Sturgeon faces calls to quit over new Salmond revelations
●First Minister faces no confidence vote after questioning at inquiry today ●New witness statements contradict her account to MSPS in Salmond case ●Scottish Government continued legal fight despite lawyers’ warnings
Nicola Sturgeon is facing calls to resign and a potential no-confidence vote as evidence submitted to Holyrood’s harassment complaints committee appears to back claims she breached the ministerial code.
The demands for her resignation from Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross came on the eve of the First Minister's appearance today in front of the inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the complaints made against her predecessor Alex Salmond.
Two additional witnesses have provided written submissions to the committee in which they confirmed a meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff, on March 29, 2018, was “for the purpose of discussing the complaints”.
Kevin Pringle, the SNP’S former communications chief, and Duncan Hamilton, Mr Salmond’s legal adviser, also corroborated the accusation that a name of one of the complainers had been disclosed to Mr Aberdein.
In his written submission, Mr Hamilton said the purpose of the meeting in Parliament on March 29, 2018 was “for the purpose of discussing the complaints”.
He said: “I spoke to Geoff Aberdein
on 29th March 2018 after his meeting in the Scottish Parliament. At that time, he intimated that a further meeting would be arranged to discuss the complaints with the First Minister.
"That meeting was arranged for 2nd April 2018. I was invited to that meeting and travelled to it along with Mr Salmond and Mr Aberdein.
“Further, when we arrived, everyone in the room knew exactly why we were there. No introduction to the subject was needed and no one was in any doubt what we were there to discuss.”
On the subject of potential intervention by Ms Sturgeon, Mr Hamilton said: “My clear recollection is that her words were ‘if it comes to it, I will intervene’.”
He adds that he believes Ms Sturgeon later changed her mind.
In his evidence, Mr Pringle said: “Based on my contact with Mr Aberdein, I know he wasclearthatthepurposeofthe meeting on 29 March 2018 was to discuss the two complaints
that had been made against Mr Salmond.”
Ms Sturgeon has consistently denied that she breached the ministerialcodedespite“forgetting”themarch29meetingwith Mr Aberdein.
In response to a question in Holyrood last week, the First Minister also said that “to the best of her knowledge” the name of a complainant had not beensharedwithmrsalmond’s former chief of staff.
Mrrosssaidthefirstminister must now resign and the party would submit a vote of no confidence in Ms Sturgeon.
He said: “Credible witnesses
have now backed up Alex Salmond’s claims and the legal advice shows the government knew months in advance that thejudicialreviewwasdoomed, but they still went on to waste more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money.
“There is no longer any doubt that Nicola Sturgeon lied to the Scottish Parliament and broke the ministerial code on numerous counts. No First Minister can be allowed to mislead the Scottish people and continue in office, especially when they have tried to cover up the truth and abused the power of their office in the process.
“The weight of the evidence is overwhelming.nicolasturgeon must resign.
“No evidence she can provide tomorrow will counter the claims of numerous witnesses or refute that her government ignoredthelegaladviceandlost more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money in the process.
“We will be submitting a vote of no confidence in the First Minister.”
A spokesperson for Ms Sturgeon said: “The First Minister will address all of the issues raised–andmuchmorebesides – at the committee, while the independent adviser on the
ministerial code will report in due course.
“But to call a vote of no confidence in the middle of a pandemic, before hearing a single word of the First Minister’s evidence, is utterly irresponsible.”
Demands for Ms Sturgeon’s resignation came shortly after the key legal advice provided by external counsel to the Scottish government on the judicial review was published.
The documents show concerns around the “procedural unfairness” of the harassment complaintsprocedurefromthe very start of the judicial review.
However, only following the
revelationoffurtherdocuments in mid-december did the case become unstatable, according to counsel.
Advice from the Lord Advocatetothescottishgovernment also followed this timeline.
Concerns were first raised about the prior contact between Judith Mckinnon, the investigating officer of the complaints, and the complainers in late October, the documents state, when the external counsel are described as “extremely concerned”.
At this point, on October 31, Roddy Dunlop QC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said
it would make “little sense to defend the indefensible”.
On December 6, Mr Dunlop further advised that it would be “less attractive” to continue defending the petition due to the fact defeat would see “far higher” expenses and Mr Salmond “trumpeting far louder”.
However, by December 11, the position of the Scottish government was still that there were “credible arguments to make across the petition”. By December 19, counsel advised the petition should be conceded due to thegovernment’spositionbeing unstatable.
Ms Mckinnon is the subject
of the harshest criticism within this part of the legal advice.
Counsel wrote to the Scottish government on December 19 stating: “Suffice to say that we haveeachexperiencedextreme professionalembarrassmentas aresultofassuranceswhichwe have given … turning out to be false as a result of the revelation of further documents, highly relevant yet undisclosed”.
The comments from counsel came after two further documents and the details of a meeting between Ms Mckinnon and a complainer on January 16, 2018 to “discuss the experience about the alleged misconduct
of a former minister” were disclosed at a late stage by the Scottish government.
Counsel added: “As to the late nature of the revelation, this is unexplained and frankly inexplicable.
"Thelackofanymentionofthe meeting of January 16, 2018 in whatismeanttobeaswornaffidavit for use in court is, frankly, alarming.
“We are now in a position where we think that maintaining a defence of the appointment of the IO [investigating officer] may be unstatable.”