Tom Gordon writes of the leaked "Frenchgate" memo that it "wrongly suggested" that Nicola Sturgeon would have preferred a Conservative victory, and that its "claims ...
were inaccurate" (Scotland Office refuses to reveal who saw false Frenchgate memo, News, June 28). How does he know? The Cabinet Office report made it clear that the memo's author's integrity and professionalism were beyond reproach.
Something very unlikely must have happened: either (a) the First Minister lied (and was backed up by the French Ambassador), or (b) the French consul did so, or (c) the French consul or (d) the competent and conscientious civil servant completely misunderstood what she/he was told. We are all entitled to speculate as to which of these is the most likely explanation, but only a few know the truth, and Tom Gordon isn't one of them.
Andrew Anderson
Edinburgh
You are correct to question who in the Scotland Office knew about the notorious "Frenchgate" leak, and your editorial on the topic was welcome (Scotland Office keeps digging over Frenchgate, Editorial, June 28). Scottish Secretary David Mundell was first asked about the matter on BBC Scotland's Newsdrive programme at about 4.40pm on May 27. His rattled, stuttering, incoherent response is recorded in the short clip on YouTube. Keep on asking.
Malcolm Kerr
Brodick, Isle of Arran
With regard to your editorial on "Frenchgate", I have from the beginning thought that the affair had all the hallmarks of sneakiness and, to my mind, a Conservative style of mischief and pettiness.
Now for my bit of pettiness: "The Scotland Office refused to release the full text of the memo ... in case it damaged Anglo-French relations." Shouldn't it be "British-French" relations or is it only for our Anglo cousins to take credit or blame (less likely) for shielding the common folk from the way diplomacy works? The "Anglo-whomever" phrase is always annoying. It seems that the complete Anglicisation of the rest of the families of the UK has still not happened and I hope never it does.
Charles P O'Brien
Clydebank
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article