The Foreign Office has denied the existence of any such memo as that allegedly leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which has now published the full text. Reading it, I can say for sure it is not an FCO memo. That has led some to assume this means it is a Scottish Office memo. But there is a problem here.
Firstly, if the Scottish Office – or any other government department – made a record of a conversation with the French Consul-General, they would undoubtedly have copied it to the FCO. Particularly as the FCO is mentioned and a number of overseas visits and an international negotiation are discussed. If this were a genuine minute, the FCO would undoubtedly have a copy. If the FCO denies it exists, that means there was no such memo made in the Scottish Office and distributed in the ordinary channels.
Secondly, as I stated, the media’s claim that it was a protocol requirement for the French Embassy to report such conversations to the FCO was a complete fabrication. Not only is there no such requirement, it would be contrary to normal diplomatic practice. That is even more true with the Scottish Office. It is unthinkable that the French Consul-General would report those kind of confidential comments from Nicola Sturgeon to the Scottish Office.
If Embassies reported everything people told them to their host governments, nobody would tell the embassy anything. Indeed this episode has already damaged the French Embassy, because it casts a slur upon the discretion and confidentiality which is essential to operate as a diplomat. It may well be that driving a wedge between the SNP and the French Embassy was part of what the security services sought to achieve.
It damages the French Embassy, it damages the SNP, and it damages Miliband by repeating the meme about his being weak and unfit. Those would all seem good results to the security services. Only Miliband has been stupid enough to go along with it.
It seems to me the overwhelming probability is that this document, whether it purports to be a FCO or Scottish Office document, was originated by the Security Services, possibly with the active collusion of someone in the Scottish Office, or equally possibly without their knowledge. Whatever it purported to be, it never entered the normal civil service distribution systems, as the FCO would have a copy, and it would have raised alarm bells all over the place as seriously weird and improbable. It is in that sense a fake, even if it were physically produced inside the Scottish Office. Its purpose was to be leaked to the media and influence the election.
Anyone who listens/watches the FM, will know she is not given to lapses in her composure. She is precise, controlled and intelligent, and has a time served background in how this game is played, and there is no way this crap emanated from her mouth.
As with Salmond, the Establishment has dug deep for muck, and come up with zip. The leaders debates unleashed an unwanted admiration for the FM, so they simply have to do something.
Heywood has just announced there will be an enquiry into the alleged leak, so SNP have done well to be on the front foot.
What a tool Milliband is, he could have responded so differently, and come out clean. Rennie and Murphy acted as per usual, and wouldn’t be surprised if they had advance notice. Strange the Torygraphgot hold of them for a reaction, but not Sturgeon o f course.
I sincerely hope legal action in respect of the smear will be considered.
“As with Salmond, the Establishment has dug deep for muck, and come up with zip.”
They can’t have looked too hard I found plenty.
Charles Crawford
04/04/2015 4:03 pm
Your “substantive take on the full text as published by the Telegraph” includes the following:
“The Telegraph claimed that the allegation was contained in a leaked UK government memorandum, thought to come from the Foreign Office, which sets out an official account of the meeting from France’s experienced consul general in Edinburgh, Pierre-Alain Coffinier.
But Coffinier told the Guardian that this was untrue. He said he had checked his notes of that meeting, which took place at Holyrood after first minister’s questions on 26 February. “I have looked at my notes and absolutely no preference has been expressed by anyone regarding the outcome of the election,” he said. “Which suggests neither Nicola nor my ambassador said anything.”
Note the meticulous formulation there. The French CG says that his notes of the meeting revealed ‘absolutely no preference about the outcome of the election’ which ‘suggests’ (sic) that neither Sturgeon nor the Ambassador said anything. All possibly true (enough). But so what? Notes of a meeting would not necessarily include jocular asides about sensitive political issues, and in any case that has nothing to do with what the CG might have said on the telephone to catch his interlocutor’s attention. That way of putting it looks like a cunning Gallic way to deflect attention from what happened (and to save his own skin?) by appearing to answer the question while in fact talking about something else entirely.”
You suggestion is, therefore, that Pierre-Alain Coffinier may (in fact the context of your “substantive analysis” suggests that you believe that he did) have said exactly what the alleged memo records him as having said on the telephone, and that he has carefully formulated his statement not to refer to his alleged conversation with a civil servant on the telephone, but to refer instead to his notes of the meeting between the French Ambassador and Miss Sturgeon. You describe this as a “meticulous formulation”.
Come off it.
Pierre-Alain Coffinier has explicitly denied that he made such comments on the telephone.
http://news.sky.com/video/1458622/french-official-no-sturgeon-leak
Sky reporter: “Did you tell a civil servant that Miss Sturgeon had expressed a preference for David Cameron, as ambassador?”
Pierre-Alain Coffinier, French CG: “No. No.”
Sky reporter: “The report states that it was a conversation with you, between you and a civil servant, it was you said Miss Sturgeon had a preference for Mr Cameron as Prime Minister.”
Pierre-Alain Coffinier, French CG: “I didn’t say that. I did not.”
So there you have it, Mr Crawford. Now, unless you want to call Pierre-Alain Coffinier a liar, can we expect a public retraction of that portion of your “substantive analysis”, both here and on your own website? And how much can we trust the rest of your “substantive analysis”, when it is clear that you have got at least that portion of it so spectacularly wrong?
And I really do appreciate the referral to a “cunning Gallic way to deflect attention from what happened”. That is a very good insight into how your expert diplomatic mind actually works.
Kind regards,
John
Apologies. For “substantive analysis” please read “substantive take”.
J
At least we don’t have a monopoly in engaging in untrue, self-promoting, mischievous drivel, Charles Crawford.
John Spencer-Davis
Are you being a cunt again, John?
Just a couple of points to you and the other Useful Idiots on here:
1/. Craig, relying his knowledge of FCO and diplomatic procedures, believes this is a secret services job. Charles says the opposite ans says the memot is genuine. Charles was in the service for longer than Craig and was senior in rank. Craig has a definite axe to grind in this affair (he is a SNP party member) wheres Charles does not.
Why, then, should people fall over themselves to believe Craig’s version of events and damn Charles’s ?
2/. Craig’s take on matters, as expressed in his post, reposes on the idea that any report on the conversation between La Sturgeon and the French Consul-General would have been copied to the FCO but that the FCO has denied that such a memo exists.
Given Craig’s experiences with the FCO – and the insults regularly heaped onto the FCO by many Eminent Commenters on this blog – why should impells Craig and them to so firmly believe the FCO’s denial? Has the thought crossed their mind that the FCO might be being economical with the truth?
3/. Commenters obviously believe that La Sturgeon, although a politician, is a politician of an entirely different order to all other politicians and so is incapable of lying or, indeed, of saying one thing publicly and another thing privately.
I would suggest that so thinking shows great gullibility or, more likely, a desire to engage in mischief on thids blog.
3/.
typo-type errors in the above but never mind – clear enough for you lot, I think.
Charles Crawford,
You are talking shite…that is all.
Actually, not only Milliband was dumb enough. The BBC keep showing Cameron addressing his troops and smugly speaking on the premise that it is true.
A pretty astonishing reaction for a Prime Minister to have about his civil servants selling government documents to the newspapers.
OK, we know he’s only pretending, but it’s still astonishing…
Though not as amazing as the entire UK media giving him and the civil service a pass on it.
Don
Could you explain, preferably coherently, why you think Charles Crawford is talking “shite”?
Failure to do so will lead me to suspect that it is you who are shite.
In any event, I am sure that Sir Jeremy Heywood will establish the truth of the matter. As we speak, he’s on the case.
LOL.
“Why, then, should people fall over themselves to believe Craig’s version of events and damn Charles’s ?”
Because Crawford is a mendacious stooge of the establishment, an apologist for torture, and does not act in good faith. His heart – if he has one – is not in the right place. The opposite of all this can be said for CM. Therefore, I am far more inclined to believe CM’s version.
Glenn_UK
Your arguments are usually better than that, Glenn.
———————
BTW when you’re weighing up whom to believe, what if any importance would you ascribe to the fact that Craig is a member of the SNP, wanted to become an SNP parliamentary candidate and wishes Scotland to become independent?
The Augean stables do need clearing out.
‘Heywood joined HM Treasury in 1992 and became the Principal Private Secretary to Chancellor Norman Lamont at the age of 30, having to help mitigate the fallout from Black Wednesday after less than a month in the job.[6] Heywood remained in this role throughout the 1990s under Chancellors Kenneth Clarke and Gordon Brown before being promoted to be the Principal Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1999. He stayed in this position until 2003, when he left the civil service in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry where it emerged that Heywood claimed to have never minuted meetings in the Prime Ministerial offices about Dr David Kelly, a job he was required to do. He emerged to become the managing director of the UK Investment Banking Division at Morgan Stanley where he became embroiled in the Southern Cross Healthcare scandal that almost saw 30,000 elderly people being made homeless.[7] Upon Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister in 2007, Heywood returned to government as Head of Domestic Policy and Strategy at the Cabinet Office. Political commentator Peter Oborne, in the wake of this appointment described Heywood as
“a perfect manifestation of everything that has gone so very wrong with the British civil service over the past 15 years.”[8]
He would later go on to resume his old job of Principal Private Secretary, as well as being appointed the Downing Street Chief of Staff after the resignation of Stephen Carter.[9]
In 2010, after David Cameron became Prime Minister, Heywood was replaced as Chief of Staff by Edward Llewellyn and as Principal Private Secretary by James Bowler. Heywood returned to the civil service and was subsequently appointed the first Downing Street Permanent Secretary, a role created with the purpose of liaising between the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief of Staff within the Cabinet Office.
Cabinet Secretary
On 11 October 2011 it was announced that Heywood would replace Sir Gus O’Donnell as the Cabinet Secretary, the highest-ranked official in the British Civil Service, upon the latter’s retirement in January 2012. It was also announced that Heywood would not concurrently hold the roles of Head of the Home Civil Service and Permanent Secretary for the Cabinet Office, as would usually be the case. These positions instead went to Sir Bob Kerslake and Ian Watmore respectively. On 1 January 2012, Heywood was knighted and officially made Cabinet Secretary. In July 2014 it was announced that Kerslake would step down and Heywood would take the title of Head of the HCS.[10]
Honours
Heywood was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) in 2008, before being made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in the 2012 New Year Honours.[11][12] The Parliamentary Public Administration Committee cited the example of Heywood’s knighthood as an automatic honour granted due to his position and not for exceptional service.[13]’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Heywood
Habbabkuk (La vita e’ bella)
4 Apr, 2015 – 6:58 pm}:
“John Spencer-Davis
Are you being a cunt again, John?”
__________________________________
Hmm, definitely Military Intelligence two and a half.
He’s still at it and smearing Craig into the bargain. Vile stuff.
That Sturgeon Miliband Memo – Analysed
http://charlescrawford.biz/2015/04/04/that-sturgeon-miliband-memo-analysed/
RobG He has a history of using smutty four letter words.
The CIA has a long history of fabricating documents.
The internet has provided a voice not previously available to a wide variety of nutters and obsessives.
Why, some of them even believe that every plane crash has been brought about by govt intervention.
Mary, in oily mode, writes a’ propos Charles Crawford
“He’s still at it and smearing Craig into the bargain. Vile stuff.
That Sturgeon Miliband Memo – Analysed
http://charlescrawford.biz/2015/04/04/that-sturgeon-miliband-memo-analysed/”
____________________________
Well, I’ve read Mary’s link, and I suppose she must be referring to the following passage:
“The deranged idea promoted by our old comrade Craig Murray that this is a Zinoviev-letter style MI5/MI6 forgery is best described as, well, deranged. Craig (for readers who have not been paying attention) is an eccentric former British ambassador who got too close to the sexy daughter of the Uzbek dictator. He now attracts a wide following by talking utter Leftist nonsense in a loud voice.”
The attentive reader will note that Charles is not calling Craig deranged, he’s describing Craig’s Zinoviev letter claim.
So the “vileness” of Charles’ stuff consists in Charles saying that Craig talks utter Leftist nonsense.
I wonder if Craig is as upset about that comment as the oily Mary appears to be?
I somehow doubt it.
The internet has provided a voice not previously available to a wide variety of nutters and obsessives.
××××××××××××××××××××××
You being a prime example.
Nicola Sturgeon has been involved in politics for many years.Working as Alex Salmonds No2
She has seen the dirty tricks time and time again.
She is too experiences and flat out too smart to have dropped that type of comment into any conversation.
Note that the troll found it necessary to repeat the content of the Crawford smear against Craig, not dissimilar from the original FCO muck that was thrown at Craig.
The troll normally creeps around Craig but not this time. The knives are out.
From a humble onlooker in Catalonia, after reading about this story, just to throw in my grain of sand.
Just before the last Catalan regional elections a parallel smear story was broken in the right-wing press that although treated as outrageous by all nationalists, with a certain population dented the in-coming nationalist government’s reputation. Allegations of corruption fed the fears of citizens paranoid about proven political corruption throughout the Spanish system. A potential political weak link was worked on – who by?
With the independence movement rocketing, a claimed official police report was leaked, which superficially seemed genuine. Some paragraphs were certainly true. It turns out to have been cobbled together by a state body, never identified, and alleged to be the CNI, the Spanish secret service, who have apparently had their Catalan staff boosted by an under-cover unit that is off the official organisation chart. After the elections, the story was proved to have been false. Too late to prevent damage.
While Craig and other expert contributors surely do not need confirmation of anything from an amateur abroad, I’d just say that over here, the establishment using state resources to bolster their position has become an accepted fact for many, particularly as regards the independence movement.
mmmmm, But Truth is he does seem very unfit, as is Cameron, or anyone to “lead a country”. The whole notion is perverted idea imo. But such is our system. Nicola is just as full of herself to forward such a notion imo, lost in “power”.
The last thing we need is leaders.
Maybe i’m wrong and this is fake, but I did have the feeling of I told you so regarding the SNP when I advised to support an opposition.
Anyway, saying all that i’m supporting the Greens as they seem to be the only real opposition in England. And you know, it feels OK. I can barely believe it myself as someone with very anarchist leanings, posting leaflets for a party, sigh, desperate times. But I see a lot of young people on board with the greens and think I must do something.
Responsibility, that seems void anywhere in the mainstream lot, self serving, power drunk, etc..
It is very, very important to have postal votes counted separately from polling centre votes to make sure there is little disparity
‘Greetings programs’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lgMtzDheQ0
Considering this, to me it does not matter what the truth is.
This is the nature of power within this system. That we put so much attention upon individuals. It’s inevitable and perhaps shows a profound lack of honesty to regard oneself and somehow immune.
Being so disembodied as it makes you i’d do the same thing. I could bare faced lie, and probably would, ‘for the good of the people’ etc etc.
And you know, if it is made up what does it say about those who do such things?
This is not the result of bad apples (though we obviously have many rotten to the core) it’s the result of this disembodiment.
Surely anyone with a heart still in place, no matter what party they are in, would not support the continued destruction of the environment that “free market” capitalism necessitates.
They don’t even care for there own children, Ok they may be fine money wise, but they will still have to watch society and the environment crumble around them. How could any adult advocate this kind of future ? But they can and do…
They must feel wholly detached from the world. The folks on the hill. Smile as they kill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqP3wT5lpa4
Veterans for peace uk
+++