ALEX Salmond’s lawyers have criticised the chair of the Holyrood inquiry into his court battle with the Scottish Government. 

Earlier this week, Linda Fabiani accused the former First Minister of not respecting the parliamentary process. 

It followed her invite to Salmond to appear in front of the committee next Tuesday

However he said that was not possible, partly because of health and safety reasons put in place by the parliament, and partly because the committee had not yet secured key information from the two court cases that he says is necessary for him to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

He’s also seeking assurance he won’t be prosecuted, as the Crown Office has already warned him he could be charged for referencing evidence submitted for his criminal trial.

Instead, Salmond suggested he appear before the Committee on February 16, urging the MSPs to use the next month to seek the material and obtain that assurance from the Crown.

The committee is investigating the Scottish Government's botched probe into allegations of misconduct made against the former First Minister. 

Salmond had the exercise set aside in January 2019, after a judicial review declared it "unlawful" and "tainted by bias". He was awarded costs, leaving taxpayers footing a £512,000 bill.

At a later criminal case the ex-SNP leader was found not guilty on 12 charges of sexual assault charges.

Responding  to Salmond’s proposals, Fabiani criticised her old boss on a whole range of matters, including his reluctance to appear next week.

She also said that the inquiry had tried to obtain material from the Crown and from the judicial review. While they had managed to retrieve some key documents, not everything was available.

Fabiani wrote: “There will always be more information to pursue in any inquiry, and there is certainly more detail the Committee would wish to have seen.

“I understand why this evidence from the criminal trial is central to you as an individual.

“However, the Committee must make progress.”

Fabiani also chastised the ex-SNP leader for sending his submission to a separate inquiry - looking into whether or not Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code - directly to MSPs.  

It almost immediately found its way into the public domain. 

She said he should have processed it through Holyrood clerks so it was “compliant with the Committee’s legal obligations.”

The testimony accused Sturgeon of repeatedly misleading parliament about meetings between the two - accusations the First Minister refutes.

Responding to Fabiani, Salmond’s lawyer, David McKie of Levy & McRae said, the committee had already been told at the start of the year, that an appearance next Tuesday was not possible. 

“We were surprised, therefore, to receive your repeated invitation of 12th January 2021, not least because the Covid situation had worsened considerably in the intervening period and no progress at all appears to have been made in relation to the evidential and procedural issues repeatedly raised by us. 

“Our confirmation of our position on 14th January 2021 therefore simply restated what has been known to you for some time. 

“We can only assume that the tone of surprise and the express reference to your ‘disappointment’ was therefore for public consumption.”

McKie said the invitation was sent "in the full knowledge of the contrary advice from the Presiding Officer to suspend in-person Committee meetings."

He adds: "This, we now understand, was sent to you in an email of 8th January 2021 which stated: 'I have also today written on behalf of the SPCB (Scottish Parliament Corporate Body) to all Committee Conveners to request that all committee meetings are held virtually for the remainder of January'.

"Your letter did not inform us of this direction. Nor did you reference it in the correspondence you chose to publicise. We and our client required to find it out from other sources.

"Our client asks you to reflect on your responsibilities to witnesses you invite to your proceedings, particularly when they are private citizens, invited to assist you in your proceedings."

 In the letter, sent on Friday, McKie said Salmond was “committed to giving evidence, in person, when it is safe to do so and when the issues raised in correspondence have been addressed.”

On the warning from the Crown, the lawyer said Salmond was “currently unable to discharge in full his responsibility to give complete evidence to your committee and its members without fear of prosecution.” 

He added: “We understand the position to be that our client must tell ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ under threat of a charge of perjury if he does not do so. Is that your understanding? If so, how do you propose he does so when that inevitably involves reference to material in the criminal proceedings and when doing so leaves him open to prosecution? 

“In short, when you write that our client cannot share confidential information from the criminal trial in giving answers, how do you propose he fulfils his oath? This, again, is a matter on which we sought clarity on many previous occasions. Time is now short, however, and we need your official guidance.”

McKie continued: “Finally, your letter references a lack of ‘respect’ on the part of our client. That is unhelpful and unfair. In fact, it is our client who has been left repeatedly disappointed at the lack of courtesy shown to him for many months throughout this process. 

“By way of recent example, that discourtesy applies even to your letter of 14th January criticising our client. That private correspondence appeared on the Committee website and was publicised before we had the opportunity to even consult our client. Specifically, the fact of your invitation of 12th January to our client appeared in a BBC tweet at 16.50. 

“We received your letter at 17.13. 

“Criticism of our client for a lack of courtesy or respect (which he entirely refutes) rings hollow in such circumstances.”

On the submission to the ministerial code inquiry the lawyer said Salmond had not published the paper, but merely shared it with MSPs. 

“Those members have a duty of confidence to the Committee,” he wrote. 

He added: “Further, in our experience of the last months, our representations appear not to be processed for many weeks and it is unclear to us or our client what reaches committee members, in what form (i.e. to what extent redacted)  and when. 

“The unredacted submission to James Hamilton has now been shared with you, and would appear already to have assisted the Committee significantly in its deliberations."

Responding to Salmond's letter, a Scottish Parliament Spokesperson said: “While there is rightly a strong presumption against committees meeting in person, the Presiding Officer understands that there may be a small number of circumstances where essential committee business cannot be effectively undertaken by any means other than meeting in person.

“As the Convener made clear to Mr Salmond’s solicitor, the Committee would be happy to work with Mr Salmond to find a way to allow him to give evidence in a safe and secure way.

“The Committee will meet in private next Tuesday to consider its work programme including Mr Salmond’s latest response. However, the Committee is clear that all evidence to it must comply with the relevant legal obligations.”

The National:

The National:

The National:

The National: