The dramatic row that has gripped the nation
Q: Why did the Government delay publishing legal advice? A:
Alex Salmond claimed the Scottish Government’s internal complaints process was unfair – and he was vindicated in January 2019 when judges ruled the system was tainted by apparent bias.
It was later suggested ministers had been warned they would lose a judicial review of the process, only for the government to decide to plough ahead.
MSPs later voted twice for the legal advice to be published, which finally happened this week. Sturgeon said all governments routinely receive confidential legal advice and it was not customary to publish it.
But the Scottish Conservatives claim ministers deliberately withheld the evidence despite a committee of MSPs investigating the botched complaints process asking for it to be published.
Not all of the legal advice has been published.
Q: Why did the Government push forward with a court case it was likely to lose? A:
The taxpayer was eventually left with a bill for £600,000 when the Government lost the judicial review.
Ruth Davidson said yesterday the legal advice showed the Government had attempted to “defend the indefensible” before finally conceding the case to Salmond. She accused the First Minister of having “dug her heels in” and pushed ahead with the case despite lawyers raising concerns.
But Sturgeon said the papers show that on December 11, 2018, law officers believed there were “credible arguments to be made” – although she accepted “things started to go wrong, seriously wrong, in the case in the days that followed”.
She said “due process was followed”, saying this then “led to a decision on the part of the Government to concede the case”.
Q: When did Sturgeon find out about an investigation into Salmond? A:
Nicola Sturgeon told Parliament on several occasions she was first informed of the allegations made against Salmond at a meeting with her old boss at her Glasgow home on April 2, 2018.
But it was later revealed the First Minister held a meeting with Geoff Aberdein – Salmond’s former chief of staff – at her Holyrood office on March 29, 2018, where allegations were discussed. Sturgeon claimed she had “forgotten” about this meeting but said: “I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.” She told the inquiry this week: “Not unreasonably, some people have asked how I could have forgotten the conversation on March 29.”
Q: Did Sturgeon offer to intervene with the investigation? A:
Salmond travelled to Sturgeon’s home for the meeting in April 2018 with Aberdein and Duncan Hamilton, his legal advisor.
The former first minister told the inquiry last week that Sturgeon offered to “assist” with the investigation – a claim backed up by Hamilton.
In a letter to MSPs published this week, he said: “We discussed mediation. My clear recollection is that her words were, ‘If it comes to it, I will intervene’.”
But Sturgeon denied making this offer. She told the inquiry: “I believe I did make it clear that I would not intervene. “
Q: Why didn’t Sturgeon record her meetings with Salmond? A:
The parliamentary code states that a private secretary or official should be present for all discussions relating to government business.
Sturgeon spoke to Salmond at her home on June 2, 2018, as well as on June 7 in Aberdeen and then at her house for a second time on July 18. But she told MSPs these meetings were not government business and were instead called to discuss internal SNP matters.
She told the inquiry the venue for the April 2 meeting was her house as she thought Salmond was arriving to tell her he was quitting the SNP and “this led me to meet him and placed the meeting firmly in the personal and party space”.
She added that she decided not to record the meeting “because I did
The major questions surrounding the First Minsiter and the pitfalls she faces in the weeks ahead. not want to compromise the independence or confidentiality of the process that was under way”.
Q: Did Sturgeon break the ministerial code? A:
The ministerial code is a document setting out rules and standards for government ministers. Usually, if ministers are found to have broken the code they are expected to resign.
Ruth Davidson claimed yesterday: “There is no argument if Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code – the argument is only about how badly she broke it.” But that has still to be decided. The Salmond Inquiry is looking at the Government failings during the misconduct probe, but a separate investigation, led by James Hamilton QC, is specifically reviewing whether Sturgeon broke the code. Parliament sources hope the publication of his report is imminent.
Q: Will Sturgeon face a vote of no confidence? A:
The Scottish Conservatives called for Sturgeon to resign on Tuesday – the day before she gave evidence to the inquiry – after the publication of the legal advice.
The Tories said they would bring a motion of no confidence against the First Minister. So far, no other party has said they support the motion – meaning little chance of success.
That could change if one of the two investigations concludes that Sturgeon did break the ministerial code. And the thought of a toppling a popular First Minister before an election could be too much for the pro-independence Greens.
Q: Could this episode deprive the SNP of a majority? A:
The Daily Record’s exclusive poll on Monday found the Nationalists remain on course to win a majority at May’s election – but only just.
But there’s no denying the SNP remains the country’s most popular party by some distance, and Sturgeon is the country’s most popular politician.
Our poll found 45 per cent of people think the SNP is divided. But it has made little impact on the likely result of an election in less than three months.
March: “DCRs have contributed to lower rates of fatal overdoses.” August: Deleted.
March: “Areas where DCRs are operating have had reductions in public drug consumption and publicly discarded drug-related litter, e.g. syringes.” August: Deleted.
March: “Ambulance call-outs for overdoses are generally reduced in the vicinity of a DCR.” August: “Ambulance call-outs for overdoses in the vicinity of a DCR in Sydney, Australia were reduced during the DCR’s opening hours.”
March: “Crime rates have not increased in areas where DCRs operate.” August: “Crime rates remained stable in the neighbourhood where a DCR operated in Vancouver, Canada.”
MARTIN POWELL SAYS:
“No one has ever died from an overdose in a DCR anywhere in the world, tens of thousands of overdoses have been reversed in them.
“There is good evidence showing reductions in street injecting and discarded needles. There is no reason to remove this – other research has also found crime rates don’t rise.
“But this rephrasing means exactly the same thing - its only purpose is to weaken how this statement sounds.
“Why spin it like that apart from for political reasons?”
March: No legal disclaimer. August: A legal disclaimer is added, stating the Government’s often-stated position, blocking DCRs: “There is no legal framework for the provision of DCRs in the UK and the government’s position is that the operation of such services would be likely to involve a range of offences being committed. “There have been calls, including from the Scottish Government, for the law to be changed so that DCRs can be legally operated, however there are currently no plans for this to happen.”
March: “The majority of available literature shows that DCRs have been found to reduce overdose mortality, attract high-risk PWUD, decrease syringe and pipe sharing, decrease rates of public consumption, and improve engagement in addiction treatment programs.” August: Deleted.
MARTIN POWELL SAYS:
“It’s significant they note the Scottish Government call. This is meant to be an evidence briefing on effectiveness – this is not evidence of effectiveness.
“It has probably been inserted to warn PHE staff off, but also gives away the political motivation for reworking this briefing.
“There’s no reason to remove this – it is factually accurate – other than it would embarrass ministers and contradict their and PHE’s position.”