The Courier & Advertiser (Fife Edition)
Book lifts lid on Scottish civil servant’s Salmond diary
Asenior civil servant kept a diary of his repeated attempts to get Scottish Government bosses to act about alleged sexual harassment of female staff by Alex Salmond.
The official documented nine separate claims from women in the run-up to the independence referendum as he became increasingly frustrated by the inaction of superiors.
Its existence is revealed for the first time in a new book, Break-Up: How Alex Salmond And Nicola Sturgeon Went To War, by Courier editor David Clegg and journalist Kieran Andrews.
The journal, which was written by Michael McElhinney, who was the senior civil servant in charge of overseeing the staff rota for Mr Salmond’s private office, was handed over to Police Scotland during its investigation of the former first minister, who has always denied accusations of sexual harassment.
Mr Salmond was acquitted of 13 counts of sexual assault following a two-week trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in March 2020. A separate Scottish Government investigation into allegations of harassment was ruled unlawful, unfair and “tainted by apparent bias” by the Court of Session.
Three of the allegations recorded by Mr McElhinney became criminal charges against Mr Salmond, including an incident in 2013 in Bute House after which he apologised to the woman involved for what he described as a “sleepy cuddle”.
Another was a female official who claimed Mr Salmond had put his arm around her before moving in for a kiss late at night at Bute House following a dinner. The former first minister said he had been comforting her because she had been upset.
“Woman G’s informal complaint about Salmond in April 2014 sparked increasing panic within the management team at Bute House,” the book alleges.
“McElhinney’s diary entries for April 23 and 24 detail a series of fraught discussions about what to do.
“It was agreed the first minister’s conduct had been ‘not acceptable’ and must be addressed but there was uncertainty about how to proceed without a formal complaint.
“Woman G was said to be ‘very upset’ when assured she would be supported through any process and said: ‘What’s the point?’ and that things would ‘never change’.”
During Mr Salmond’s criminal trial, Alex Prentice, the advocate depute who was leading the prosecution case, asked Chris Birt, a former civil servant who worked in the former first minister’s private office, if people had learned to live with Mr Salmond’s behaviour.
Mr Birt said the impact on staff had been significant and “brought up levels of stress that led to mental ill health” and claimed there was “almost a kind of gallows humour and camaraderie in (Salmond’s) private office”. Asked if people were “frightened” of the first minister, he replied: “Yes.” He added: “The culture built up over a number of years.”
Sir Peter Housden was the permanent secretary, Scotland’s most senior civil servant, from 2010-2015.
Giving evidence to the Holyrood committee inquiry into the Scottish Government’s unlawful handling of harassment complaints against Mr Salmond, Sir Peter admitted that he “knew that the first minister could display bullying and intimidatory behaviour”.
However, he was less forthcoming about how he had responded and suggested he could not take action because there was never an official complaint made against Mr Salmond.
He said: “We did not have an individual or people collectively coming forward to say, ‘Up with this, I will not put. You must do something.’
“Nor did we have a known egregious act. If you have a complaint or a known egregious act, you have something that you can act on.”
When he was asked about allegations of bullying during his evidence session to the Holyrood inquiry, Mr Salmond referenced the FDA trade union, which represents civil servants, accusing MSPs on the inquiry of “intimidation, ‘rent-a-quote politicians’, ‘undermining’ the civil service and scapegoating individual civil servants.”
He added: “In effect, you have been accused of bullying behaviour. I have not watched every session of the committee, but I have watched most of them, for obvious reasons.
“I would say, in the committee’s defence, that I have not seen such behaviour.
“Maybe it was in the one or two sessions that I did not see. I am merely saying that something being said and written to you does not make it true.”
Mr Salmond has always denied any suggestion of sexual harassment.