First Minister’s fight for her political life

As Nicola Sturgeon prepares to testify at Salmond inquiry, expect her to come out fighting

In her foreword to the 2018 edition of the Ministerial Code, Nicola Sturgeon noted that it “sets guidelines for living up to the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership” and said she would “lead by example in following the letter and spirit of this code”.

These are precisely the kind of values that the public hopes for in its leaders and everyone in public life, despite considerable scepticism about whether they are truly upheld.

The First Minister has earned an enviable reputation for upholding these values, above that of many in her profession. In short, the public tend to trust her.

Today, the First Minister will appear before the committee of MSPS investigating her government’s mishandling of complaints about sexual harassment by Alex Salmond in relation to his time in the same office.

When she does so, her reputation will be on the line.

The questions she faces are sure to draw heavily on the documents released last night after long resistance from the Scottish Government.

The first of these concerns the legal advice given to the government on its chances of success in the civil case brought against it by Salmond.

It is now clear that the government continued to fight the case – which it went on to lose with the result that it was forced to pay his legal costs of more than £500,000 – despite its own lawyers warning it was likely to lose.

That is bad enough, but the other evidence released yesterday is potentially even more damaging to the Scottish Government as a whole.

Two witnesses – former Scottish Government special adviser Kevin Pringle and advocate Duncan Hamilton – back up the claim by Salmond’s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein that the name of one of the women who raised complaints against the former was leaked to Mr Aberdein by a senior government official.

The First Minister has previously told MSPS that “to the very best of my knowledge I do not think that happened”.

Today’s hearing will see the First Minister questioned about her actions in this whole lamentable affair. She will face claims that she not only broke the Ministerial Code but that she repeatedly lied to parliament.

She has said that she is “relishing” the chance to give her side of the story. Expect her to come out fighting.

It appears that John Swinney has finally agreed to publish the legal advice given to his party during the judicial review initiated by Alex Salmond

This advice has been repeatedly asked for by the Holyrood committee set up to investigate his party's handling of the review and was demanded not once, but twice, by the Scottish Parliament following a democratic vote.

Mr Swinney steadfastly refused on the grounds it was "not in the public interest" to reveal it.

Does his U-turn mean that now it is in the public interest? If it is now, then surely it always was. What has changed? Mr Swinney's volteface has been occasioned not by his concern for the public interest but out of self-interest – to keep his job. That is scandalous enough but but do I also smell a rat here

It is unlikely that Mr Swinney would extricate his head from a noose only to place it on the block. And there's the rub. He is to publish not all of the evidence but the "key" evidence!

Who is going to decide what constitutes the "key" evidence? Why, Mr Swinney of course

I sincerely hope I am totally wrong but I fear that very soon we will be reading reports that the evidence relating to the timing of the advice that the government case would fail – which really is the "key" advice – will be conspicuous by its absence.

COLIN HAMILTON Braid Hills Avenue, Edinburgh