This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/feb/26/alex-salmond-hearing-snp-nicola-sturgeon-inquiry-live-news-updates

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 9 Version 10
Salmond accuses Sturgeon of using Covid briefing to 'effectively question jury result' – live updates Salmond accuses Sturgeon of using Covid briefing to 'effectively question jury result' – live updates
(32 minutes later)
Scotland’s former first minister appears before MSPs investigating inquiry by Nicola Sturgeon’s government into complaints made against himScotland’s former first minister appears before MSPs investigating inquiry by Nicola Sturgeon’s government into complaints made against him
Allan: Do you realise we require evidence of your claims?
Salmond cites evidence from Allison and Harvey that he has brought forward. He also mentions the text messages, from Murrell. And the “lost the battle but not the war” message from the permanent secretary.
But there is documentation from August 2018 to January 2019 that is missing. You are not helpless in this matter, Salmond says.
You are a committee of the Scottish parliament, you have a duty to investigate for the people of Scotland, Salmond says.
“The degree of effort of the Crown Office prevent this committee from seeing evidence goes beyond any imagination,” Salmond says.
Baillie wants to check the timeline on when Salmond was told complaints were made against him March 2018.
It was a government matter, Salmond said. I would have gone to the permanent secretary and that was what I was asking Sturgeon to do. The WhatsApp messages should I believed this was the legitimate thing to do.
Is there a requirement under the ministerial code for Sturgeon to report to the permanent secretary a request to intervene?
Yes, Salmond says. He says his counsel Duncan Hamilton was at that meeting.
Why did Sturgeon wait till June 2018 to tell the civil service?
That’s a question for her, Salmond said.
If you mislead parliament is it a resignation matter?
The generally applied position is that if you have knowingly misled parliament then you would resign, Salmond says.
McMillan: What was said in the meeting 2 April?
Salmond says WhatsApp messages show he asked for Sturgeon to intervene and that he suggestion mediation. That was the right thing to do, but she changed her mind.
She said she wanted to help and that the permanent secretary would get involved. That was why I was disappointed when she said she would not help, Salmond said.
McMillan: Is is reasonable for political parties to reach out to staff members about complaints over harassment?
I do, but that is not what I was suggesting [when complaining of a fishing expedition against him]. Many people who worked for me did not get that message, Salmond said. This took place after the police investigation started, he adds, citing the date of emails from SNP.
The police should be left to get on with it, they should not be pressurised, Salmond says.
That is out of order but the information I would like to bring this committee goes way beyond that, Salmond adds.
Fraser: You have cited four SNP official as being involved in a conspiracy against you. Do you believe Sturgeon played a role?
I have only made statements that are backed up by documentary evidence, Salmond says.
Fraser: who should resign?
The people I have named all should be considering their positions, including the permanent secretary, Leslie Evans.
Fraser: The Lord Advocate?
He should be considering his position. The institutions are sound, but people have to take responsibility. The Scottish government needs new leadership.
Fraser: If the first minister has broken the ministerial code should she resign?
I have no doubt Nicola has broken the ministerial code, but it’s not for me to suggest the consequences, Salmond says
Fraser: Why do you believe there was a conspiracy against you?Fraser: Why do you believe there was a conspiracy against you?
The loss of the judicial review was regarded as cataclysmic for the government and Sturgeon, Salmond says. This would have swept aside in publicity if I had lost the criminal case, Salmond said.The loss of the judicial review was regarded as cataclysmic for the government and Sturgeon, Salmond says. This would have swept aside in publicity if I had lost the criminal case, Salmond said.
Salmond cites evidence from Anne Harvey, principal assistance to the SNP’s chief whip in Westminster, who said she did not want to take part in a “witch hunt”.Salmond cites evidence from Anne Harvey, principal assistance to the SNP’s chief whip in Westminster, who said she did not want to take part in a “witch hunt”.
He also cites messages from Sue Ruddick, chief operating officer of the SNP, in which she talks about “getting another complainant back in the game,” Salmond says.He also cites messages from Sue Ruddick, chief operating officer of the SNP, in which she talks about “getting another complainant back in the game,” Salmond says.
Salmond says: “There’s much more evidence that I would dearly love to provide to this committee.” But he says he is being prevented from doing so by legal injunctions.Salmond says: “There’s much more evidence that I would dearly love to provide to this committee.” But he says he is being prevented from doing so by legal injunctions.
Fraser: Sturgeon has one version of events and you have another, where is the evidence to support your version?Fraser: Sturgeon has one version of events and you have another, where is the evidence to support your version?
The people who turned up to the knew, Salmond says.The people who turned up to the knew, Salmond says.
Salmond said either deliberately misled parliament about the meeting on 29 March, or it was forgotten about. Both involve a breach of the code, he says.Salmond said either deliberately misled parliament about the meeting on 29 March, or it was forgotten about. Both involve a breach of the code, he says.
Fraser asks more about the meeting 2 April. Sturgeon has said the claims you are making are untrue. Are you a liar and a fantasist?Fraser asks more about the meeting 2 April. Sturgeon has said the claims you are making are untrue. Are you a liar and a fantasist?
The key thing is the evidence, Salmond says. The meeting on 29 March in the Scottish parliament was arranged to inform Nicola about complaints against me, Salmond says.The key thing is the evidence, Salmond says. The meeting on 29 March in the Scottish parliament was arranged to inform Nicola about complaints against me, Salmond says.
If the meeting and subject matter admitted, it makes it difficult to argue that the meeting 2 April was a party matter, Salmond says.If the meeting and subject matter admitted, it makes it difficult to argue that the meeting 2 April was a party matter, Salmond says.
There was nothing improper in the intervention I was hoping Sturgeon to make, Salmond says. Mediation should have been part of the policy, he said.There was nothing improper in the intervention I was hoping Sturgeon to make, Salmond says. Mediation should have been part of the policy, he said.
Did the name of the complainant come up in the discussion on 2 April?Did the name of the complainant come up in the discussion on 2 April?
I think it did, Salmond says. It was already known, he says.I think it did, Salmond says. It was already known, he says.
Sturgeon told parliament on Thursday that she didn’t believe the name of the complainer had been passed to Salmond.Sturgeon told parliament on Thursday that she didn’t believe the name of the complainer had been passed to Salmond.
Salmond later says Sturgeon changed her stance on assisting him in WhatsApp messages.Salmond later says Sturgeon changed her stance on assisting him in WhatsApp messages.
He says he did not recall Peter Murrell returning to his home during the meeting with Sturgeon on 2 April.He says he did not recall Peter Murrell returning to his home during the meeting with Sturgeon on 2 April.
Would you have expect to Murrell know about it?Would you have expect to Murrell know about it?
Peter’s non-appearance was not a surprise, Salmond says.Peter’s non-appearance was not a surprise, Salmond says.
Cole-Hamilton asks about the 2 April meeting and whether this was the first time Sturgeon had heard about the investigation against Salmond.Cole-Hamilton asks about the 2 April meeting and whether this was the first time Sturgeon had heard about the investigation against Salmond.
Salmond says he discussed the situation, the meeting was for that purpose. Sturgeon expressed no surprise, he says. Sturgeon gave every indication that she would assist him.Salmond says he discussed the situation, the meeting was for that purpose. Sturgeon expressed no surprise, he says. Sturgeon gave every indication that she would assist him.
“I felt the mediation proposal was the proper thing to ask for,” he says.“I felt the mediation proposal was the proper thing to ask for,” he says.
Cole-Hamilton asks: why would Sturgeon think you were going to resign from the party?Cole-Hamilton asks: why would Sturgeon think you were going to resign from the party?
On the 7 March I had been told by the permanent secretary that an investigation had been launched against me. What purpose could resignation from the party have achieved, he says. Resignation from the party never entered his mind.On the 7 March I had been told by the permanent secretary that an investigation had been launched against me. What purpose could resignation from the party have achieved, he says. Resignation from the party never entered his mind.
“I had not indicated to anyone that I was about to resign from the SNP,” he says.“I had not indicated to anyone that I was about to resign from the SNP,” he says.
Cole-Hamilton asks about about a crucial meeting involving Sturgeon and Salmond’s chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, on 29 March and another meeting on 2 April 2018 at Sturgeon’s home involving Salmond.Cole-Hamilton asks about about a crucial meeting involving Sturgeon and Salmond’s chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, on 29 March and another meeting on 2 April 2018 at Sturgeon’s home involving Salmond.
Salmond says he had been to Sturgeon’s house only six times. Salmond says Aberdein had told him in advance about the 29 March meeting.Salmond says he had been to Sturgeon’s house only six times. Salmond says Aberdein had told him in advance about the 29 March meeting.
He told me the next day that the meeting on 2 April was on, Salmond says.He told me the next day that the meeting on 2 April was on, Salmond says.
Salmond says he did not know if Sturgeon knew of complaints against him before 29 March, but she did know on 29 March. (Sturgeon failed to disclose this meeting to parliament, and later said she had forgotten about it.)Salmond says he did not know if Sturgeon knew of complaints against him before 29 March, but she did know on 29 March. (Sturgeon failed to disclose this meeting to parliament, and later said she had forgotten about it.)
The session is resuming. Salmond was asked about Peter Murrell’s texts (see earlier).The session is resuming. Salmond was asked about Peter Murrell’s texts (see earlier).
Salmond says those texts showed there was an effort to pressurise the police.Salmond says those texts showed there was an effort to pressurise the police.
“What they speak to is behaviour, which I would never have countenanced with people I’ve known in some cases for 30 years,” Salmond says.“What they speak to is behaviour, which I would never have countenanced with people I’ve known in some cases for 30 years,” Salmond says.
Salmond points out that the government had previously denied there was any evidence that Murrell had tried to apply pressure on the police.Salmond points out that the government had previously denied there was any evidence that Murrell had tried to apply pressure on the police.
He compared it to another message in which the the permanent secretary said “we’ve lost the battle but not the war” after the government lost the judicial review.He compared it to another message in which the the permanent secretary said “we’ve lost the battle but not the war” after the government lost the judicial review.
PA also has a fuller version of Salmond’s answer to Wightman’s questions about the grounds for judicial review he was advised would have the highest chance of success.PA also has a fuller version of Salmond’s answer to Wightman’s questions about the grounds for judicial review he was advised would have the highest chance of success.
Salmond said “procedural unfairness” was among them, adding:Salmond said “procedural unfairness” was among them, adding:
While we wait for Salmond to clear his throat, PA has this update:While we wait for Salmond to clear his throat, PA has this update:
Salmond was invited to give more details on his claim that a witness was allegedly told by a special adviser that they would “get him” in a criminal case.Salmond was invited to give more details on his claim that a witness was allegedly told by a special adviser that they would “get him” in a criminal case.
He said:He said:
Mitchell asks Salmond about a text by Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief executive of the SNP in which he talks about it being “good time” to pressure the Metropolitan police to investigate Salmond. In another text, Murrell said: “The more fronts he is having to firefight the better for the complainers.” Murrell later said the message was out of character and reflected the stress he was under. Would that be your reading?Mitchell asks Salmond about a text by Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief executive of the SNP in which he talks about it being “good time” to pressure the Metropolitan police to investigate Salmond. In another text, Murrell said: “The more fronts he is having to firefight the better for the complainers.” Murrell later said the message was out of character and reflected the stress he was under. Would that be your reading?
Salmond is allowed a break to clear his throat from a cough, before answering.Salmond is allowed a break to clear his throat from a cough, before answering.
Watt asks more about the timing of the government’s decision to concede the judicial review. Wasn’t it right for the government to take its time to concede?Watt asks more about the timing of the government’s decision to concede the judicial review. Wasn’t it right for the government to take its time to concede?
Salmond says the government should allow parliament to see the external legal advice on the judicial review.Salmond says the government should allow parliament to see the external legal advice on the judicial review.
Salmond points out that investigator Judith Mackinnon had been open about having prior contact with the complainants. So why is this only coming out now, he asks.Salmond points out that investigator Judith Mackinnon had been open about having prior contact with the complainants. So why is this only coming out now, he asks.
The only reason I was looking to go to arbitration was to avoid a “cataclysmic” outcome for the government, he says.The only reason I was looking to go to arbitration was to avoid a “cataclysmic” outcome for the government, he says.
Salmond says there was widespread knowledge in the government by November 2018 that the judicial review was going to go against the government.Salmond says there was widespread knowledge in the government by November 2018 that the judicial review was going to go against the government.
Pausing the judicial review at that stage would have been embarrassing for the government but it would have allowed it to avoid huge costs, he says.Pausing the judicial review at that stage would have been embarrassing for the government but it would have allowed it to avoid huge costs, he says.
Baillie asks whether Sturgeon breached the ministerial code by pursuing the judicial review, despite knowing that the permanent secretary had prior contacts with the complainants.Baillie asks whether Sturgeon breached the ministerial code by pursuing the judicial review, despite knowing that the permanent secretary had prior contacts with the complainants.
Yes, says Salmond.Yes, says Salmond.
Baillie asks whether documents disclosed to the committee had not been disclosed to Salmond before.Baillie asks whether documents disclosed to the committee had not been disclosed to Salmond before.
Salmond says there were about 40 documents he had not seen, which is a “spectacular” failure to comply with the government’s duty of candour.Salmond says there were about 40 documents he had not seen, which is a “spectacular” failure to comply with the government’s duty of candour.
He mentions specific meetings between the permanent secretary and the complainants.He mentions specific meetings between the permanent secretary and the complainants.
Baillie: did the permanent secretary comply with the civil service code?Baillie: did the permanent secretary comply with the civil service code?
No, says Salmond.No, says Salmond.