Most of the critical findings in the report were decided by majority, with the SNP trying to block them but their usual allies the Greens siding with the opposition.
NICOLA STURGEON ‘FAILED TO RECOLLECT’ KEY MEETING
The committee considered a meeting Nicola Sturgeon had with Alex Salmond’s aide Geoff Abberdein on March 29, 2018. She initially ‘failed to recollect’ the encounter as the first time she was told about complaints against Mr Salmond.
The report noted there were ‘contradictions as to the purpose’ of the meeting and ‘what took place’.
‘However, the First Minister’s failure to recollect this meeting in the weeks following her statement to Parliament on 8 January 2019 and her account of this meeting is at odds with that of Mr Salmond who asserts that Mr Aberdein told him that the First Minister was so informed on 29 March 2018.
‘The Committee accepts that there may be differing recollections of this meeting and is not in a position to take a view on whether the former First Minister’s or the First Minister’s version of events is the more persuasive, although it notes that the former First Minister’s version has the benefit of being confirmed by others.’
DID STURGEON AGREE TO INTERVENE IN SALMOND CASE?
The report brands part of Ms Sturgeon’s evidence about a meeting with Mr Salmond on April 2, 2018 ‘an inaccurate account of what happened’. He says that the First Minister suggested she was ready to step in over the handling of complaints against him.
‘Taking account of the competing versions of events, the Committee believes that she did in fact leave Mr Salmond with the impression that she would, if necessary, intervene,’ the MSPs concluded.
‘This was corroborated by (Mr Salmond’s lawyer) Duncan Hamilton who was also at the meeting. Her written evidence is therefore an inaccurate account of what happened, and she has misled the Committee on this matter.
‘This is a potential breach of the Ministerial Code under the terms of section 1.3 (c).’
WAS STURGEON AWARE OF SALMOND CLAIMS BEFORE NOV 2017?
By a majority, the committee said: ‘The Committee finds it hard to believe that the First Minister had no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Salmond prior to November 2017.
‘If she did have such knowledge, then she should have acted upon it. If she did have such knowledge, then she has misled the Committee.’
ON STURGEON DECLARING MEETINGS
The report said MSPs were ‘concerned’ Ms Sturgeon did not disclose details of her meeting with Alex Salmond at her home to the Scottish Government’s most senior civil servant, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans, until June 6 – more than two months after it took place.
The report said: ‘Given the sensitivities of the matter and the fact that it related to internal government complaints handling, the committee believes that it was inappropriate for the First Minister to continue to meet and have discussions with the former first minister on this topic.
‘She should have made the Permanent Secretary aware of her state of knowledge of the complaints and the facts of the meetings at the earliest opportunity after April 2, at which point she should have confirmed that she would cease to have any further contact with Mr Salmond on that subject.’
DID STURGEON DEFY LAWYERS TO KEEP FIGHTING SALMOND CASE?
In more split conclusions, the committee noted that lawyers from the Scottish Government had raised ‘substantial concerns’ about the prospects for the judicial review case from the end of October 2018.
It said: ‘By October 31 2018, senior external counsel had concluded that the Government would likely lose the judicial review.
‘That assessment only worsened as the case progressed and prior contact between the investigating officer and complainers emerged.
‘The committee is also concerned that the First Minister decided to proceed with the judicial review despite clear advice that it would likely fail.’
ON SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SUPPLYING EVIDENCE
In a passage that was agreed by SNP members, the report said: ‘The Committee’s scrutiny has been significantly impacted by the delays in the provision of information from the Scottish Government and by its constant refusal to release legal advice.’
