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/mar/03/alex-salmond-inquiry-nicola-sturgeon-evidence-live-news-updates

The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 16 Version 17
Nicola Sturgeon: difference between Salmond and me is I never claimed to be infallible - live Nicola Sturgeon: difference between Salmond and me is I never claimed to be infallible - as it happened
(32 minutes later)
Follow live updates as Scotland’s first minister appears before MSPs, amid multiple allegations that she broke the ministerial code Scotland’s first minister appeared before MSPs, amid multiple allegations that she broke the ministerial code
Well that was around seven hours of evidence. I’ve done my best to summarise it here. Thanks for following the blog today:
Sturgeon said that the legal advice published last night shows that the government did have a stateable case and so it was right to continue with the judicial review. Critics have said it proves the opposite but this was rejected by the first minister who said lawyers are always cautious and they were not advocating abandoning the government’s defence.
Sturgeon denied that one of her officials gave the name of one of the complainers against Alex Salmond to one of his aides. Confronted by statements which claimed this happened, she told the committee that that was not what the official had told her; “It did not happen in the way that has been described.” The first minister said one of the names was known by Salmond because he had previously apologised to her and he had identified another by looking through the Scottish government’s Flickr account.
She defended telling parliament that she first became aware of the allegations against Salmond at a meeting with her predecessor on 2 April 2018. Sturgeon has been accused of misleading parliament because she had a discussion with Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, on 29 March, and knew Sky News had made inquiries in November 2017 about alleged incidents involving Salmond. Sturgeon said the 2 April meeting was the first time she knew about the specific allegations having been shown a letter by Salmond and this may have “obliterated” her memory of the meeting a few days earlier with Aberdein.
Sturgeon told the committee she met Salmond initially because she was told he was distressed and thought he was thinking of resigning and continued to do so out of a sense of “loyalty”. She said she did have doubts as to whether she should have had her final meeting with him on 14 July 2018.
The first minister said she never had any intention to intervene in the matter because it would be seen as using her power on Salmond’s behalf and “deeply inappropriate”. She said, because of their past relationship and the nature of the meeting, she may have let Salmond down “too gently” when he wanted her to intervene, giving the false impression to him that she had agreed to do so.
Sturgeon claimed she delayed telling civil servants about her meetings with Salmond because she feared it would compromise the independence and confidentiality of the investigation into him. She said she only reported the meetings when it became apparent he was seriously considering legal action against the government. Sturgeon said it was up to James Hamilton, the independent adviser investigating whether she breached the ministerial code, to decided whether she should have reported the meetings earlier.
The first minister said there was “zero evidence” of a plot against Salmond. She claimed that messages used to support this allegation had been taken out of context and the allegation was “a million miles” from what was actually happening.
There is an argument between Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives, and the convenor, Linda Fabiani, over the latter’s exhortations to the former to keep her questioning short.There is an argument between Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives, and the convenor, Linda Fabiani, over the latter’s exhortations to the former to keep her questioning short.
Mitchell proceeds to essentially give a speech rather than ask the first minister a question.Mitchell proceeds to essentially give a speech rather than ask the first minister a question.
She begins by saying the independence of our civil servants matter but either we’ve got the most incompetent civil service or in 13 years the independence has been blurred.She begins by saying the independence of our civil servants matter but either we’ve got the most incompetent civil service or in 13 years the independence has been blurred.
She ends by saying if Sturgeon were re-elected, there would be no checks and balances, as Fabiani interrupts Mitchell telling her some of what she said was appropriate. Fabiani then asks Sturgeon if she wants to respond to any of the points made.She ends by saying if Sturgeon were re-elected, there would be no checks and balances, as Fabiani interrupts Mitchell telling her some of what she said was appropriate. Fabiani then asks Sturgeon if she wants to respond to any of the points made.
Sturgeon says it is up to the Scottish people to decide who wins the election.Sturgeon says it is up to the Scottish people to decide who wins the election.
The first minister describes accusations about lack of impartiality and independence as “unfounded”. Attacks on the independence of the criminal justice system and Crown Office are also unfounded, claims Sturgeon.The first minister describes accusations about lack of impartiality and independence as “unfounded”. Attacks on the independence of the criminal justice system and Crown Office are also unfounded, claims Sturgeon.
That concludes Sturgeon’s evidence. I will post a summary shortly.That concludes Sturgeon’s evidence. I will post a summary shortly.
Why did you keep meeting Salmond given the seriousness of the allegations, asks Baillie?Why did you keep meeting Salmond given the seriousness of the allegations, asks Baillie?
Sturgeon says he was the former first minister, former leader of her party and “somebody that was a really close friend of mine, that I cared about”. All of these factors led her to make the decisions she took. She says her last meeting with him on 14 July 2018 is one she has doubts about whether it should have happened but she still felt a loyalty to Salmond. But despite all that she was adamant she would not interfere in the process.Sturgeon says he was the former first minister, former leader of her party and “somebody that was a really close friend of mine, that I cared about”. All of these factors led her to make the decisions she took. She says her last meeting with him on 14 July 2018 is one she has doubts about whether it should have happened but she still felt a loyalty to Salmond. But despite all that she was adamant she would not interfere in the process.
You said to Andrew Marr in 2018 you had not had complaints about Salmond. Baillie asks whether she has got it wrong given that in 2017 she was aware of an allegation?You said to Andrew Marr in 2018 you had not had complaints about Salmond. Baillie asks whether she has got it wrong given that in 2017 she was aware of an allegation?
Sturgeon says she was trying to avoid saying things. She says one of the differences between her and Salmond is she has never claimed to be infallible.Sturgeon says she was trying to avoid saying things. She says one of the differences between her and Salmond is she has never claimed to be infallible.
Baillie moves onto the meeting on 2 April 2018 between Salmond and Sturgeon. For what reason did you think he would resign in advance of the meeting?Baillie moves onto the meeting on 2 April 2018 between Salmond and Sturgeon. For what reason did you think he would resign in advance of the meeting?
Sturgeon replies that he was accused of something serious and it was her assumption that he might stand down to protect the party. As it transpired that was not his intention.Sturgeon replies that he was accused of something serious and it was her assumption that he might stand down to protect the party. As it transpired that was not his intention.
You must have known ahead of the 2 April exactly what were the allegations against him if you thought he was going to resign?You must have known ahead of the 2 April exactly what were the allegations against him if you thought he was going to resign?
Sturgeon dismisses that as a “leap of logic”. She knew there was a general problem.Sturgeon dismisses that as a “leap of logic”. She knew there was a general problem.
The first minister says Aberdein seemed very concerned about Salmond’s state of wellbeing and it appeared there was a serious issue affecting the party.The first minister says Aberdein seemed very concerned about Salmond’s state of wellbeing and it appeared there was a serious issue affecting the party.
Baillie says Sturgeon would have been clear by the end of the 2 April meeting that it was a government meeting not a party meeting. So why didn’t you report it to civil servants?Baillie says Sturgeon would have been clear by the end of the 2 April meeting that it was a government meeting not a party meeting. So why didn’t you report it to civil servants?
The first minister repeats her previous answers to the same question - she did not report it because it would risk the independence and confidentiality of the process. It was not to do with whether it was a government or party meeting. It will be up to James Hamilton, the independent adviser looking into whether she broke the ministerial code, to decide whether it was wrong not to report the meeting, says Sturgeon.The first minister repeats her previous answers to the same question - she did not report it because it would risk the independence and confidentiality of the process. It was not to do with whether it was a government or party meeting. It will be up to James Hamilton, the independent adviser looking into whether she broke the ministerial code, to decide whether it was wrong not to report the meeting, says Sturgeon.
Referring to Sturgeon’s self-referral for potential breach of the ministerial code, Andy Wightman, independent MSP, asks whether it should be up to the independent adviser - in her case James Hamilton - to decide which provisions of the ministerial code may have been breached?Referring to Sturgeon’s self-referral for potential breach of the ministerial code, Andy Wightman, independent MSP, asks whether it should be up to the independent adviser - in her case James Hamilton - to decide which provisions of the ministerial code may have been breached?
Sturgeon says she has no interest in constraining James Hamilton in his investigation into whether she has broken the ministerial code.Sturgeon says she has no interest in constraining James Hamilton in his investigation into whether she has broken the ministerial code.
Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, asks about the “precursor meetings” between a senior government official and Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff. Were you aware of them?Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, asks about the “precursor meetings” between a senior government official and Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff. Were you aware of them?
Sturgeon was not, she says.Sturgeon was not, she says.
You were not aware of a meeting involving one of your senior government officials?You were not aware of a meeting involving one of your senior government officials?
That is not as unusual as you might think, says Sturgeon.That is not as unusual as you might think, says Sturgeon.
Baillie says the 29 March meeting between Sturgeon and Aberdein was jointly arranged by both sides. Did you know it was about complaints?Baillie says the 29 March meeting between Sturgeon and Aberdein was jointly arranged by both sides. Did you know it was about complaints?
Sturgeon says it depends what you mean by “complaints” - she knew he was coming to see her “about a general concern about Alex”.Sturgeon says it depends what you mean by “complaints” - she knew he was coming to see her “about a general concern about Alex”.
Fraser says Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, was adamant in evidence to the committee that her 2 April 2018 meeting with Salmond was government business.Fraser says Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, was adamant in evidence to the committee that her 2 April 2018 meeting with Salmond was government business.
The first minister said her husband did not know the basis for the meeting. She adds that what she decided to do did not relate to its classification as a party or government meeting. Her decision related to confidentiality.The first minister said her husband did not know the basis for the meeting. She adds that what she decided to do did not relate to its classification as a party or government meeting. Her decision related to confidentiality.
Fraser says after Salmond appeared before the committee a Scottish government spokesperson said there was no evidence to support his claims but evidence has since been produced. Will she withdraw the spokesperson’s comments?Fraser says after Salmond appeared before the committee a Scottish government spokesperson said there was no evidence to support his claims but evidence has since been produced. Will she withdraw the spokesperson’s comments?
She says there is “zero evidence” of the plot alleged by Salmond against him.She says there is “zero evidence” of the plot alleged by Salmond against him.
Fraser says contemporaneous statements amount to evidence and Sturgeon should know that as a lawyer.Fraser says contemporaneous statements amount to evidence and Sturgeon should know that as a lawyer.
Sturgeon replies that the people who were involved in the conversations referred to should be spoken to rather than relying on contemporaneous statements of people who were told about the conversations but were not party to them.Sturgeon replies that the people who were involved in the conversations referred to should be spoken to rather than relying on contemporaneous statements of people who were told about the conversations but were not party to them.
Fraser says all through her period in politics she told the Scottish people that they should trust in Salmond. When did you decide he was a “liar” and a “fantasist”?Fraser says all through her period in politics she told the Scottish people that they should trust in Salmond. When did you decide he was a “liar” and a “fantasist”?
Sturgeon retorts that she did not use those terms. She has had to reassess her opinion of him and she said he’s probably done the same with relation to her.Sturgeon retorts that she did not use those terms. She has had to reassess her opinion of him and she said he’s probably done the same with relation to her.
Do you owe the people of Scotland for urging them to trust Salmond?Do you owe the people of Scotland for urging them to trust Salmond?
It is unreasonable to expect her to apologise for Alex Salmond, replies Sturgeon.It is unreasonable to expect her to apologise for Alex Salmond, replies Sturgeon.
There will now be another break until 4.30pm.There will now be another break until 4.30pm.
Maureen Watt, SNP, asks if the first minister agrees with Salmond that she should have told civil servants of their meetings?Maureen Watt, SNP, asks if the first minister agrees with Salmond that she should have told civil servants of their meetings?
Sturgeon doesn’t agree but says Salmond has a stateable case with respect to that - in non-legal jargon that means it was arguable. She also says that Salmond wanted her to tell civil servants because he wanted her to intervene.Sturgeon doesn’t agree but says Salmond has a stateable case with respect to that - in non-legal jargon that means it was arguable. She also says that Salmond wanted her to tell civil servants because he wanted her to intervene.
Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, wants to go back to the meeting of 29 March 2018, saying he shares the scepticism of his fellow committee member Cole-Hamilton about her claim that she forgot about the meeting.Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, wants to go back to the meeting of 29 March 2018, saying he shares the scepticism of his fellow committee member Cole-Hamilton about her claim that she forgot about the meeting.
Sturgeon says she does understand that. She reiterates that it was a “general discussion”. Because of the contact from Sky alleging sexual misconduct against Salmond, the 29 March meeting was not the first time she had heard of such allegations, making it less memorable than might otherwise have been the case, says Sturgeon. “Rightly or wrongly, people can be sceptical about that,” she didn’t remember the 29 March meeting as being particularly significant.Sturgeon says she does understand that. She reiterates that it was a “general discussion”. Because of the contact from Sky alleging sexual misconduct against Salmond, the 29 March meeting was not the first time she had heard of such allegations, making it less memorable than might otherwise have been the case, says Sturgeon. “Rightly or wrongly, people can be sceptical about that,” she didn’t remember the 29 March meeting as being particularly significant.
Fraser says her account of the 29 March meeting with Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, as having been impromptu is contradicted by Aberdein and Salmond who say it was organised in advance.Fraser says her account of the 29 March meeting with Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, as having been impromptu is contradicted by Aberdein and Salmond who say it was organised in advance.
Sturgeon says Aberdein got in touch the day before to ask if she would be around the following day, if that can constitute being pre-arranged.Sturgeon says Aberdein got in touch the day before to ask if she would be around the following day, if that can constitute being pre-arranged.
Fraser asks why would people like Duncan Hamilton, Salmond’s lawyer, and Kevin Pringle, a former party strategist, band together to make up things about what happened.Fraser asks why would people like Duncan Hamilton, Salmond’s lawyer, and Kevin Pringle, a former party strategist, band together to make up things about what happened.
Sturgeon says she is not alleging that they banded together but they were not in the meeting and must have been told details by a third person.Sturgeon says she is not alleging that they banded together but they were not in the meeting and must have been told details by a third person.
Cole-Hamilton moves on to the matter of whether Sturgeon agreed to assist Salmond. He says that in her written evidence the first minister says she made clear she would not intervene but in her oral evidence she has referred to letting him down “gently”.Cole-Hamilton moves on to the matter of whether Sturgeon agreed to assist Salmond. He says that in her written evidence the first minister says she made clear she would not intervene but in her oral evidence she has referred to letting him down “gently”.
Sturgeon says if Salmond left there with the impression she was intervening that was clearly not the impression she wanted to give him.Sturgeon says if Salmond left there with the impression she was intervening that was clearly not the impression she wanted to give him.
Cole-Hamilton quotes the written evidence of Duncan Hamilton, Salmond’s lawyer, in which he claimed Sturgeon said “if it comes to it” she would intervene.Cole-Hamilton quotes the written evidence of Duncan Hamilton, Salmond’s lawyer, in which he claimed Sturgeon said “if it comes to it” she would intervene.
Sturgeon says she doesn’t know what “if it comes to it” means.Sturgeon says she doesn’t know what “if it comes to it” means.
Cole-Hamilton now asks about the delay in telling the permanent secretary about the 2 April meeting. Sturgeon did not do so until 6 June. Isn’t it the case that you didn’t tell the permanent secretary because you were initially disposed to assist him, the MSP asks?Cole-Hamilton now asks about the delay in telling the permanent secretary about the 2 April meeting. Sturgeon did not do so until 6 June. Isn’t it the case that you didn’t tell the permanent secretary because you were initially disposed to assist him, the MSP asks?
Sturgeon rejects this. She never had any intention of intervening, she tells the committee. She believes she made the appropriate decision.Sturgeon rejects this. She never had any intention of intervening, she tells the committee. She believes she made the appropriate decision.
Did the permanent secretary tell her to break off communication with Salmond?Did the permanent secretary tell her to break off communication with Salmond?
Sturgeon said in a letter she made the permanent secretary aware that she was going to tell Salmond that she had informed the permanent secretary of her meetings with her predecessor.Sturgeon said in a letter she made the permanent secretary aware that she was going to tell Salmond that she had informed the permanent secretary of her meetings with her predecessor.
Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks about Sturgeon’s meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, on 29 March 2018.Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks about Sturgeon’s meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, on 29 March 2018.
She recalls there was an issue about Alex, she needed to see him but it was “in general terms”.She recalls there was an issue about Alex, she needed to see him but it was “in general terms”.
Cole-Hamilton asks what reason Aberdein had for suggesting Salmond might resign as Salmond told the committee he was not thinking of resigning.Cole-Hamilton asks what reason Aberdein had for suggesting Salmond might resign as Salmond told the committee he was not thinking of resigning.
Sturgeon is unclear about the specifics, she says Aberdein may just have said he thought Salmond might be thinking of resigning. On 2 April, it was clear quickly he did not have an intention to resign.Sturgeon is unclear about the specifics, she says Aberdein may just have said he thought Salmond might be thinking of resigning. On 2 April, it was clear quickly he did not have an intention to resign.
Cole-Hamilton questions the credibility of Sturgeon’s assertion she does not remember the 29 March meeting very well given that a colleague of 30 years planning to resign would have been monumental.Cole-Hamilton questions the credibility of Sturgeon’s assertion she does not remember the 29 March meeting very well given that a colleague of 30 years planning to resign would have been monumental.
Sturgeon reiterates that it’s the 2 April meeting that was the one that sticks with her and it may have “obliterated” her memory of the 29 March meeting.Sturgeon reiterates that it’s the 2 April meeting that was the one that sticks with her and it may have “obliterated” her memory of the 29 March meeting.
Cole-Hamilton asks about the fact Sturgeon said nothing to her husband Peter Murrell, SNP CEO, about her fears that Salmond might resign.Cole-Hamilton asks about the fact Sturgeon said nothing to her husband Peter Murrell, SNP CEO, about her fears that Salmond might resign.
Sturgeon says she wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth.Sturgeon says she wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth.
Cole-Hamilton says this is hard for members to believe given she has said in the past she talked to her husband a lot about party business.Cole-Hamilton says this is hard for members to believe given she has said in the past she talked to her husband a lot about party business.
The first minister insists she did not know it was a reality at that point. Had Salmond told her on 2 April he planned to resign then she would have told her husband.The first minister insists she did not know it was a reality at that point. Had Salmond told her on 2 April he planned to resign then she would have told her husband.
McMillan asks Sturgeon about Salmond’s motivation for attending a meeting with her on 2 April.McMillan asks Sturgeon about Salmond’s motivation for attending a meeting with her on 2 April.
She answers that Salmond wanted him to intervene so that there could be mediation. Sturgeon says it was put to her by Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, that Salmond was thinking of resigning but she could not say whether that was surmising by Aberdein or whether it was based on what Salmond had told him.She answers that Salmond wanted him to intervene so that there could be mediation. Sturgeon says it was put to her by Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, that Salmond was thinking of resigning but she could not say whether that was surmising by Aberdein or whether it was based on what Salmond had told him.
McMillan asks about Sturgeon saying in her written evidence that she did not want to be cornered by Salmond at the party conference.McMillan asks about Sturgeon saying in her written evidence that she did not want to be cornered by Salmond at the party conference.
Sturgeon responds that the prospect of legal action by Salmond seemed to be increasing and she didn’t want a discussion with him in an ad hoc way, where she would tell him that she had told the permanent secretary she was not going to intervene in the matter.Sturgeon responds that the prospect of legal action by Salmond seemed to be increasing and she didn’t want a discussion with him in an ad hoc way, where she would tell him that she had told the permanent secretary she was not going to intervene in the matter.
McMillan reads to Sturgeon Salmond’s claim that she told him she wanted “to assist”.McMillan reads to Sturgeon Salmond’s claim that she told him she wanted “to assist”.
The first minister says her head was spinning, it was a human situation but she knew straight away she could not intervene. She was probably trying to “soften” things for Salmond and that may have led to Salmond’s interpretation of her offering to assist at that meeting.The first minister says her head was spinning, it was a human situation but she knew straight away she could not intervene. She was probably trying to “soften” things for Salmond and that may have led to Salmond’s interpretation of her offering to assist at that meeting.
Did you meet Salmond again because of the “human” situation, asks McMillan?Did you meet Salmond again because of the “human” situation, asks McMillan?
Sturgeon says she met him twice more, she was “concerned about him”. The first minister says Salmond suggested she was blocking arbitration but she was not involved in that decision.Sturgeon says she met him twice more, she was “concerned about him”. The first minister says Salmond suggested she was blocking arbitration but she was not involved in that decision.
Baillie follows up a question from fellow committee member Allan about sisting (this is obtaining a court order stopping or suspending proceedings)Baillie follows up a question from fellow committee member Allan about sisting (this is obtaining a court order stopping or suspending proceedings)
Sturgeon says the government ultimately did not apply for sisting and again denies that there was an attempt to sist the case so that the criminal procedures would overtake the judicial review in timing.Sturgeon says the government ultimately did not apply for sisting and again denies that there was an attempt to sist the case so that the criminal procedures would overtake the judicial review in timing.
Stuart McMillan, SNP, asks why the government did not send anyone to a hearing on reporting restrictions.Stuart McMillan, SNP, asks why the government did not send anyone to a hearing on reporting restrictions.
Sturgeon says she understands it is because the government did not oppose the reporting restrictions.Sturgeon says she understands it is because the government did not oppose the reporting restrictions.
McMillan asks if there has been a judicial review where the government has been told it was going to lose but then won.McMillan asks if there has been a judicial review where the government has been told it was going to lose but then won.
Sturgeon answers that she cannot go into details of legal advice.Sturgeon answers that she cannot go into details of legal advice.
McMillan refers to the legal advice from 27 September 2018 (published yesterday) and asks whether Sturgeon has any comment on the remarks relating to retrospective application.McMillan refers to the legal advice from 27 September 2018 (published yesterday) and asks whether Sturgeon has any comment on the remarks relating to retrospective application.
That note was addressing each point of challenge, responds Sturgeon. She says Salmond has a view he says backed up by his legal adviser that retrospective application was inappropriate, her government disagreed.That note was addressing each point of challenge, responds Sturgeon. She says Salmond has a view he says backed up by his legal adviser that retrospective application was inappropriate, her government disagreed.
Moving to the advice from Roddy Dunlop on 31 October, Baillie says it makes clear that the prospects for the judicial review are bleak and there is no balancing view.Moving to the advice from Roddy Dunlop on 31 October, Baillie says it makes clear that the prospects for the judicial review are bleak and there is no balancing view.
Sturgeon says lawyers do not continue if a case is not stateable so if Dunlop felt that at that point of time he would not have proceeded.Sturgeon says lawyers do not continue if a case is not stateable so if Dunlop felt that at that point of time he would not have proceeded.
Baillie picks out advice from Dunlop that says “it makes little sense to continue to defend the indefensible”. She asks Sturgeon if it would not be better for the complainers if the case had been conceded at that time.Baillie picks out advice from Dunlop that says “it makes little sense to continue to defend the indefensible”. She asks Sturgeon if it would not be better for the complainers if the case had been conceded at that time.
Dunlop’s advice read in the whole was that there was a “credible” argument to be made, responds the first minister. It was still for better for the complainants at that stage to proceed, argues Sturgeon.Dunlop’s advice read in the whole was that there was a “credible” argument to be made, responds the first minister. It was still for better for the complainants at that stage to proceed, argues Sturgeon.
Baillie questions why certain documents were not revealed in response to a search warrant, and not made available to the judicial review nor the criminal trial.Baillie questions why certain documents were not revealed in response to a search warrant, and not made available to the judicial review nor the criminal trial.
Sturgeon says documents outside the scope of the warrant would not have been released. She says there is assumption about non-compliance with a search warrant that is not to her knowledge correct.Sturgeon says documents outside the scope of the warrant would not have been released. She says there is assumption about non-compliance with a search warrant that is not to her knowledge correct.
Baillie tells the first minister the time for reflection has passed. We have been asking for this information for months, there have been two votes in parliament. Baillie asks the legal basis for not giving some specific documents to the committee?Baillie tells the first minister the time for reflection has passed. We have been asking for this information for months, there have been two votes in parliament. Baillie asks the legal basis for not giving some specific documents to the committee?
Sturgeon says she has recused herself from the handling of the release of documents but she understands some more documents will be forthcoming.Sturgeon says she has recused herself from the handling of the release of documents but she understands some more documents will be forthcoming.
The convener, Linda Fabiani, intervenes to say the committee shares Baillie’s concerns. Baillie says she finds the release of incomplete legal advice “disrespectful”.The convener, Linda Fabiani, intervenes to say the committee shares Baillie’s concerns. Baillie says she finds the release of incomplete legal advice “disrespectful”.
Referring to counsel’s advice on 27 September 2018 Baillie says there were concerns about the policy itself rather than the policy implementation. She has concerns that this policy is still in place.Referring to counsel’s advice on 27 September 2018 Baillie says there were concerns about the policy itself rather than the policy implementation. She has concerns that this policy is still in place.
Reiterating earlier arguments, Sturgeon says she has never read legal advice saying 100% you are going to win - if she did that would concern her because it would be so unusual.Reiterating earlier arguments, Sturgeon says she has never read legal advice saying 100% you are going to win - if she did that would concern her because it would be so unusual.
Isn’t it the case that if just one of the petitioner’s grounds are found to be legitimate it could lead to the quashing of the procedure as well as the permanent secretary’s decision?Isn’t it the case that if just one of the petitioner’s grounds are found to be legitimate it could lead to the quashing of the procedure as well as the permanent secretary’s decision?
Sturgeon responds that it “could” but if the government was to choose not to defend legal actions on the basis of advice such as this, no government would ever defend any legal actions.Sturgeon responds that it “could” but if the government was to choose not to defend legal actions on the basis of advice such as this, no government would ever defend any legal actions.