JOHN Swinney will still face a vote of no confidence in Holyrood this week, even after he agreed to hand over legal advice relating to the government’s court defeat against Alex Salmond.
Tory leader Douglas Ross said the motion against the deputy First Minister would remain “on the table".
The decision to press ahead with the vote comes after the Lord Advocate told MSPs that he was only approached by the government to disclose the advice yesterday.
James Wolffe said it was only then that the minister decided that release would be in the "public interest".
However, MSPs twice voted for the publication of the advice in November.
Swinney said then he would first need the consent of the law officers and consent would only be given if there were “compelling reasons” to do so.
Ross said it was "jaw-dropping" that the deputy First Minister had not asked the law officer "until his job was on the line".
The Lord Advocate was appearing in front of the committee investigating the handling of harassment complaints made against Alex Salmond by two civil servants.
The former First Minister had the findings of the government probe set aside in January 2019 at a judicial review.
It was declared “unlawful” and “tainted by bias” after it emerged that the senior official investigating the accusation had spoken to both women before they made their complaints.
The botched handling ultimately cost the taxpayer half a million pounds.
For months the committee has asked ministers to share their legal advice.
They have previously been shown a memo summarising legal advice, which said that one of Scotland's most senior lawyers, Roddy Dunlop, had threatened to quit as external counsel on 28 December 2018 because Leslie Evans, the government’s permanent secretary, was refusing to concede.
But Salmond claims the government knew in October that they were set to lose the judicial review.
Last Friday, during his six-hour evidence session, he said that if “the case was continued in the knowledge of the First Minister against that legal advice, that would be a breach of the ministerial code”.
This morning, Swinney told MSPs that the advice would show there were “reservations” about the government’s case, but that there were "good public policy arguments and reasonable grounds for the Government to continue to defend the judicial review and to seek a determination from the Court on the matters raised".
At this morning's meeting of the committee, Tory MSP Murdo Fraser ask the Lord Advocate when Swinney asked for permission to release the advice to the inquiry.
The law officer replied: "A submission was presented to the law officers yesterday."
Fraser said: “So, when parliament voted for this back in November there was no approach made at that time?”
Wolffe said: “The position is that ministers have formed a view that the first stage of the two-part process of the ministerial code is satisfied, that the public interest lies in favour of disclosure.
“At an earlier stage, ministers took the view that public interest did not favour disclosure.
“Ministers have now reached that view. The question of law officer consent, in the ministerial code, only comes into play at a point where ministers are satisfied that the first stage is met.”
Fraser said it was clear the threat of a vote of no confidence “rather than any other factors” has been responsible for Swinney’s change of heart.
“That’s clearly not a matter I’m going to comment on,” Wolffe replied.
Douglas Ross said Wolffe’s evidence showed the “scandal” was growing “deeper and deeper".
He added: "Despite the Scottish Parliament backing two Scottish Conservative motions to release the legal advice, the SNP never even bothered to lift a finger to actually try and publish it.
“It's jaw-dropping that they didn't even ask if the Lord Advocate would allow it to be published. Instead, they let the public and press think he was the block on its release, when it was SNP ministers all along.
“We now know that John Swinney refused to even consider publishing the legal advice until his job was on the line.
“Our vote of no confidence remains on the table because it's clearer than ever that the government has ignored the will of the Scottish Parliament.”
LibDem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton, who sits on the harassment committee, accused the government of using the law officers as human shields.
"For weeks ministers tried to suggest that it was the law officers who were preventing this advice from being published. I feel for the Scottish Government lawyers who have been used as human shields as a result of this deception," he said.
"It's a shame that it has taken threats to John Swinney's ministerial career to open the door to these documents being handed to the committee.
"One thing that is clear is that if the SNP had a majority, they would have buried this legal advice for good and would use this committee as whitewash.”
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