Swinney: My focus is on the future and Scotland – not Sturgeon's book
But he refused to comment on her claims about Alex Salmond, with the current SNP leader saying: 'For me, in my role today, and what I have got to do for Scotland just now, I have got focus on the country and the future.'
He insisted: 'That's what is driving everything I do in my political life, what is the future of Scotland, what is the best future for Scotland.
'That is what I am best to concentrate my thinking on.'
Mr Swinney was pressed on the matter by Chris Deerin, director of the think tank Enlighten, which was formerly known as Reform Scotland.
At an event in Edinburgh on Tuesday, Mr Deerin said Ms Sturgeon had portrayed her predecessor 'at times as a bully, a bit of a drunk, as a man who was detached from the details'.
In her book, Ms Sturgeon, who was first minister in Scotland and SNP leader between 2014 and 2023, set out how her relationship with her predecessor Mr Salmond deteriorated – claiming in the book that after she took on the top job her former mentor had wanted to 'destroy' her.
She insisted her relationship with the late politician began to started to sour after she became leader of Scotland.
She added that her infamous falling out with her predecessor was a 'bruising episode', as she claimed Mr Salmond had created a 'conspiracy theory' to defend himself from reckoning with misconduct allegations, of which he was cleared in court.
Mr Swinney said, on Tuesday, that the memoirs gave a 'fascinating insight into Scottish political history', as he praised Ms Sturgeon for her leadership during the Covid pandemic.
The SNP leader, who was deputy first minister at that time, told the audience at the Enlighten event: 'We were all taking big decisions in difficult circumstance.'
He added: 'In a moment of absolutely unparalleled difficulty for the country, in which there was no manual, there was no precedent, I saw Nicola Sturgeon deliver considered and careful leadership as we moved our way through the pandemic, under enormous strain of delivering against those expectations, those difficulties.'
He went on to state that 'leadership is not easy', with Mr Swinney explaining: 'I feel that way, it is not straight forward, the decisions I take are invariably contested decisions.'
As a result, he said, making such decisions was 'inevitably' a 'very lonely place'.
The First Minister added: 'Ultimately, it is your call, you have got to decide.
'And I think some of that is explained in Nicola's book about what she felt at times.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
3 minutes ago
- STV News
Fishing leaders call for immediate halt to wind farm expansion ‘stampede'
Fishing leaders in Scotland have described wind farm expansion as a 'stampede' and a 'gamble' as they demanded an immediate stop to further offshore consents. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) said Scottish Government plans to install up to 40GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040 are 'far too high'. It said achieving the target will cause irreversible damage to the marine environment and displace fishing fleets from grounds they have worked for generations. The call is included in the SFF's official responses to two major Government consultations, the updated Offshore Wind Policy Statement and the draft Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy. The Government outlines that offshore wind could ensure Scotland meets its net zero target by 2030 and provide scores of green jobs as part of the just transition away from dependency on oil and gas. Last month, First Minister John Swinney visited Scotland's newest wind farm – Neart na Gaoithe (NnG) off the coast of Fife. During his visit he said offshore wind is 'one of Scotland's greatest modern success stories'. He said: 'Driving economic growth and tackling the climate emergency are two of my Government's priorities, and NnG is a shining example of how these priorities can work hand-in-hand to reshape Scotland's future for the better.' The UK Government has also expressed support for the expansion of Scotland's wind farms. It announced in March that the Port of Cromarty Firth in the Highlands will be a major hub for the UK's world-leading floating offshore wind industry, and it awarded more than £55 million for its expansion. Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the SFF – which is Scotland's biggest fishing industry body – said: 'This isn't a plan – it's a stampede. The Government is charging ahead without the faintest idea how to protect the people and places that will be trampled in the rush. 'We've been telling them for years these plans will seriously damage our industry, but they haven't listened. Now their own assessments show the harm that will be done to fishing, and the environment on which it depends. 'Until they can prove our industry and our seas will be safeguarded, the only responsible choice is to slam on the brakes.' The SFF said current mitigation measures are almost non-existent and there is no credible plan to compensate fishing businesses for the losses they will face. It also says the Government's updated Offshore Wind Policy Statement published in June made repeated references to economic benefits but failed to mention the climate crisis. Ms Macdonald added: 'Fishing is one of Scotland's original green industries. The Scottish fleet has been putting healthy, renewable and sustainable food on plates for generations. 'But we're being shoved aside for projects that feel like a last gamble for a Government to revive an ailing Scottish economy.' Fishing leaders say the cumulative impact of existing and emerging marine conservation policies, renewable energy projects alongside fishing being expected to offset environmental impacts of offshore wind developments, is leaving the industry at 'breaking point'. Ms Macdonald said: 'The Scottish Government's approach is picking winners and losers, and fishing seems to lose every time. 'We need ministers to step up and support our industry with positive action. 'Renewable food cannot be the price to be paid for renewable energy. Betting the house – and Scotland's fishing industry – on offshore wind that is far from 'clean' and where all the evidence points to both known and not yet fully known environmental damage is a very high-risk strategy.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Herald Scotland
3 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Within the UK, we get what we need and deserve - no more, no less
The GERS figures, which are published by the Scottish Government, were pretty dire. They measure the amount of public money spent in Scotland against the taxation that is raised here. The difference, this year, is £26.2 billion which is a remarkable 11.7 per cent of GDP. As part of the exercise, the GERS deficit is rapidly translated, without the help of AI, into the per capita variation between public expenditure in Scotland and England, which now runs at £2669, up by £358 in a year. That number is, understandably, trumpeted by those who favour the constitutional status quo. If there was ever another referendum, it would frighten all but the most dedicated horses. Read More: It is a pity however that the GERS figures have been reduced to political cudgels without greater understanding of what they represent. First, it needs to be understood that, within a United Kingdom, it makes perfectly good sense that Scotland enjoys these advantages, which were embedded long before devolution or independence became significant terms in the political vocabulary. Higher public expenditure in Scotland was based on two main factors – our heavily disproportionate geography vis-à-vis population and our levels of urban poverty, exacerbated by the decline of heavy industry in post-war years. In other words, the distribution was broadly founded on fairness and need rather than any political or constitutional fix. The Barnett formula brought order to that principle but certainly did not invent it. This point is reinforced by the pattern of public spending in England. The figure of £2669 is misleading since it is a comparison with a figure generic to the whole of England, within which there are actually large divergences. The poorer areas 'up north' are not far off Scottish levels of per capita spending while those in the effete south-east are significantly lower. In other words, the Scottish funding 'bonus' is based on needs rather than munificence and it is on these grounds it should be defended and argued for. If Scotland does well out of Barnett, which it does, it is because of our history and geography rather than a political decision either to buy us off or, as Nationalists would have it, sell us short. Within the UK, we get what we need and deserve. No more, no less. At that point, Nationalists resort to a hypothetical argument rather than the actual one. On the basis of no evidence, they assert that the need for this relative largesse – or simple fairness, as I would have it - would disappear if all the economic levers were in their hands. I do not believe that to be true and have no wish for my children or grand-children to be on the receiving end of finding out. But let's park that argument, as the SNP seems to have done, for another decade. Recall instead the grounds for the Barnett formula in the first place – scattered geography and the consequences of industrial history, leading to a higher level of poverty and need. Logically, within that context, these are the areas of Scottish life which should have been prioritised, in the interests of 'levelling up' before the term was fashionable. The 'differential' money should really be ringfenced for post-industrial communities that have never recovered from the loss of their raisons d'etre, and also for the Scottish periphery where per capita costs of delivery are inevitably greater. If that principle had been maintained, we would see very different outcomes today and the myth of the poor and the peripheral being subsidy supplicants rather than entitled priorities would evaporate. But where has Scotland's 'extra' money, via the Barnett formula, actually gone? Is it to the periphery, which continues to shed population at an alarming rate? Is it to the depressed industrial communities and opportunities for their new generations? Or, in fact, has the bonus enshrined in the Barnett formula simply become one big funding trough which serves disproportionately the interests of the better-off? At this point, I revert to the National Records of Scotland which reported on our shifting demographics. The headline figure is that the Scottish population has reached new heights of over 5.5 million, due to net immigration more than making up for the excess of deaths over births. In some parts of Scotland, however, the figures give very little sign of encouragement that anything is being levelled up. Where I live in the Western Isles, for example, the under-16 population is down by13 per cent in a decade and the working age population is down by 10 per cent. The implications of this are not difficult to discern. There are not enough people to do the jobs on which an ageing population depends. So more people leave and the trend continues. There is very little sign of population growth in old industrial areas either. North Ayrshire's young population, for example, is down by ten per cent and working age numbers by 5.7 per cent. And be warned- what the most peripheral and poorest parts of Scotland face today in terms of not having enough people to support the services on which an ageing population depends is coming for others which still regard themselves as secure from demographic trends. Money is not the answer to everything but it rarely does any harm. So let's not apologise or be excessively grateful for the 'extra' £2669 each of us gets a year through the Barnett formula. But let us not forget either why we get it – which is off the backs of places which represented the original case for that extra money but are still left behind when it comes to addressing poverty, disadvantage and population loss. Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003
Scotsman
33 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Affordable homes shortage is adding to Scotland's social unrest
Save Our Future & Our Kids Futures protesters at the Cladhan Hotel, Falkirk. Picture Michael Gillen Apart from the ongoing madness of cancel culture institution-alised by former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her promotion of gender politics, the weekend's Scottish news bulletins were dominated by demonstrations outside a Falkirk hotel being used to house asylum seekers. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Cladhan Hotel is managed by Mears Group on behalf of the Home Office and feelings in Falkirk have been running high since an Afghan asylum seeker was jailed for nine years in June for the 2023 rape of a 15-year-old girl in the town centre. As was rightly pointed out, it's wrong to label all Asian men seeking refuge as rapists, but many of those demonstrating against the arrival of refugees were motivated by a sense that the needs of the existing population are less of a priority. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Who can blame them? Lengthening NHS waiting lists, no NHS dentistry, popular schools over-subscribed and an acute shortage of affordable homes. How can we keep taking more immigrants when we can't house the people who are here, they ask? It's a reasonable question with no satisfactory answer and the argument that the economy needs more immigrants because of a skills shortage wears thin when over a fifth of the working age population are not in employment. The situation has become so dire in Edinburgh that only the most pressing requests for council and registered social landlord housing have been met since last November, because without nearly enough suitable accommodation for homeless families the council was breaking the law. Now the suspension of normal letting policy has been extended until March 2027 to give the council more time to sort it out, using portable buildings if necessary, which is likely to cause neighbourhood problems if not carefully sited. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Council data shows that of 3800 households presenting as homeless in 2024-25, just over three-quarters with a connection with Edinburgh ─ and over 800 were single people forced out because of violence ─ so the problem is largely home grown, especially as some connection claims are tenuous. But 466, an eighth, were from asylum seekers or people granted refugee status, so the number is not insubstantial. The point is not that they shouldn't be housed, but as long as the council is unable to restore normal allocation policies then it creates fertile conditions for the rise of extremism. Even with the continued suspension of the letting policy, the council still anticipates just over 500 households will remain in unsuitable temporary accommodation, while it deals with applications from around 900 households with no connection to the city it would normally expect to arrive. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The problem has been building for far longer than the declaration of a housing emergency, going back to inadequacies in planning at both council and national level. and the SNP has been responsible for a lot of talk about bold ambition but without anything like the necessary action to avert the current crisis. In my time as a councillor, meeting after meeting heard senior SNP councillors ─ whose expertise would have improved by watching a series of Bob the Builder ─ bragging about their house-building programme when it was glaringly obvious from the start they wouldn't achieve even half their target. And their Labour pals, now trying desperately to cling to power, just nodded along in agreement. A better plan than the current sticking plaster approach is urgently needed.
