SNP chief executive Peter Murrell clashed with MSPs on the Holyrood Salmond inquiry yesterday, after he was accused of being “untruthful”.
The party chief – who’s married to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon – said he “absolutely refuted” the claims.
But Tory MSP Murdo Fraser suggested the witness may have been guilty of perjury.
The cross-party committee is investigating the Scottish Government’s flawed probe into allegations of misconduct made against Alex Salmond by two civil servants.
He had the exercise set aside in January 2019, with a judicial review declaring it “unlawful” and “tainted by bias”. The Government’s botched handling ultimately cost the taxpayer half a million pounds.
At a later criminal case the former SNP leader was found not guilty on 12 counts of sexual assault.
One of the central issues to the inquiry is over meetings between Sturgeon and Salmond during the Government’s initial investigation.
There are questions over the status of the meetings. The First Minister said she believed they were to discuss party matters, rather than government business.
But at his last appearance in front of the committee back in December, Murrell said he had not asked Sturgeon about the meetings because it was Scottish Government business.
In yesterday’s session, Murrell said that was “merely speculation on my part”.
He said: “It was limited to the fact that Alex was popping in; it could have been about anything and it wasn’t an unusual event so he was just popping in.
“Nicola is the leader of the party, and what she tells me is really a matter for her.”
Murrell added: “I wasn’t aware that the meeting was for a purpose.
“I just thought he was popping in for a chat about, you know, any, any matter.
“It’s pretty simple, I think you’re trying to suggest things or knowledge that I just don’t have about these things.”
Back in December he also claimed in his written and oral evidence that he was not at home when the meeting took place, but then told the committee he arrived back at the house “not long before the meeting ended”.
At today’s session, Fraser asked Murrell for clarity: “You have given this committee under oath two different accounts of the meeting of April 2, both in relation to your knowledge of it in advance and whether you were in the house.
“Can you tell us which of these accounts is true and which is false?”
Murrell replied: “I wasn’t at the meeting, and I didn’t know what the meeting was about. I happened to arrive home just before the meeting finished.
“I came in the door, acknowledged the people that were in one room. Didn’t see Alex or Nicola at that point, and went upstairs to change, and by the time I had done that they had left. I just wasn’t at home.”
He said that Salmond being in the house was not uncommon.
Murrell added: “When you’re giving evidence and you’re being questioned in this fashion, it is difficult to go back to the point of what you knew and when.
“I didn’t know what the meeting was about. There were additional people in the house I didn’t expect. I had expected that Alex would be gone. I think the meeting was meant to happen earlier but he was late.”
Fraser said: “When you told me, in response to my question, giving evidence to me under oath, that you were not at home during the meeting, and when you told me you were not really aware that Mr Salmond was coming to the house, you were giving us false information having sworn an oath to tell the truth?”
Murrell replied: “No. Because I wasn’t aware that the meeting was for a purpose. I just thought he was popping in for a chat about any matter.
“I had no awareness of the fact that it was a meeting for a purpose.
“I thought he was just coming for a catch up with Nicola. It’s pretty simple.”
Fraser said: “I further suggest, Mr Murrell, you have made an untruthful statement to this committee, which is self-evident.”
Murrell interjected: “I don’t think so. I wasn’t at the meeting.”
When Fraser said that was “a false statement,” the SNP head replied: “I absolutely refute what’s being suggested. I just happened to arrive home as the meeting was ending.”
Meanwhile, Sue Ruddick, the SNP’s chief operating officer, has accused the committee of “bullying and intimidating” the women who complained about Alex Salmond.
In a statement she said MSPs were trying to “make public – whether in writing or through oral reference in a public session – private, confidential communications, despite having no lawful power to do so”.
She accused the committee of allowing itself to be led by people close to Salmond who were seeking to “bolster his reputation”.
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