STURGEON ON THE BRINK
Devastating documents that could topple her TODAY ... and what it means for Britain
NICOLA Sturgeon was fighting for her political life after bombshell documents last night raised key questions over her conduct in the Alex Salmond saga.
She faces a vote of no confidence after the newly published papers revealed the Scottish government continued a costly legal battle with Mr Salmond despite its lawyers advising it was likely to lose.
They say her government’s own counsel suffered ‘extreme professional embarrassment’ over the debacle, which cost taxpayers more than £600,000.
And newly published evidence from Mr Salmond’s lawyer and an ex- special adviser fuels claims the first minister misled the Scottish parliament over what she knew about the harassment claims against him and when.
They also suggest that the name of one of the women who complained was leaked to former Scottish National Party leader Mr Salmond’s chief of staff.
Scottish Tories said there was ‘ no longer any doubt Nicola Sturgeon lied to the Scottish parliament and broke the ministerial code on numerous counts’.
The damning revelations heap further pressure on the SNP leader, who will appear before the Holyrood inquiry investigating the fiasco today. Mr Salber mond has accused his former protégée of multiple breaches of the ministerial code, including by wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing a legal claim that was doomed from the start.
Mr Salmond won a judicial review in 2019 when Scotland’s highest civil court found the SNP government’s probe into harassment claims against him was unlawful, unfair and ‘tainted by apparent bias’ due to prior contact between investigating officer Judith Mackinnon and two of the women who complained.
It had to pay £512,250 to cover Mr Salmond’s legal fees and £118,523 towards its own costs.
The Scottish government had refused to publish the legal advice it received on the case until the opposition pushed for a vote of no confidence in deputy first minister John Swinney.
But a raft of new documents published last night showed it was warned about the disastrous battle in September 2018 – but it did not concede its case until January the following year.
Redacted legal advice showed the government’s lawyers issued warning on October 31 after the extent of the contact between Miss Mackinnon and the complainants became known. Roddy Dunlop QC said ‘it presents a very real problem’. On Decem
6, 2018, legal advisers told ministers: ‘We cannot let the respondents sail forth into January’s hearing without the now very real risks of doing so being crystal clear to all concerned.’
But another document indicated Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, both head of the body responsible for prosecutions in Scotland and a member of its government, still wanted to pursue the case. A redacted email on December 11 said: ‘The LA [Lord Advocate] was indeed clear about no question of conceding’.
By December 19, however, the government’s legal counsel issued a memo expressing their ‘dismay’ over the case and said they had suffered ‘extreme professional embarrassment’.
By December 28 the lawyers had threatened to resign from the case, and the government conceded defeat on January 8 – a week before the full judicial review was due to start.
Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross said: ‘ The legal advice shows the government knew months in advance that the judicial review was doomed, but they still went on to waste more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money.’
It comes as witness statements appeared to back up claims by Mr Salmond that Miss Sturgeon misled parliament when she said she first learnt of the complaints against him at a meeting in her home on April 2, 2018. He said that the name of one of the complainers was passed to Geoff
‘Risks are crystal clear’
Aberdein, his former chief of staff, in a breach of confidence. In October, Miss Sturgeon conceded she met Mr Aberdein in her office four days earlier, on March 29, 2018 but ‘forgot’ about it. But ex-SNP communications
director Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton, a lawyer for Mr Salmond, said they had spoken to Mr Aberdein ahead of the March 29 meeting he was clear that ‘the purpose of was to discuss the two complaints’. Mr Pringle also said he can confirm from his conversations with Mr Aberdein ‘that he is in no doubt that a complainant’s name was shared with him’. A spokesman for Miss Sturgeon said: ‘To call a vote of no confidence in the middle of a pandemic... is utterly irresponsible.’