This is absolutely extraordinary. Even after Alistair Carmichael's grovelling apology to Nicola Sturgeon, which admits the smears made against her were totally without foundation, the Spectator are STILL idiotically trying to insist that the original story was true. This seems to be based on a simple failure to understand plain English.
This is what they're saying -
"Interestingly, the Cabinet Office has confirmed that the memo did exist and the civil servant believes it was an accurate representation of Sturgeon’s conversation...the fact that an independent investigation has shown she did say she’d prefer Cameron to be PM makes for an interesting postscript to the election."
Nope. The independent investigation shows the complete opposite of that, and bizarrely the Spectator prove that point themselves by directly quoting the relevant segment of the findings -
"He confirmed under questioning that he believed that the memo was an accurate record of the conversation that took place between him and the French Consul General, and highlighted that the memo had stated that part of the conversation between the French Ambassador and the First Minister might well have been “lost in translation”"
How difficult is this, even for a deranged right-wing rag like the Spectator? The investigation found that the conversation between the Consul-General and the civil servant who wrote the memo was accurately recorded. The conversation between Nicola Sturgeon and the Ambassador was an entirely different conversation, involving entirely different people, and the investigation reiterates that the civil servant thought the second-hand account of that conversation was "lost in translation".
How in God's name the Spectator get from there to "the independent investigation has shown she did say she’d prefer Cameron to be PM" is anyone's guess. It's the absolute polar opposite of the truth, and I look forward to it being corrected and apologised for immediately.