ALEX Salmond is to break his silence over the Government's mishandling of complaints made against him when he appears before the Holyrood inquiry into the matter next month, it has emerged.
Nicola Sturgeon is due to appear before the committee's long-running probe a week later in what may be the final oral session of the probe, which began taking evidence from witnesses in August.
Salmond will appear before the committee on January 19, while Sturgeon will give evidence on January 26.
Last week it was disclosed that external legal counsel threatened to withdraw from the Scottish Government legal team unless it collapsed its case.
Documentation released on Wednesday indicates that as far back as October 2018, the Government and its lawyers had been discussing the controversial role of an investigating officer in the complaints — more than two months before the Government conceded the case.
Salmond supporters claim this proves the administration should have withdrawn much earlier, saving the taxpayer public expense. After the Government admitted defeat in January last year, it was ordered to pay more than £500,000 to cover Salmond’s legal costs.
It admitted it had acted unlawfully when investigating harassment complaints — denied by Salmond — by appointing an investigating officer who had “prior involvement” in the case.
The inquiry has already highlighted a series of apparent inconsistencies in the position adopted by the First Minister and her husband, Peter Murrell, the SNP chief executive.
Salmond is understood to have lodged evidence challenging Murrell’s testimony, the Sunday Times reported today which also gave the dates for Salmond's and Sturgeon's appearances before MSPs conducting the probe, chaired by the SNP MSP Linda Fabiani.
Murrell potentially undermined key evidence given by the First Minister to probe when he appeared before the inquiry earlier this month.
He said he was unaware that she and Salmond had discussed the complaints made by two civil servants in meetings at the couple's home, saying he believed it was Scottish Government business being discussed.
Previously, Sturgeon told parliament that those meetings, of which no records were taken, were held in her capacity as party leader and therefore not a matter of state.
The ministerial code demands that any meetings undertaken on government business should be recorded. A minister found to have knowingly misled Holyrood "will be expected to offer their resignation".
Questioned under oath by Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservative MSP, Murrell said he was not informed about the details of the meeting on April 2, 2018 at the home he shares with Sturgeon.
SNP chief executive Peter Murrell appeared before the Scottish Parliament committee earlier this month.
Crucially, the First Minister previously told MSPs that she first became aware of her Government's investigation into Salmond at this meeting. It has since emerged that she had been warned about the issue by Geoff Aberdein, Salmond's former chief of staff, in her Holyrood office four days earlier, on March 29, 2018. Sturgeon claims she forgot about the meeting with Aberdein which had taken place in a busy parliamentary day.
"The issue is that the issue that was raised with Nicola at the time was a Scottish Government matter and Scottish Government business is not for me," Murrell said. "Every single day Scottish Government business is not relayed to me on a daily basis. There's a very confidential process."
Sturgeon met Salmond three times to discuss the misconduct investigation, on April 2, June 7 and July 14 2018. In her written evidence to the inquiry, Sturgeon has said that all of the meetings were undertaken "as party leader".
After he won his judicial review against the Scottish Government, Salmond charged with a series of sexual offences.
He stood trial at the High Court in Edinburgh and was cleared by a jury of sexually assaulting nine women while he was Scotland’s First Minister from 2007 to 2014. He had insisted he was innocent of all 13 charges against him throughout the trial.
Following his acquittal in March he made a statement outside the High Court in Edinburgh saying there was “certain evidence” he would have liked to have presented but for “a variety of reasons” was unable to do so. He added it would see the light of day later.
Salmond supporters believe Sturgeon allies were behind a conspiracy to prevent the former First Minister returning to frontline politics - an allegation which formed a part of his defence during his criminal trial.
During his trial the former First Minister said some of the complaints against him were “political fabrications”.
His point was highlighted by his advocate Gordon Jackson QC in his closing speech on the 10th day of the trial.
Jackson said one alleged victim had not told anyone he groped her for years after the alleged incident. “This stinks, absolutely stinks,” he said.
Sturgeon has dismissed claims of a conspiracy against her predecessor as a “heap of nonsense”, saying she would “elaborate” in the future.
The First Minister said last month: “There was no conspiracy. It’s a heap of nonsense. But I’ll, as I say, in the fullness of time, get the opportunity to elaborate on that view.”
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