‘But he also told her that the story chimes with what he has been told by senior SNP figures – that it suits their wider purpose to have a Tory Prime Minister because it rallies support for independence.’
The Telegraph released a leaked memo that said the SNP’s leader wanted Cameron for PM….to howls of denial all round.
The memo had a fair bit in it and ended like this…
The Ambassador also had a truncated meeting with the FM (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats; that she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to; and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.
The last bit is of course pure speculation….you could equally, or better, speculate that Sturgeon did say that…especially as that is what was set out in black and white in the memo….the ‘qualifying’ statement is based purely upon the nervousness of the person writing the memo rather than any actual knowledge…why no such qualification for other parts of the memo?….and not quite sure how such a statement by Sturgeon could be ‘lost in translation’ to the Ambassador and the Consul General who speak very good english…..also SNP officials have been saying the same thing to the BBC (see later)…so if they are speaking to journalists why not in a ‘private’ meeting with a friendly Ambassador?
The SNP-supporting Sunday Herald reported that the French consul-general, Pierre-Alain Coffinier, on whose testimony the account of Ms Sturgeon’s meeting was based, refused to deny that she had said she did not consider Mr Miliband to be Prime Minister material.
Senior UK Government sources said the account was written by an “experienced and reliable civil servant” on March 6, after a telephone call with the consul-general.
Sturgeon relies on the French denying having said anything…but look at the attitude of the French Consul General in Edinburgh who was the source of the information given to the Scotland Office having been at the meeting between Sturgeon and the Ambassador…
At the weekend, Pierre-Alain Coffinier, France’s consul general in Edinburgh, admitted to telling a Scotland Office official about the FM’s meeting with the French ambassador.
He denied it was Scotland Office Director Francesca Osowska but admitted it was “one of her colleagues”, declining to say who.
Told other parts of the UK Government were blaming the Scotland Office, he replied: “I’m not going to help them to get one of my friends – because these people are my friends – to help pin it down on him or her.”
He’s not going to help ‘them’ get his friend…in other words he’s not going to tell the truth if it gets his friend in trouble….and of course keeps himself in the clear at the same time.
Is the memo true?….even the BBC says it has inside information that it may be…SNP politicians admit to ‘an attraction in the idea of a conservative government’…and the National Socialists don’t like it….
BBC Scotland’s James Cook caught up with Nicola Sturgeon today and asked her about the Telegraph‘s leaked memo. But he also told her that the story chimes with what he has been told by senior SNP figures – that it suits their wider purpose to have a Tory Prime Minister because it rallies support for independence. His asking this question infuriated the CyberNats who rounded on him. Rarely for a BBC journalist, he commented on it:
What an extraordinary level of vicious abuse I have received today for simply reporting the news. Is this the country we want folks? Is it?
— James Cook (@BBCJamesCook) April 4, 2015
Jim Naughtie may have been throwing cold water on the idea but another BBC journo, more in touch with the world outside the studio, has other ideas.
However James Cook’s inside information doesn’t make it to later BBC news reports…..neither here nor here.
Why not? An ‘incendiary’ claim that Sturgeon is lying to the Scottish voters is backed up by information that one BBC journalist has revealed but the BBC doesn’t subsequently report his findings?
Why not? They go to the absolute heart of the story and undermine Sturgeon’s claim of innocence. It is headline stuff in effect…a bombshell under Sturgeon.
But not apparently for the BBC which has presumably had a meeting and quashed all mention of it again.
News? Not at the BBC.
Update:
Norman Smith on Today (08:45) says the revelations could be devastating if Sturgeon is thought to be being economical with the truth…and grudgingly comes round to the idea that the claims might have some legs as he speculates that perhaps things were lost in translation when, if, Sturgeon suggested she had doubts about Miliband being capable of being Prime Minister that was ‘over-interpreted’ as meaning she would prefer a Cameron government.
Smith went on to say a hard headed SNP view would welcome a Cameron government….however he makes no mention of James Cook’s revelation that senior SNP officials had admitted such a thing openly to him….so again…not ‘lost in translation’ at all….and why would Sturgeon express doubts about Miliband and not intimate a preference for the Tories as a strategic advantage for the SNP in the never-ending demand for independence? They both go together really and you can see how she might say both things.
So ‘devastating’ for Sturgeon…..and the BBC is still tip-toeing around the truth.
It’s incredible but true to BBC form. Any hint of anything that may look as if UKIP candidates are saying something different to Farage then it’s top news and repeated ad nauseam. When it looks as if Sturgeon has lied to her volk, even when they turned nasty on a BBC journalist, they cover for her. The BBC are not fit to cover the election or anything else political.
From the non SNP supporting Scottish Daily Record:
“A SCOTLAND Office civil servant was behind the leaked memo that claimed Nicola Sturgeon wants David Cameron to remain as Prime Minister.
Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael has fingered an official in his own department for writing the note.
But the Lib Dem refused to name the individual now at the centre of a Whitehall inquiry and a furious political row.
Carmichael, who remains in charge of the Scotland Office during the general election campaign, said yesterday: “I know the person involved but I’m not going to go beyond that.”
“Asked if the memo was an example of “dirty tricks” during the election campaign, Carmichael said: “These things happen from time to time. I think it’s regrettable.”
He added: “I have no idea what Nicola Sturgeon said. We had a third-hand account of it.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-secretary-alistair-carmichael-i-5465414
In effect all of those personally involved in the discussions deny the “leaked” version of the conversation but Alan and the Telegraph maintain a “third hand” report is the true version!!
Where is the ‘BBC has learned’ ? or ‘Some might say’ ?
As Albaman is our visiting “expert” on everything Scottish perhaps he/she can spare some time to check through the following regarding BBC bias in Scotland and let us have his reassuring comments that we (doubtlessly?) have got it all wrong.
https://lenathehyena.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-when-first-we-practice-to-deceive-bbc-scotland-and-the-labour-party/
The gist of this article is that BBC Scotland is very pro Labour (despite the fact that many of the politicians it mentions are no longer involved in Scottish politics).
The main argument on this site (backed up by DV’s numerous tweets) in recent times is that the BBC are pro SNP. A view clearly debunked by academic research during the referendum period where the BBC was seen to be very pro-union (a position that DV would no doubt agree with despite his views on the BBC)
Perhaps you could take some time and make up your minds!!!
I was right then.
Move along there, nothing to see.
1. Yes, officially BBC empoyees aren’t officially “actively” involved in politics but they migrate and re-migrate between the BBC and Labour Party all the time as has been shown repeatedly. And as they always promote the Labour line the official position is only a technicality really.
2. As was pointed out at the time of the referendum, the BBC were very schizophrenic about the result they wanted. They were cheering for the Fishies as that would rub the Unionists (NB the Conservatives) noses in it. But they also didn’t really want the break-up of the Union as it would be harder for Labour to win in England.
Another way of looking at it is that everybody seems to agree that BBC Scotland (which is supposed to be politically neutral) is biased against the Conservatives and the UKIP.
Albaman…normally you defend the BBC regardless of the facts, now you claim they are biased against the SNP, once again regardless of the facts….make your mind up!
One of those facts being….senior SNP figures told a BBC reporter that the SNP might welcome a Tory government….which backs up the memo produced by a reliable and experienced, and non-political, civil servant.
If Sturgeon ‘mis-spoke’ why not just come clean and admit she’s been mis-leading the Scottish people for all these years?
Faith in your leader is good Albaman, blind, unthinking faith not so good…but you do have a record on that with your unquestioning faith in the BBC….so what’s new there.
Alan, it is difficult to mis-speak something that you never said!!
But keep on peddling the line that no one esle is taking.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/scottish-secretary-confirms-nicola-sturgeon-memo-written-in-scotland-office-10157714.html
‘The line that no one else is taking’…except members of the SNP…and even the BBC is slowly coming round to the idea that the story has legs….oh and there’s Fraser Nelson in the Spectator...
‘The Sturgeon memo rings true to me: the SNP and the Tories need each other more than they need anyone else right now. Even though they do their utmost to pretend otherwise.
Ah the games, the games.
PS Needless to say, Sturgeon will categorically deny this. I’ll update the blog when she does.
PPS Voila’
Alan, perhaps you can explain:
* Why all those directly involved in the meeting deny the comments were made?
* Prior to publication why did the Telegraph not contact Nicola Sturgeon for a comment?
* Why did the Telegraph contact Willie Rennie, leader of the LibDems in Hollyrood prior to publication?
* Why was a memo, prepared third hand if not fourth hand) in the Scotland Office, not shown to the Lidbem Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael?
* Why do you put more faith in a document written by a UK Government official who was not even at the meeting than you do in the explicit comments by those who were?
Even the SNP’s opponents doubt the veracity of the claims in the Telegraph!
http://www.libdemvoice.org/nicola-sturgeon-faces-similar-press-trashing-to-clegg-in-2010-but-with-added-misogyny-45322.html
So Sturgeon denies all guilt…..let’s see how that works out for her…..it worked so well for Lance Armstrong after all….
July 1999: “I have been on my deathbed, and I’m not stupid. I can emphatically say I am not on drugs.”
Dec 2000: “We are completely innocent. We run a very clean and professional team that has been singled out due to our success … Before this ordeal I had never heard of [the performance-enhancing drug Actovegin].”
Jan 2001: “The simple truth is that we outwork everyone. But when you perform at a higher level in a race, you get questions about doping.”
Jan 2004: “I have never had a single positive doping test, and I do not take performance-enhancing drugs.”
July 2004: “We’re sick and tired of these allegations and we’re going to do everything we can to fight them. They’re absolutely untrue.”
Aug 2005: “I have never doped. I can say it again, but I’ve said it for seven years.”
Aug 2005: “Why would I enter into a sport and then dope myself up and risk my life again? That’s crazy. I would never do that. No way.”
Nov 2005: “How many times do I have to say it? … Well, it can’t be any clearer than ‘I’ve never taken drugs.'”
July 2010: “As long as I live, I will deny it. There was absolutely no way I forced people, encouraged people, told people, helped people, facilitated. Absolutely not. One hundred percent.”
Jan 2011: “If you’re trying to hide something, you wouldn’t keep getting away with it for 10 years. Nobody is that clever.”
May 2011: “Twenty-plus-year career, 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.”
June 2012: “I have never doped … I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one.”
Oh, hang on….
Jan 2013: “All the fault and all the blame here falls on me. I viewed this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times. I made my decisions. They are my mistakes, and I am sitting here today to acknowledge that and to say I’m sorry for that.”
One big lie…sorry for that…..I rest my case.
Not sure just what you are getting at but I do note you did not address one single point I raised.
I think it quite likely that she did indeed say that she preferred Cameron and would still prefer a Tory led government because it makes the push for independence easier. What is interesting is that the BBC are not shouting this from the roof tops because any damage to the SNP is likely to increase Labour’s seats in Scotland and help them to be the biggest party. Which in turn makes it likely, but not certain, that they will lead a leftist government with The Mad Marxist as PM.
Perhaps the BBC is trying not to be nasty to the SNP because they are fellow leftists and will possibly decide on BBC Scotland’s funding in the future.