NICOLA Sturgeon has said she didn’t tell Holyrood about a meeting she had with Alex Salmond’s chief aide because she had forgotten it took place.
She made the admission in a timeline about meetings, texts messages and conversations she had with and relating to the former First Minister concerned with sexual misconduct complaints made against him by civil servants.
The document is among a tranche of evidence published yesterday by the Holyrood inquiry into the botched investigation by the Scottish Government, which cost the taxpayer more than £600,000 in legal fees.
Part of its remit is to investigate “actions taken in relation to the Scottish ministerial code”, focusing on whether the First Minister misled MSPs with statements she made about contact with Salmond.
The First Minister previously told Parliament the first she knew of the Government inquiry into allegations against Salmond was when he visited her home in Glasgow on April 2, 2018, accompanied by Geoff Aberdein, his former chief of staff, and Duncan Hamilton, his solicitor.
However, it emerged at Salmond’s trial this year that a meeting had taken place on March 29, 2018, between Sturgeon and Aberdein, prompting opposition claims that she had previously misled parliament.
Referring to this meeting in her submission the First Minister said it took place after a session of First Minister’s Questions and she was busy with a number of matters.
“Alex Salmond told me on April 2, 2018, at a meeting at my home that complaints against him were being investigated under the Procedure,” she said in the annex.
“At that meeting, he showed me a copy of the letter he had received outlining the detail of the complaints.
“As has been reported already, four days earlier – March 29, 2018 – I had spoken with Geoff Aberdein (former chief of staff to Alex Salmond) in my office at the Scottish Parliament.”
She added: “Mr Aberdein was in Parliament to see a former colleague and while there came to see me. I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
“For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.”
She continued: “However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.”
In her evidence to the committee the First Minister said she agreed to meet Salmond who was in a state of considerable distress, and she believed was considering resigning his SNP membership. She also pointed to an earlier media inquiry claiming Salmond was facing an allegation.
She went on: “I suspected the reason Alex Salmond wanted to see me on April 2 was that he was facing an allegation of sexual misconduct. Although my contact with Mr Aberdein on March 29, 2018, may have contributed to that suspicion, it was not the only factor.
“For example, in early November 2017, the SNP received an enquiry from Sky News about allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Alex Salmond. I spoke to Mr Salmond about this allegation at the time. He denied it and, as it happened, Sky did not run a story about it at that time.”
She said the meetings with Salmond were carried out in her capacity as leader of the SNP and for personal reasons. “I thought Mr Salmond may be about to resign from the SNP and that ... the party could have been facing a public/media issue that we would require to respond to,” she said.
“As party leader, I considered it important that I knew if this was in fact the case in order that I could prepare the party to deal with what would have been a significant issue. There is also the personal aspect.
“Mr Salmond has been closer to me than probably any other person outside my family for the past 30 years, and I was being told he was very upset and wanted to see me personally.”
Salmond was acquitted of all charges following his trial in March.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel