Sturgeon insists there is no cover up in Salmond affair
Former SNP deputy leader accuses Nicola Sturgeon of breaching ministerial code
An under-pressure Nicola Sturgeon has hit back at accusations she misled Parliament over when she first knew of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond and denied there has been a “cover up” after parts of his written evidence to a Holyrood committee were redacted.
The First Minister faced intense questioning from opposition party leaders over the decision by the Crown Office to have certain paragraphs of Mr Salmond’s evidence pertaining to when she first knew of the allegations against him removed, and why the name of one of the civil servant complainers was allegedly leaked to her predecessor.
Ms Sturgeon repeatedly said that there was no “cover up” over the redactions to Mr Salmond’s submission, denied that the complainer’s name had been revealed, and accused MSPS of attempting to “unfairly trash” the reputation of Scotland’s independent justiciary.
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tories Holyrood group leader, pressed Ms Sturgeon on the redactions while Scottish Labour interim leader, Jackie Baillie, said there was “something rotten at the core of the SNP poisoning our institutions”.
Ms Davidson said the First Minister had challenged Alex Salmond to produce evidence for his claims of a conspiracy against him “only for the Crown to then demand sections be censored"
She added: “Alex Salmond’s evidence states ‘the First Minister told parliament she first learned of the complaints against me when I visited her home on 2nd April 2018. That is untrue and a breach of the ministerial code.’ That’s one of the sections the Crown Office intervened with parliament to remove – despite the fact it’s been widely published elsewhere.
“It doesn't risk identifying complainers which we all agree is an important safeguard for women who have already been grossly let down by her government, so what is it about those two sentences that are so damaging they should be censored or is it just they are damaging to the First Minister?
“All the redacted parts are important because they’re exactly the parts that expose the First Minister. Does she understand that this looks like a cover up when the evidence redacted is the most damaging to her personally?”
A visibly angry Ms Sturgeon said that "every single allegation and claim and assertion” made by Ms Davidson had been included in her written evidence to the committee submitted last August, and she had been waiting since then to appear at the committee.
“That’s not a cover up. I put it in my evidence to the committee months ago. So it’s not a cover up. I expect to be fully questioned on all these matters on Wednesday next week,” she said.
“Scrutiny of me and the Scottish Government, because the Scottish Government has made a mistake in this process, is absolutely necessary and I don’t shy away from that, but anyone who is suggesting that prosecution decisions or decisions the Crown Office takes
in upholding court orders is in any way politically driven is not only wrong, and lacking in any shred of evidence, but they are signing up to a dangerous conspiracy theory which risks undermining the integrity and well deserved reputation of Scotland’s independent justice system.
“All of us have a responsibility to conduct this debate in a way that does not unfairly trash the reputation of people doing their jobs independent of government.
"Scrutiny of me is important and legitimate. What is not, is to pursue a conspiracy theory, a scorched earth policy, that threatens the reputation and integrity of Scotland’s independent justice institutions just because you happen to dislike this government and to sacrifice all of that at the alter of the ego of one man.”
Ms Davidson said it was the First Minister who was “damaging the institutions it’s her responsibility to uphold” and added: “Majority votes by members of this chamber to produce legal advice ignored, crucial evidence freely available elsewhere censored, promises of openness and transparency broken, the chief executive of Scotland’s ruling party caught calling for the police to be pressured, the reputation of the Scottish Government tainted, the standing of this parliament diminished,
Alex Salmond has agreed to appear before the Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Government's unlawful investigation of sexual harassment claims made against him.
The former first minister pulled out of a scheduled evidence session on Wednesday after the Scottish Parliament belatedly redacted his written submission the day before he was due to appear, but he offered to attend today instead.
Holyrood's Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints duly agreed to invite Mr Salmond to give evidence in person today - an offer the former SNP leader has accepted. He is expected to give evidence on the botched investigation and face questions about his allegations that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has misled Parliament and breached the ministerial code.
In his written submission, Mr Salmond named people he claims were involved in a "malicious and concerted" attempt to see him removed from public life, and described the Crown Office - the body responsible for prosecuting crimes in Scotland - as "simply not fit for purpose".
Ms Sturgeon has insisted there is "not a shred of evidence" that there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond, and she has denied lying to Parliament. She is scheduled to appear before the committee to give evidence on Wednesday.
The committee was set up to examine the Scottish Government's botched investigation of sexual harassment allegations against Mr Salmond. He successfully challenged the lawfulness of the investigation at the Court of Session - Scotland's highest civil court - and it was found to be "tainted by apparent bias" because the investigating officer had prior contact with two of the women who made complaints. He was subsequently awarded a £512,250 payout.
Mr Salmond was later acquitted of 13 charges of sexual assault in a criminal trial.
He had been due to appear before the committee on Wednesday before the Crown Office wrote to the Parliament and purportedly raised concerns about possible contempt of court linked to his written submission.
The Scottish Parliament's Corporate Body agreed to remove Mr Salmond's written submission on Tuesday and replace it with a redacted version with five sections censored - prompting his lawyers to warn there was a "material risk" if he appeared to give oral evidence as planned on Wednesday.
Mr Salmond's lawyer David Mckie wrote: "Our client's submission was carefully reviewed by us and by counsel before submission. There is no legal basis for the redactions that we are aware of which you now propose having gone through that extremely careful exercise."
As well as inviting him to appear today during a meeting of the committee on Wednesday, the MSPS voted in favour of approaching the High Court "as a matter of urgency" for specific guidance on how Lady Dorrian's anonymity order from Mr Salmond's criminal trial applies to the publication of his written evidence to the inquiry. It also voted to recall Lord Advocate James Wolffe to face more questions., as well as agreeing to order the Crown Office to release further documents to the committee.
Nicola Sturgeon has been accused of using her Covid briefing to launch a “sustained attack” on Alex Salmond and breaching the ministerial code of conduct as a result.
Former deputy leader of the SNP, Jim Sillars, has now written to the Scottish Government’s top civil servant Leslie Evans asking she investigate what he has called a “gross breach” by Ms Sturgeon.
On Wednesday Ms Sturgeon, who is coming under intense pressure ahead of Mr Salmond’s oral evidence session with the committee today , answered a number of questions from journalists at her daily televised coronavirus briefing.
In his letter Mr Sillars, a former SNP MP, said his complaint was “based on the attacks on Mr Salmond in a forum that had been
arranged by the Scottish Government to inform the public on a subject, the pandemic, a matter of serious public concern, in which maximum publicity would be given to the words of the First Minister.
“It is a gross breach of her duty to use that government sponsored forum, for a public attack on Mr Salmond in matters not related to the purpose of a briefing to which the media had been invited.”
He said that the First Minister had "deliberately chosen” to answer questions on the subject of Mr Salmond “not once, but five times” instead of refusing to respond to questions on “matters irrelevant to the purpose of the press briefing.”
He added: “I submit that it is a breach of the Ministerial Code to allow, and then use, a public health Covid briefing to launch an attack on Mr Salmond in the context of matters arising from the Parliamentary Inquiry.
"By her conduct as recorded by the BBC, she is in flagrant breach of Clause 1 of the Code, and Clause 10 governing the conduct of Ministers and the Presentation of Policy.”
He added: “It is not for me to question a decision by the First Minister to make a public attack on Mr Salmond. But if she wished to do so, then she could have arranged a press conference on the subject, which would have been the proper and legitimate forum in which to do so.”
Mr Sillars singled out one statement by Ms Sturgeon on the result of the criminal trial of Mr Salmond last year, which cleared him of all charges.
He wrote: “During her attacks on Mr Salmond she said: 'The behaviour complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, but that doesn’t mean that the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that.’
“The First Clause of the Ministerial Code (1.1) states that “Scottish Ministers are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.”
“The First Minister’s comment on the trial verdict, breached those standards." At her Covid briefing Ms Sturgeon criticised her predecessor accusing him of peddling conspiracy theories and an “alternative reality”.
She is due to give evidence to the committee next week.