Daily Mail column questions Nicola Sturgeon's focus on outside earnings as MSP

A Daily Mail opinion piece by Stephen Daisley questions Nicola Sturgeon’s priorities as a politician, arguing that the former Scottish first minister has largely redirected her energy into outside earnings rather than her duties as a member of the Scottish Parliament. The column notes that since stepping back from Bute House in March 2023, Sturgeon has written a memoir, signed with a literary agent, launched a company, and appeared as a pundit on election night—activities that the piece frames as self-enrichment rather than public service.

Details cited by the columnist include that Sturgeon has spoken only 12 times in Holyrood in the past year, with about half of those remarks being points of order about a technical problem with her voting app, raising questions about the balance between her daytime duties and other work. Her parliamentary salary is £74,507, and the column highlights her growing outside earnings as a point of contention. It notes that her company has reportedly earned £151,500 of a £300,000 book advance for her memoirs, along with £25,000 for pontificating on ITV on election night in 2024 and £6,600 in book review fees.

Govanhill, the Glasgow Southside constituency where Sturgeon’s office is located, is cited in the column as a place where poverty, overcrowding and health inequalities persist. Figures released last year by the UK Government identified Govanhill as Britain’s child poverty blackspot, with 88 per cent of children in Govanhill West classified as deprived and 69 per cent in the eastern part of the neighborhood. Conditions are particularly grim for Roma families, the piece notes, with Govanhill home to Scotland’s largest Roma community. The article states that six in ten Roma residents describe the quality of their housing as poor or very poor, and about one in four report rodent infestation. The column argues that if any constituency in Scotland deserved a full-time MSP dedicated to its needs, Govanhill would be it.

Beyond local hardship, the piece criticizes Sturgeon’s public stance on gender policy and her broader independence strategy. It references her assertion that Scotland had “collectively lost our minds” over gender self-identification and notes that the policy was subsequently ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. The column contends that such positions reignited old tensions rather than advancing policy outcomes, and that Sturgeon’s memoirs and interviews revived the bitter split with Alex Salmond, accusing him of disinterest in the detailed white paper on independence and portraying him as opposed to same-sex marriage. It argues that these disputes have intensified divisions within the SNP and among voters.

The article suggests that, in the public eye, Sturgeon has transitioned from a destination figure in Scottish politics to a controversial backbencher whose outside ventures overshadow her day job. It frames the narrative around the concern that the electorate elected an MSP to serve Glasgow Southside, not a public intellectual pursuing a broad media and publishing career. While such outside work is common for former governments, the column emphasizes the ongoing duties of a representative who remains in Parliament and whose attention should be focused on the constituents who face poverty, housing issues and health inequalities.

As devolved elections approach in May, the piece implies that the SNP can ill afford to be represented by a figure whose high-profile outside activities are perceived as detracting from parliamentary work. It concludes that Nicola Sturgeon, despite her past achievements, appears to many voters as prioritizing personal advancement over delivering policy outcomes for those most in need in Govanhill and similar communities.