Savage criticism as Swinney survives no-confidence vote
DESPERATE John Swinney barely clung onto his job last night as the SNP was accused of ‘obstruction, secrecy and contempt’ over the Alex Salmond debacle.
The Deputy First Minister survived a vote of no confidence thanks only to the Green Party, amid a furious row over his refusal to hand over key documents to the Salmond inquiry.
In last night’s vote, 57 MSPs from the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems backed Tory MSP Miles Briggs’ motion of no confidence, while 65 MSPs from the SNP and Greens voted against it.
Opposition MSPs said there is a ‘pattern of behaviour’ of ‘obstruction, secrecy and contempt for the institution of this parliament’ by ministers of the ‘secretive national party’.
It came after ministers claimed they could not provide minutes from a series of crucial consultations with legal advisers which took place ahead of the legal battle with Mr Salmond.
This is despite repeated demands for all relevant documents from the Holyrood committee examining the botched investigation into allegations made against the former First Minister.
Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie, a member of the committee, said: ‘The committee has had partial information, delayed information and, in some cases, no information at all. The Government has treated the committee of the parliament with contempt, and it has treated the parliament with contempt too.’
It came despite the SNP convener of the inquiry writing to Mr Swinney on Tuesday to express frustration at his failure to hand over details of meetings with legal counsel.
Mr Swinney claimed that ‘we simply do not have the minutes of meetings’.
Nicola Sturgeon previously promised that the Government would provide the inquiry with ‘whatever material they request’.
Miss Baillie said two votes of parliament demanding all legal advice is handed over have been ‘ignored’, and cited ‘critical’ meetings with legal counsel on November 2 and 13, including one attended by Miss Sturgeon, her chief of staff and the Permanent Secretary, where no details have been released.
She added: ‘The SNP Government have form.
‘They withheld documents from the judicial review, resulting in the “professional embarrassment” of its own senior counsel.
‘It withheld documents despite a search warrant in the criminal case against Alex Salmond, which is, in itself, a crime. And they have withheld documents from the committee. There is a pattern of behaviour here, and it is one of obstruction, secrecy and contempt for the institution of this parliament.
‘The motion of no confidence may be in John Swinney, but it is the behaviour of the secretive national party that is truly outrageous.’
Documents published last week – after Miss Sturgeon was questioned at the Holyrood inquiry – revealed that the Government ploughed on with its court battle with Mr Salmond despite clear warnings from legal advisers that it was heading for a costly and humiliating defeat.
Taxpayers were left with a bill of more than £500,000 after the Government investigation was found to be ‘unlawful’ and ‘tainted by apparent bias’ at the Court of Session.
The Tories also intend to bring forward a no confidence vote in Miss Sturgeon.
Ruth Davidson, leader of the Tories at Holyrood, said 11 documents were only released by Mr Swinney after Miss Sturgeon appeared at the inquiry, meaning she could not be questioned about them under oath. She added: ‘Despite dragging tranches of documents from John Swinney for fear of his job, there still remain key omissions.’
She said it was ‘inconceivable’ that minutes were not taken at a meeting between the Permanent Secretary, the
‘Obstruction and secrecy’ ‘Contempt for parliament’
First Minister, her chief of staff and senior external counsel.
Miss Davidson added that ‘this is no way for the Scottish Government to treat this parliament’.
Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said the committee had turned into ‘shabby political theatre’, and its members were ‘obsessed with the idea of winning a political scalp’.
Mr Swinney said: ‘The Government has now published all the formal written advice notes that it has received from external counsel. Indeed, we have also published emails from our senior counsel and an unredacted version of the summary shared with the committee in December.
‘We have also published documentation that includes the legal advice of the law officers. On minutes of meetings, we simply don’t have those. We have asked senior counsel whether they have a minute of those meetings; they do not.’