SNP civil war escalates after Salmond submission
botched handling of harassment complaints against Mr Salmond by the Scottish Government, which led to a £500,000 legal bill after the Government conceded a judicial review challenge on the grounds of the process being “tainted by apparent bias”.
Mr Salmond was also acquitted of sexual offence charges in a trial last year.
In his submission, he accuses the Scottish Government and the SNP of a “malicio us and concerted attempt to damage my reputation and remove me from public life in Scotland”.
He said: “It is an attempt which would, in fact, have succeeded, but for the protection of the court and j ury system and in particular the Court of Session and the High Court of Judiciary.
“However, underlying all of this and perhaps the most serious issue of all, is the complete breakdown of the necessary barriers which should exist between government, political party and indeed the prosecution authorities in any country which abides by the rule of law.
“I leave to others the question of what is, or is not, a conspiracy, but am very clear in my position that the evidence supports a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort amongst a range of individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned.
“That includes, for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (chief executive), Ian Mccann (compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (chief operating officer) of the SNP together with Liz Lloyd, the First Minister’s chief of staff.
“There are others who, for legal reasons, I am not allowed to name.”
He added: “The real cost to the Scottish people runs into many millions of pounds and yet no-one in this entire process has uttered the simple words which are necessary
on occasions to renew and refresh democratic institutions – ‘I resign’.
“The committee now has the opportunity to address that position.”
Mr Salmond also indicates in his submission that he plans to return to the police with a complaint over the leaking of the decision report from within the Scottish Government to the Daily Record.
Criticising the Crown Office, he said he was “confident” he knew the identity of the leaker and indicated it was highly likely to be a special adviser.
In his accusations against senior members of the SNP, Mr Salmond questioned why Mr Murrell would contact staff about making complaints following a “selectively” sent email to SNP staff.
In the submission he states: “Mr Murrell deployed his senior staff to recruit and persuade staff and ex-staff to submit police complaints.
“This activity was being coordinated with special advisers and was occurring after the police investigation had started and after I ceased to be a member of the SNP.
"From the description of the material released to the committee under section 23, it is clear that any supporting evidence establishing this point was not shared with the committee by the Crown Office. Why?”
Speaking about the establishment of the complaints
process, Mr Salmond claims it is “impossible to accept” the addition of former ministers was not “specifically inserted to allow the complaint against me to be prosecuted”.
Attacking the permanent secretary’s handling of the scandal, the former first minister said Ms Evans was “chiefly responsible for the pursuit of an unlawful policy, which has cost the Scottish people millions of pounds”.
Rejected Mr Salmond’s cla ims last night, Ms Sturgeon said: “He appears to be suggesting some kind of conspiracy or concerted campaign against him without a shred of evidence.
"This is his opportunity, because the burden of proof lies with him, to replace the insinuation and assertion that we’ve heard over several months now with evidence.
"Now I don’t believe he can do that because I know what he is claiming about a conspiracy is not true.
"But if he can’t substantiate it, it is time for him to stop making these claims because it is not fair to women first and foremost who came forward with complaints or the other people who have given loyal service to Alex Salmond who he also appears to be directing those claims to."
Asked about whether she stood by her assertion to Parliament that she first came to know about the complaints during the meeting with Mr