Sturgeon:An uncorroborated, denied, misquote of a Chinese whisper lost in translation.

The leak of the alleged remark by Nicola Sturgeon about preferring David Cameron as PM is a strange affair. First, of course, it might be nonsense, not a fake but a fairly meaningless footnote. If we look at the whole memo, we find that the offending remark is in the last paragraph, a rather casual addition to a memo about other matters. Here it is verbatim as reproduced in the Telegraph of April 2: “The Ambassador also had a truncated meeting with the FM [First Minister – Sturgeon] (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 key words are “it might well have been a case of something lost in translation.” Indeed. I suspect Sturgeon said something disparaging about Miliband and possibly said Cameron would be a better PM. This is not the same as saying she would ‘prefer’ Cameron. It was therefore misquoted. So it is a misquote of a Chinese whisper possibly lost in translation. Mmmmmm. The memo is incomplete too. A memo has an author and a destination. Neither is present. I don’t expect a newspaper to reveal its source but without its destination we don’t really know what its motivation might be. Now we turn to the issue of corroboration. After the Gilligan affair we assumed that newspaper would not report such speculation unless there was more than one source. Here there is one source of the story and the original reporter of the conversation has denied its authenticity. So now we have an uncorroborated, denied, misquote of a Chinese whisper lost in translation. It’s beginning to look like a dodgy dossier! Finally, let us suppose it has some element of truth. Whom does it benefit? It is in the Telegraph so we naturally assume the leak was designed to help the Conservatives. Closer inspection, however, suggests it could be an advantage to Labour. After all, if Sturgeon appears to favour Cameron, that will help Labour in Scotland. It doesn’t help the Conservatives. They are not going to win any seats in Scotland anyway. Perhaps it is a double bluff, i.e. the leak was by a Labour supporter. Think about it. In a couple of weeks it will all be forgotten I suspect. Yesterdays; news, tomorrow’s chip paper.