HOW CAN STURGEON CLING ON?
Pressure piles on First Minister as inquiry raises new concerns about her credibility
THE crisis facing Nicola sturgeon’s leadership deepened yesterday after a Holyrood inquiry raised further serious concerns about her conduct.
In a fresh blow to the First Minister, a leak from the committee revealed members found it ‘hard to believe’ that she did not know about Alex Salmond’s inappropriate behaviour earlier than she has claimed.
It follows a desperate 24 hours for the SNP leader after it emerged the Salmond Inquiry had concluded she misled Holyrood and potentially breached the ministerial code.
Opposition leaders yesterday said that if Miss Sturgeon had a ‘shred of integrity’ she would now resign.
The inquiry has been investigating the way harassment complaints about Mr Salmond were handled.
More leaked details of the inquiry report, due to be published next week, show the committee is ‘concerned’ that Miss Sturgeon held a series of talks with Mr Salmond from April 2, 2018 about a Scottish Government investigation, but failed to inform senior civil servants for more than two months.
It was ‘inappropriate’ to continue
to meet him about the issue following the initial talks, it says, and it is ‘hard to believe’ Miss Sturgeon did not know about concerns regarding Mr Salmond’s inappropriate behaviour before November 2017.
It says she has ‘misled the committee’ if she did have knowledge of the concerns but did not make MSPs aware when they asked her.
The latest revelations come after it emerged the report will accuse Miss Sturgeon of an ‘inaccurate account’ of her meetings with Mr Salmond, where complaints were discussed.
Ruth Davidson, leader of the Tories at Holyrood, said: ‘If Nicola Sturgeon has a shred of integrity, she should be considering her position. She has every opportunity to do the right thing and resign.
‘No First Minister is above the fundamental principles of honesty and trust. There is no question that Nicola Sturgeon has misled parliament and broken the promises she made to tell the truth.
‘The SNP’s erratic outburst today against the committee shows the panicked spiral they are now in. Their suggestion seems to be that Andy Wightman, arguably the MSP most likely to rigidly stick to his principles, is some kind of underhand political opportunist. It is an extraordinary attack on a committee, and its members, before it has even reported.
‘If it was possible, the SNP’s defence looks even less credible now. They are lurching from “whataboutery” to unhinged criticism of a well-respected, independentminded parliamentarian.’
MSPs have held a series of meetings this week to decide key details of the report, which is still being finalised and is due to be published on Tuesday.
One key part of the report, leaked to Sky News, regards Miss Sturgeon’s meeting at her home with Mr Salmond on April 2, 2018, when they first discussed the Government investigation into complaints.
This was followed up by two further meetings, on June 7 and July 14, as well as two telephone conversations in April and July.
A passage of the committee’s report says: ‘The committee is concerned it took until the 6th June 2018 for the First Minister to inform the Permanent Secretary of the fact of meetings (with Alex Salmond).
‘Given the sensitivity, the committee believes it was inappropriate for the First Minister to continue to meet (him) on this topic.
‘She should have made the Permanent Secretary aware as soon as possible after the 2nd April 2018 meeting, at which point she should have confirmed she would cease contact with Alex Salmond.’
The report also raises questions over Miss Sturgeon’s claim to MSPs under oath that she first had concerns or suspicions about Mr Salmond in November 2017 after a media inquiry about allegations.
It says MSPs ‘find it hard to believe’ that Miss Sturgeon had ‘no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Alex Salmond before November 2017’.
It goes on: ‘If she did have such knowledge, then she should have acted upon it. If she did have such knowledge, she has misled the committee.’
The latest leak follows the revelation that the committee voted by a five to four majority that Miss Sturgeon gave an ‘inaccurate’ account of a meeting with her predecessor, and therefore misled parliament by claiming she did not offer to intervene in the investigation when she met Mr Salversions mond in April 2018. The former First Minister said in his evidence that she did offer to intervene – and he was backed up by corroborating witnesses.
The committee voted to agree a passage of the report which states: ‘Taking account of the competing of the event, the committee believes that she did in fact leave Alex Salmond with the impression that she would, if necessary, intervene.
‘This is confirmed by Duncan Hamilton, who was also at the meeting. Her written evidence is, therefore, an inaccurate account of what happened and she has misled the committee on this matter. This is a potential breach of the ministerial code.’
A spokesman for Miss Sturgeon said: ‘The First Minister told the truth to the committee and stands by every word of her evidence.
‘Daily the public have seen the open, frank approach the First Minister has taken to political leadership. The contrast with elements of the opposition, who appear intent on breaking every rule in the book in a blatantly transparent attempt to damage her before the coming election, could not be more stark.
‘The latest leak from the committee, suggesting they find it “hard to believe” she did not previously know about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Alex Salmond is not supported by a single shred of evidence.
‘Sadly, she is not the first woman let down by a man she once trusted to face that charge, and regrettably she is unlikely to be the last. On this, the committee appears to have resorted to baseless assertion, supposition and smear – that is not how serious parliamentary committees are supposed to work, and in behaving this way they are simply exposing their base political motives.
‘And on the suggestion that the First Minister was not clear to Mr Salmond that she would not intervene on his behalf, the committee appear to have deliberately
‘Base political motives’
ignored and suppressed evidence submitted to them which corroborates her evidence on that issue. And that, in fact, she did not intervene on behalf of a then friend and colleague to help cover up sexual harassment allegations, appears irrelevant to them.’
At the Government’s Covid briefing, Health Secretary Jeane Freeman backed Miss Sturgeon, saying: ‘I do not believe the First Minister should resign. I do not believe she misled parliament.’
Asked who would lead the Covid response if Miss Sturgeon resigned, Miss Freeman said: ‘I have no expectation at all that our current, most excellent, First Minister will resign.’
‘Do the right thing and resign’