alba leader
Shock as Alex Salmond died without leaving a will
Alex Salmond as first minister
Salmond served as the first minister of Scotland from 2007 to 2014.
He helped lead the Yes movement in the 2014 independence referendum and resigned as first minister shortly after the result.
His then-deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, succeeded him unopposed.
Salmond later formed the pro-independence Alba Party in 2021 and was the party's leader.
He has been credited for turning the SNP from the fringes into the mainstream as he led them into power when they won the Scottish Parliament election in 2007.
The party subsequently won an unprecedented majority in the election four years later, which paved the way for the referendum on Scottish independence.
Alex Salmond death
A post-mortem examination confirmed that the former first minister died of a heart attack.
Salmond collapsed during a lunch in a crowded room with fellow participants at an event in North Macedonia in October 2024.
The day before, he had given a speech at the Cultural Diplomacy Forum in Ohrid and participated in meetings the morning before his death.
In a statement, Salmond's family said he was 'a devoted and loving husband, a fiercely loyal brother, a proud and thoughtful uncle and a faithful and trusted friend'.
The family's statement said: 'Alex was a formidable politician, an amazing orator, an outstanding intellect and admired throughout the world.
'He loved meeting people and hearing their stories and showed incredible kindness to those who needed it.
'He dedicated his adult life to the cause he believed in – independence for Scotland.'
Alex Salmond wife
Salmond was married to Moira McGlashan for four decades. The couple did not have any children.
Recent reports suggest that he did not leave behind a will.
A source close to the family told The Times there is concern about the impact on the late SNP leader's widow, adding: 'There was shock among the family when it became clear that Alex hadn't left a will."
Alex Salmond sister
Alex Salmond's sister is Gail Hendry, convener of Alba Borders.
Gail and her daughter Christina backed Kenny MacAskill to be the leader of the Alba Party.
MacAskill served in Salmond's cabinet and defected with him to his new party in 2021.
Alex Salmond accusations
Alex Salmond was accused of bullying colleagues when he led the Scottish Government in a BBC documentary that aired before his death.
Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon, who was Salmond's deputy from 2007 to 2014, claimed she 'intervened' to stop Alex Salmond from bullying colleagues 'many times' and that he could be 'really rough on people'.
Sturgeon (below) told the Financial Times: 'He would be really rough on people. Many times I intervened to stop him.'
(Image: Gettty)
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon fall out
The BBC documentary, Salmond And Sturgeon: A Troubled Union, which aired before his death, explored the broken relationship between Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond.
It featured interviews from both former first ministers, who spoke about the public breakdown of their long-term political partnership.
Hitting out at the documentary on X (formerly known as Twitter), Salmond described it as 'venomous bias' against Scottish independence.
He said the documentary had 'plumbed new depths' and advised to 'turn it off after the first episode'.
Salmond and Sturgeon's friendship began fracturing after allegations of sexual misconduct were made against Salmond while in office to both police and the Scottish Government.
Sturgeon's government investigated the allegations, which led to a bitter split between them, with Salmond saying he 'seriously doubts' he will ever be on speaking terms with Sturgeon, according to the documentary.
Salmond took legal action against the Government for its handling of the investigation into him and accused the Government of a plot against him.
He was cleared of the allegations.
Sturgeon had said that she mourned her relationship with Salmond after their friendship ended.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
24 minutes ago
- Sky News
Starmer doesn't rule out scrapping two-child benefit cap after free school meals expansion
The expansion of free school meals is a "down payment" on the plan to lift children out of poverty, Sir Keir Starmer has said, as he did not rule out scrapping the two-child benefit cap. The prime minister hinted that he wants to go further after opening up free school dinners to half a million more pupils. Currently only those whose parents or guardians have an income of less than £7,400 a year are eligible, but from 2026 it will include children in households on universal credit - a move welcomed by child poverty campaigners. Asked if the change is a substitute or a starter for lifting the two-child benefit cap, Sir Keir said: "This is a statement of intent. It's something that we've been wanting to do for a long time." Pressed if intent meant going further and lifting the cap, he said: "I would say this is a down payment on child poverty. We've got a taskforce that will come out with a strategy. "I want to get to the root causes of child poverty. One of the greatest things the last Labour government did was to drive down child poverty. I am determined we will do that." Sir Keir has been under pressure to lift the cap from the moment he entered Downing Street, with seven Labour MPs suspended within weeks of last year's general election for voting with the SNP to scrap the cap. The cap was announced by the then Conservative chancellor George Osborne before coming into force in 2017 and prevents parents from claiming universal credit or child tax credits from the third child onwards, except in very limited circumstances. It was supposed to incentivise parents to work, but has plunged a rising number of children into poverty, multiple studies have shown. This includes 10,000 more children in the first three months of the Labour government, the Child Poverty Action Group found, adding to the 4.3 million children already living in relative poverty across the UK. Poverty taskforce delayed The government has resisted calls to scrap the cap, instead announcing a child poverty taskforce last July to look at tackling the "root causes" of child poverty, which essentially kicked the issue into the long grass. It was due to report its findings this spring but publication has been pushed back to later this year, fuelling speculation the government wants to use the next budget in the autumn to fund the policy. According to the Resolution Foundation, axing the cap would lift 500,000 children out of poverty by the end of the parliament at a cost of £4.5bn. 0:56 The thinktank said the government's child poverty strategy won't be credible without a commitment to scrap the limit, as other welfare cuts mean child poverty is projected to rise to an all-time high of 4.6 million by 2029. Pressure is mounting on the government following a drubbing at last month's local elections fuelled by the rise in Reform UK's popularity. Reform leader Nigel Farage has committed his party to scrapping the two-child cap, as well as reinstating the winter fuel benefit in full. Sir Keir has recently U-turned on his unpopular cuts to the winter fuel allowance, though the government has ruled out a return to all pensioners receiving it. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said more people will get the payment this winter, but it will likely still be means tested in some form. Calls to bring back Sure Start As well as being urged to scrap the two-child benefit cap, there are growing calls for ministers to revive Sure Start centres, seen by many in the party as one of the crowning achievements of New Labour. The early years service had a "remarkably long-lasting" positive impact on the health and education outcomes of children, a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last month found. They were disbanded by the coalition government, but the Child Task Force is expected to recommend their return, according to The Guardian. At a Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday, Labour MP for Bournemouth East Tom Hayes said stamping out child poverty required "nothing less than the resurrection of Sure Start". Meanwhile, writing in Labour List this week, Rother Valley MP Jake Richards suggested investing in Sure Start would be a better long-term approach to child poverty than removing the two-child benefit cap, saying family centres could deliver "tangible change" across the country on the government's key missions.
Glasgow Times
31 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Clyde Metro possible routes and cost known by 2027
Consultants are currently developing a case for investment which is seen as an 'essential' step towards providing a 'mass transit' system. Glasgow Labour has claimed the Metro scheme is a 'stalled plan dressed up as progress' — with no start date and no funding committed. READ NEXT:Glasgow's drug consumption centre is working says health secretary Transport spokesman Cllr Saqib Ahmed said: 'Clyde Metro should be Glasgow's next great infrastructure revolution — but right now, it's just another SNP soundbite.' A spokesman for the city's SNP group said the cross-party Glasgow City Region cabinet has allocated £12m to advance the business case, which Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) is progressing. 'That's a considerable amount of spend and effort for a soundbite,' he added. The funding, which will support the development of the case for investment (CFI), is from the City Deal, a more than £1bn infrastructure programme funded by both the UK and Scottish governments. Council officials have said the CFI will identify the funding strategy for 'subsequent stages of the Clyde Metro programme'. READ NEXT:'Don't blame us': Taxis hit back in Glasgow city centre transport row They also said 'one of the key objectives is to improve the sustainable transport access to Glasgow Airport' and this will 'continue to feature as a key priority in all the options we are exploring.' At a council meeting on Tuesday, Cllr Kieran Turner, Labour, asked whether there would be potential routes and costs at the end of the CFI process. An official said: 'Yes, absolutely. At the moment, as part of the initial engagement, we have four network options which were presented. 'Those network options will then get synthesised into a preferred network.' The process will involve deciding on which modes of transport will be included, such as heavy rail or tram, as well as a recommendation on 'what the first move needs to be'. Cllr Turner added: 'Until people start to see something that is a little more concrete, even in terms of option selection, there are still going to be questions in our constituents' minds around if any of this is ever going to happen. 'Is lots of money just getting spent on consultants? And will anything come of this?' The official said there will be answers at the end of the case for investment, including potential timelines. It will be 'absolutely critical' for securing 'a commitment from government to give funding', he said. Public consultation on the project could be held in spring or summer next year. After the meeting, Cllr Ahmed said: 'Communities have waited too long for transformation. Instead, they've been left behind by a government more focused on branding than building. 'Glasgow Labour will keep fighting for real investment in our transport network.' Labour want a commitment from the Scottish Government to fund phase one of the Metro project and a 'clear, costed and deliverable' construction timeline. The SNP spokesman said Clyde Metro is 'an agreed national transport priority'. 'Labour's failure to deliver the type of modern transport system developed by our peers during their time in power in Glasgow is why we have decades of missed opportunities to catch up on. 'If Labour councillors want to start being constructive perhaps they can insist from their party colleagues that we received a share of the £15bn the Chancellor is allocating to English cities for major transport projects.'
The National
35 minutes ago
- The National
Increasing UK defence spending is worst way to support jobs
THERE are many reasons to oppose the UK Government's push towards increased militarism in an already unstable and increasingly violent world. Adding more bombs – especially nuclear bombs – to the mix is not going to improve matters. The only thing that ever has, has been years and decades longs work by diplomats to de-escalate tensions and to build peace. As Master Yoda once said on being accused of being a 'great warrior', 'wars not make one great'. READ MORE: Douglas Ross accused of 'bullying witnesses' in key Holyrood committee By far the worst reason to support the extra spending is the usual 'enemy-at-the-gates' emotional fearmongering that proponents usually cast about when they want more money for more bombs but the second worst is the claim that such spending will 'support jobs and the economy'. I'm going to make the case that spending the same amount of money on just about anything else would do more good for the UK and Scottish economies. The scale of the UK's proposed militaristic expansion is vast. We don't yet know how much extra they plan to spend but an increase from the current 2.3% of GDP to 3% (the minimum required to finance the proposed fleet of new submarines and nuclear-armed fighter jets) would cost around £20 billion more than is currently being spent every year. Increasing spending to match Donald Trump's demand that the UK spends 5% of GDP would cost £80 billion a year. Bear in mind that this is on top of the UK's already proportionately massive spending on military matters – it's instructive to note that the UK spends more per capita on nuclear weapons alone than any nuclear-armed nation other than the USA and Israel at around £90 per person per year (that's more than I spend on my mobile phone SIM contract!). Trump isn't likely to get his wish of Britain spending 5% of GDP – that's about as much as was being spent during the Falklands War when Britain's GDP was less than half the size is currently is – and it's not a commitment that the UK have made quite yet so we should only talk about that £20 billion increase for now. What do we actually get for that? In economic terms, the material assets are useless. The nuclear submarines and nuclear armed jets don't themselves produce anything or add value to the economy in the way that a factory might. If they're ever used, they have a negative economic value but Britain rarely counts the cost of its wars as applied to the people we're bombing or supporting others to bomb. Even if they're not used, they are likely to have a negative economic impact on Scotland. Military spending is exempt from the Barnett Consequentials that decide the Block Grants given to devolved governments so if the spending comes not from increased taxes (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) or from increased borrowing (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) but from cuts to Barnett spending like education, social security or something similar then that will mean cuts to Holyrood which is far less able to compensate via borrowing or increased taxes. This will have a devasting impact on public services unlikely to be compensated for even by the few jobs that will be 'created or sustained' in Scotland (a number that will likely go up and down in its estimate in line with pro-independence polling, as such UK-backed jobs so often do). How many jobs are we talking? The Government estimates that the £20 billion will buy 31,000 jobs. How many in Scotland? Unknown, but 20,000 of those jobs have been announced for the submarine programme to be based in Barrow-on-Furnace, 9,000 will be dedicated to building new nuclear warheads – most of which will be based in Aldermaston and the remaining 2,000 will be split across '6 munition factories' of which an unknown number may or may not be based in Scotland. £20 billion for 31,000 jobs is £645,161 per job, per year. That £20 billion per year would support far more jobs if it was directed to civilian research and engineering as it would go on to boost the economy further through 'economic multipliers' and the inventions and technology that would come out of that research. It's estimated that every £1 of public spending on civilian healthcare research, for instance, returns at least £2 to the economy whereas defence spending usually breaks about even – less so if the spending comes at the cost of public spending elsewhere. Given that the weapons are economically useless if they're not used and economically negative if they are used, then if the goal is supporting jobs it'd be more effective to pay each of those engineers £645,161 every year to stand by the side of the road and wave at traffic – at least they'd go on to spend that money supporting jobs in the wider economy instead of it sitting there in a bomb waiting to blow up someone else's economy, house and family. Less flippantly, we could give every single person in the UK a £300 end-of-year bonus for the same price – not quite a sustainable Universal Basic Income but that would become a very valuable economic stimulus package on the scale of the similar dividend that residents of Alaska receive every year. There may be legitimate reasons to invest in military spending but stop trying to either frighten us or bribe us into accepting the illegitimate ones instead. Simply put, if your goal is 'jobs' then don't invest in 'defence'. Invest in just about anything else. Maybe even invest in peace. Then you won't need the bombs at all.
