Some people have concluded that my thoughts on the Sturgeon Memo as previously posted were amiss – see the Comments. Am I accusing key people of lying?
No.
This first:
“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.”
That is Craig Murray over at his site, now desperately trying to attach his loopy conspiracy theories to reality.
Yes, it was after all a document originating in the Scottish system and not an MI5 plant! But there is an MI5 plant in the Scottish Office writing it! So it’s fake. Even though it’s real! #emitsbubbles
The memo (or at least the extracts from it as published) is now established as being a real one emerging from inside the Scottish government system (as I predicted):
So the issue (leaving aside the prosaic explanation for how the memo found its way to Whitehall (if it did) and thence to the DT) boils down to three questions:
Did NS say something (guardedly or otherwise) to the ambassador about her views on Miliband/Cameron?
Did the French CG give a sense of that exchange to the hapless Scottish bureaucrat?
Did the HSB record what the French CG said accurately?
None of us know as we weren’t there. We are unlikely to get the chance to cross-examine the participants under oath with precise questions to check what EXACTLY they are denying, and to compare their several interpretations of what was said by whom.
Therefore we all guess, based on our own long experience of leading and recording diplomatic conversations where we have such long experience.
I see no reason to believe that the HSB made up that final thought. So as I said in my blog post, my conclusion is that Sturgeon DID say something along those lines to the French ambassador (eg quietly while strolling out of the meeting or otherwise in the margins or on a ‘please don’t note this down!’ basis), to the point where the French CG found that remark specifically worth mentioning in his later telephone debriefing for Scottish colleagues.
NB that it is a crucial diplomatic Objective for the French ambassador to report to Paris what is going on in the UK in these elections and how far the result will affect France. Anything leading to Scotland leaving the UK would have all sorts of vivid ramifications for France and the EU. So the ambassador will have been straining every diplomatic guile to get NS to reveal privately her views about the likely outcome and her views on the Scottish response to different outcomes. That’s what diplomats do. It’s usually easy to get people to talk frankly and indeed unguardedly, the more so if they have no reason to think that their words won’t get into the newspapers. Not everything said in such exchanges will be recorded ‘officially’ during the meeting.
So it strikes me as highly likely that NS and the ambassador had a frank word about the way the election would unfold and how NS would respond to the rival possibilities of Cameron/Miliband winning. Why wouldn’t they? Two senior professionals doing their jobs. Therefore the CG mentioned this on the telephone in his friendly debriefing as one of the main points of interest at the meeting.
But (as I also noted in my first posting) it is ALSO possible that the HSB did NOT note down completely accurately what the French CG said (ie missing a gloss or an emphasis or even getting the basic thought wrong) EVEN IF the conversation was being written up in good faith. And in fact the HSB thought that this part was a bit strange, so made a caveat in the record itself!
Conclusion?
Real memo. Genuine attempt to record in summary form the conversation accurately enough. Leaked by someone being naughty, as all such leaks are. No MI5. No nutty conspiracies.
All the subsequent denials involve no-one lying. They are using normal political/diplomatic technique to be 100% precise and as necessary 200% evasive. Thus the French CG:
Asked if any of it was accurate, he said: “I’m not going to disclose that. My comment is very clear. There has been no preference expressed regarding the outcome of the elections.”
He wisely refuses to explain precisely which parts were accurate and which not! QED. But no preference (sic) was expressed regarding the outcome of the election. That, of course, is not the same as NS wondering aloud whether E Miliband is likely to be a good PM.
Share this page:
Comment 1 of 4
JSD: Mr Crawford.
First of all, I need to express my gratitude to you, for permitting my critical comments to be posted on your website, and for permitting them to remain there. You did not have to do that: and however our personal views may differ, it is clear that you have a sincere commitment to freedom of speech, which is more important than any divergence of opinion. So, my thanks for that.
You should therefore read the comments below in the context of that gratitude: they are intended to be forthright, but not hostile.
CC: Some people have concluded that my thoughts on the Sturgeon Memo as previously posted were amiss – see the Comments.
JSD: That’s because they were amiss, Mr Crawford, as you understand very well, because you have now changed them without admitting that you have, as I delineate below.
CC: Am I accusing key people of lying?
No.
JSD: Well, that depends on who you mean by “key people”, which is a well-chosen phrase to obfuscate about whom you are speaking. If you include Nicola Sturgeon among your “key people”, then of course you must believe that she is lying, if you believe that Pierre Alain Coffinier is not. It is not possible for the original Daily Telegraph story to have been “categorically, 100% untrue”, as Nicola Sturgeon claims, and for Pierre Alain Coffinier to refuse to comment upon whether or not she did in fact say that Ed Miliband was “not PM material”, and to conclude as you do that “Sturgeon DID say something along those lines to the French ambassador”, without believing that Sturgeon is lying. Barring a brainstorm, it is the business and the training of politicians, diplomats, and civil servants to remember what they have said, and what other people have said. “Categorically, 100% untrue” means what it says. (You can, of course, believe that someone is lying without accusing them of it, but that is a distinction without a difference).
I am not going to comment upon your next six paragraphs, as I do not feel that I am qualified to do so. I will, however, make the following general comment.
When a lay person finds it necessary to rely upon the opinion of an expert (and I have to accept that both you and Mr Murray are experts in diplomacy), there are certain ways in which the lay person can increase his or her confidence that the expert’s opinion is reliable. If the expert can be shown to be right in a matter which can be subjected to independent verification, that should increase the lay person’s confidence in the expert’s opinion which cannot without undue laboriousness be so subjected. On the other hand, if the expert’s opinion can be shown to be baloney where it can be checked, obviously it will decrease the lay person’s confidence in that opinion where it cannot be checked. I trust that you will agree with that general proposition. And, I regret to say, that in your first posting, Mr Crawford (“The memo appears to record in some detail [and accurately] what was said by the French CG in that telephone call”), and in your second (“All the subsequent denials involve no-one lying”), you haven’t shown up so well.
CC: So the issue (leaving aside the prosaic explanation for how the memo found its way to Whitehall (if it did) and thence to the DT) boils down to three questions:
Did NS say something (guardedly or otherwise) to the ambassador about her views on Miliband/Cameron?
Comment 2 of 4
Did the French CG give a sense of that exchange to the hapless Scottish bureaucrat?
Did the HSB record what the French CG said accurately?
None of us know as we weren’t there.
JSD: None of us know anything, then, about any conversation at which we were not physically present. Who is this “us” that you have all of a sudden switched into, by the way?
Evaluation has to be based upon the evidence in the public domain.
CC: We are unlikely to get the chance to cross-examine the participants under oath
JSD: An interesting choice of phrase. Why “under oath”, Mr Crawford? What is in your mind? Do you believe that the answers the “key people” would give under oath would be different to the answers that they have given already? Why would you think that?
CC: with precise questions to check what EXACTLY they are denying, and to compare their several interpretations of what was said by whom.
JSD: That would undoubtedly be helpful, but it is not necessary in order to show that your first posting on this matter was baloney, and that you have changed your position since, as I show below (although your second posting is not much better than your first).
CC: Therefore we all guess,
JSD: No, there is no need to call it a guess. The evidence currently in the public domain is what we have to base our judgment upon, and for a lay person that has to be accepted as a more reliable guide than your alleged expertise, given your performance so far, as I have already noted.
CC: based on our own long experience of leading and recording diplomatic conversations where we have such long experience.
JSD: Please, Mr Crawford, speak for yourself. This almost sounds like the royal “we”, considering the immediate subject matter. It’s very obscure to me why you have suddenly gone to “we”, unless you are seeking some kind of comfort in allies. Your “we” certainly cannot include me, as I am not and never have been either a diplomat or a civil servant. Your phrasing here is remarkably clumsy and incoherent, considering the long experience “of leading and recording diplomatic conversations” which you make so much of, twice over. I dislike criticizing people for their language use – nobody is perfect and it’s a cheap shot – but in this case it appears entirely relevant. How far can your bragging of expertise in the nuances of diplomatic conversation be trusted, when you barely seem able to string a grammatical sentence together on your own website?
CC: I see no reason to believe that the HSB made up that final thought.
JSD: I do, assuming that by “final thought” you mean this phrase: “and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material)”. And my evidence is better than yours, Mr Crawford. My evidence is the following:
-Nicola Sturgeon says the story is 100% untrue. (Is she lying, Mr Crawford?)
-The French ambassador’s office has denied that any preference was expressed as to the outcome of the election.
-The French CG has denied on television that he told any civil servant that Nicola Sturgeon said that she had a preference for David Cameron as Prime Minister.
Note that I am not necessarily suggesting that the HSB (sic) deliberately fabricated this final thought. But that it was made up, at best through garbling or extrapolation or error, can scarcely be denied in the light of the evidence cited above.
Comment 3 of 4
JSD: To save space, I will record the rest of the next few paragraphs on which I wish to comment in ellipses. Most of what you say next I do not feel qualified to comment upon, since it is opinion, based on diplomatic experience. However, my general proposition above should also be borne in mind, when evaluating your opinions given below.
I will go this far with you. I think it likely that Sturgeon said something about Miliband not being PM material. The reason why I think that is twofold.
-The Sunday Herald has reported that Pierre Alain Coffinier refused to comment about whether the whole of the alleged comment was accurate.
-Paul Hutcheon of the Sunday Herald has reported on his personal blog that Pierre Alain Coffinier refused to answer the Sunday Herald on the specific point of whether or not Sturgeon had said that Miliband was not PM material.
CC: …It’s usually easy to get people to talk frankly and indeed unguardedly, the more so if they have no reason to think that their words won’t get into the newspapers…
JSD: Oh, indeed? The HSB (sic) does not seem to agree with you, as you twice refer, with approval, to his or her words which say the precise opposite of 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.”
You don’t know if you are on your head or your heels.
CC: …So it strikes me as highly likely that NS and the ambassador had a frank word about the way the election would unfold and how NS would respond to the rival possibilities of Cameron/Miliband winning…
JSD: Except that three people have now specifically denied that Sturgeon expressed any preference as to the outcome of the election. So the memo cannot be accurate on that point.
CC: But (as I also noted in my first posting)
JSD: Where? Kindly point out where you noted what you say below in your first posting.
CC: it is ALSO possible that the HSB did NOT note down completely accurately what the French CG said (i.e. missing a gloss or an emphasis or even getting the basic thought wrong) EVEN IF the conversation was being written up in good faith.
JSD: Well, as a matter of fact that is considerably different to what you said in your first posting, Mr Crawford. Let’s have a look at what you said in your first posting.
CC first posting: “The memo appears to record in some detail (and accurately) what was said by the French CG in that telephone call.”
JSD: How do you know that the memo records what was said accurately? The evidence as we now know it suggests that it was not an accurate record at all. The French CG has denied, on television, that very specific and significant details of what the memo recorded formed a part of his telephone call.
CC first posting: “At least one person in the British system is still able to write a more or less cogent and helpful record of conversation.”
CC to Mr John Silver: “All the denials (esp the French CG one) subtly avoid answering the key questions, another reason to believe that it is all accurate enough.”
JSD: It is clear that you were completely wrong on this, and you now recognize that perfectly well yourself, as you now add this hedge in your second posting, which, contrary to your claim, you said nothing about in your first posting:
Comment 4 of 4
CC second posting: “it is ALSO possible that the HSB did NOT note down completely accurately what the French CG said (i.e. missing a gloss or an emphasis or even getting the basic thought wrong)”
JSD: “Getting the basic thought wrong” is a rather different kettle of fish from “record…(and accurately)…what was said”. Do you agree, or not?
CC: …All the subsequent denials involve no-one lying…
JSD: Nonsense. Impossible, as clearly explained above.
CC: …He wisely refuses to explain precisely which parts were accurate and which not…
JSD: Not quite. He has explained which parts were not accurate and refused to comment upon the rest.
CC: But no preference (sic) was expressed regarding the outcome of the election. That, of course, is not the same as NS wondering aloud whether E Miliband is likely to be a good PM.
JSD: It isn’t, no, but the memo says more than that. It says, as one continuous whole, with the Miliband comment added virtually as an afterthought, that Sturgeon expressed a preference on the outcome of the election, which has been emphatically denied by all three key people involved. In your first posting you said that was accurate. In your second posting you have jettisoned that conclusion. Is it any wonder that people concluded that your first thoughts were amiss?
In addition to the above, I note that you have made no reference to my pick up of your phrase “cunning Gallic way to deflect attention from what happened…” in your previous posting. To be fair, I did not ask you to. But I am doing so now.
You have represented the British state internationally, Mr Crawford, and in a private capacity you appear to continue to represent my country. You should know better than to engage in crass nationalistic stereotyping of that kind. I invite you to agree that an apology is due to M. Coffinier and to France. You had the impudence to post such a remark on a publicly available forum, and it remains there for everyone to see, including M. Coffinier and his fellow citizens. I am requesting, please, that you now have the humility to retract it.
My guess is, that since nobody appears to read your website anyway, you are used to saying whatever comes into your head without any expectation that you are going to be called on it. If so, that is a mistake.
Finally: you may choose to believe, if you please, Mr Crawford, that we are a lot of credulous idiots over on Craig Murray’s blog hanging on his every word – for how else am I to construe such a remark as “He now attracts a wide following by talking utter Leftist nonsense in a loud voice”? – but when you pluck up the courage to venture over there yourself, do please be aware that what you say is going to be subject to critical scrutiny, and, if necessary, challenge. I trust that you understand that now. Don’t be so thundering rude, to speak frankly.
I am delighted that I am now aware of your existence. I will continue to read carefully the utter Rightist drivel that you talk in a loud voice, assuming that your last two offerings are typical of your output, and be assured that you will be hearing from me again.
I appreciate your time, thank you.
With kind regards.
John Spencer-Davis
Yup. I was right (enough): it was a real, good-faith memo. not an MI5 plant! http://charlescrawford.biz/2015/05/23/sturgeon-me…
Amidst all your frothy 'analysis' you actually agree with me on the most basic point of all that was the subject of the original splashed news story:
"I will go this far with you. I think it likely that Sturgeon said something about Miliband not being PM material. The reason why I think that is twofold.
– The Sunday Herald has reported that Pierre Alain Coffinier refused to comment about whether the whole of the alleged comment was accurate.
– Paul Hutcheon of the Sunday Herald has reported on his personal blog that Pierre Alain Coffinier refused to answer the Sunday Herald on the specific point of whether or not Sturgeon had said that Miliband was not PM material."
So all is now well. Sorted!