An independent report by James Hamilton QC has found that Nicola Sturgeon did not knowingly break the ministerial code, when it came to the investigation of Alex Salmond and allegations made against him.
Nicola Sturgeon did not break the ministerial code over the Alex Salmond affair. This is the verdict of James Hamilton QC after his inquiry, with a 61-page report that clears her on all four charges. She got things wrong in her account to parliament, Hamilton said, by giving an 'incomplete narrative of events.' But this was a 'genuine failure of recollection' and not deliberate. On the four points he was asked to look into (many of the questions facing her are outside Hamilton’s brief) he has given as strong an exoneration as she could have hoped for. And did she mislead parliament? He ducks this question. "It is for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether they were in fact misled.
Ahead of James Hamilton QC's report this afternoon and the expected verdict of the Salmond inquiry committee tomorrow, Steerpike went back through the archives to find this clip from Holyrood in January 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqDLyU6gnDs Will the committee and the QC agree with the First Minister?
The Scottish Parliament goes into recess on Wednesday ahead of devolved elections on 6 May. That gives Nicola Sturgeon three days to see off her opponents (inside the SNP as much as outside) before the campaign begins proper. Before she gets there, we will have to face the publication of the Holyrood inquiry report. This is the SNP-chaired parliamentary panel tasked with investigating the SNP government’s mishandling of sexual harassment allegations against former SNP first minister Alex Salmond. Sturgeon’s government launched an internal investigation into Salmond, her one-time mentor turned nemesis, that was ruled by the Court of Session to be ‘unlawful’, ‘procedurally unfair’ and ‘tainted by apparent bias'.
It's only days before the Holyrood election campaign gets underway and Nicola Sturgeon is facing one of the most testing weeks of her political career. Two verdicts are due in the coming days on whether the First Minister broke the ministerial code over the Alex Salmond inquiry. One is the finding of Scottish parliament's Alex Salmond committee which is due on Tuesday. The panel, which is made up of MSPs, is widely expected to say she did mislead parliament. Sturgeon and her allies will likely dismiss it as politically motivated. Already this line is being pushed out by the First Minister and SNP politicians.
A newly independent Scottish state would have to implement eye watering spending cuts or tax increases to stay afloat, according to new analysis. If the new state were to balance the books using tax increases alone then Scotland’s three income tax bands, which are broadly equivalent to the basic rate in the rest of the UK, would have to go up by 26 pence in the pound, taking Scotland’s basic rate to 46 pence. Alternatively, the gap could be filled by raising VAT from 20 per cent to 49 per cent. Such massive tax rises would represent at least 10 per cent of Scotland’s GDP. The analysis comes from a report by libertarian-leaning campaign group the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), and was written by TPA chairman and ex-Treasury economist Mike Denham.
Last week was a long time in politics for my running mate in the Scottish elections, George Galloway. It started with a YouGov poll finding that George is the best known opposition leader in Scotland and the one that voters in several regions think would provide the strongest opposition to the SNP. We used that as the springboard for our Covid ‘Potemkin rallies’, where George announces from his soapbox that he will be ‘holding his nose and voting Tory’ as tactical voting is the only way to defeat the SNP. If Scottish Tories were grateful for the endorsement of Scotland’s best known left-winger, they had a funny way of showing it.
What now for Nicola Sturgeon? Labour MP Jess Phillips isn't sitting on the fence. ‘At best Nicola Sturgeon was unprofessional with those women’s lives; at worst, she misled parliament,' Phillips told Question Time viewers last night. Keir Starmer has also said Scotland's First Minister must go if she did indeed break the ministerial code in the course of the Alex Salmond saga. But why are so many others in the Labour ranks unwilling to speak out against the SNP? Sturgeon's departure is, after all, in the Labour party's best interests. In two months’ time, Labour will be looking to take seats from the SNP at the Scottish election. And, politics aside, given the gravity of the situation, it's not hard to make the case that this should be a resigning matter.
After being accused last night of misleading the Scottish parliament, Nicola Sturgeon's daily Covid briefing was high on Mr Steerpike's watch list today. Alas upon tuning in, viewers were greeted with the sight of Jeane Freeman, the country's health secretary (under fire for quite different reasons) rather than her embattled party leader. Asked by Sky about whether Sturgeon should resign, Freeman snapped back that: 'This is a Covid briefing and that is what I am here to answer questions on' before (quelle surprise) saying she still believed her colleague did not mislead parliament and that she should not resign. So where is Sturgeon and why is not doing her much loved daily presser?
The SNP's new hate crime legislation is bad news for women. Yet the sad reality is that too many feminists have failed to speak up about the importance of free speech – and now we may all end up paying the price. The legislation creates a new offence of 'stirring up hatred' on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or transgender identity. But while it provides a power for Scottish Ministers to make regulations adding the characteristic of sex to this list, for now, sex is not included. This leaves women like me, who don't agree with the emerging gender identity ideology, in danger of being targeted.
At First Minister’s Questions this afternoon Nicola Sturgeon accused Ruth Davidson of peddling baseless conspiracy theories, dredged up from 'the bottom of the barrel'. For all that Davidson, like the rest of Sturgeon’s political opponents, might profess that their interest in the Salmond-Sturgeon affair rests on nothing more than ‘just the facts, ma’am’, the First Minister was clear their concern is primarily opportunistic and political. If they wished to pal around with Alex Salmond and his cronies in some kind of 'old boys club' that was their prerogative, but the people of Scotland will deliver their verdict in May’s elections. And there is, of course, some truth in that charge.
The Scottish First Minister misled Holyrood. That is the conclusion of the Scottish parliamentary committee investigating her government's handling of sexual misconduct allegations against Alex Salmond. Nicola Sturgeon gave an 'inaccurate' account of a meeting with her predecessor when she gave evidence to the committee earlier this month, according to the investigating body. MSPs voted five to four in favour of ruling that there had been a 'potential' breach of the ministerial code. The inquiry is set to reveal it's findings in the next few days but has already made a number of key decisions, according to reports in the Scottish press.
My mob originates, we have come to assume, from somewhere in Ireland, though exactly where we don’t know. Humza Yousaf, justice secretary in the Scottish government, was born in Glasgow to immigrant parents — one from Pakistan, the other from Kenya. We were contemporaries at university (Glasgow), I became a journalist around the time he became a politician (SNP, alas), and while I’ve long been impressed by his abilities, his smiley-sinister Hate Crime Bill confirms him to be a nightmarish fusion of Judith Butler and Mary Whitehouse. What has never occurred to me is the notion that Yousaf is less Scottish than me. If anything, I wish he’d tone it down a bit.
Nicola Sturgeon came under fire at First Ministers' Questions today, with Ruth Davidson interrogating the SNP leader over David Davis' bombshell on Tuesday night. Davidson asked if, as Davis claimed, a legal document was suppressed by government officials in the course of Mr Salmond’s judicial review in late 2018. Sturgeon replied that by reading out 'his old pal Alex Salmond’s conspiracy theories about the sexual harassment allegations against him' Davis was representing 'the very epitome of the old boys club.' She added that 'anyone who chooses to cheer that on should not pretend to have the interests of the women concerned at heart.
The power wielded by Nicola Sturgeon and her Scottish government means it’s hard to hold her to account for basic policy failures — of which there are many. It’s even harder to investigate accusations that her aides conspired to frame and imprison someone who had become a political problem for her. The Alex Salmond affair has shown the many ways the public prosecutors in the Crown Office, led by a member of Sturgeon’s cabinet, have sought to censor and redact his allegations. The House of Commons is immune to the threats and menaces of government lawyers. The notion of parliamentary privilege, a corner-stone of British democracy, means that anything can be said within the walls of parliament without fear of prosecution.
The fallout from David Davis’s intervention in the Alex Salmond affair is all about the messages. The texts which the veteran Tory says he was given by a ‘whistleblower’ contain disturbing conversations between senior SNP and Scottish Government staffers. They raise questions about party involvement in a government investigation, the alleged ‘interference’ of Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff, and what the First Minister knew and when. The motivations behind these exchanges will be picked over by those convinced Salmond was the victim of a conspiracy, those convinced the Scottish Government fouled up but had good intentions, and a small smattering of Scots patiently waiting for the Holyrood inquiry to put all these matters to rest. Bless.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon appeared to be in a poor mood today, after David Davis used parliamentary privilege in the Commons last night to make a series of allegations against the Scottish government over its handling of the Salmond investigation. After the ITV journalist Peter Smith asked Sturgeon about the new allegations at the Scottish government’s Covid briefing, the First Minister at first refused to answer the question at all, saying ‘I’m not having this briefing side-tracked into the latest instalment of the conspiracy theories we’ve all be hearing about for a long time’. Sturgeon then took a rather more hostile approach, saying she would only answer questions from the journalist about Covid.
The first thing to be said about David Davis’s dramatic intervention in the Salmond-Sturgeon affair is that it is a masterful piece of concern-trolling. The second thing to be said is that this does not matter. Davis, speaking armoured by parliamentary privilege, revealed information passed to him by a 'whistleblower' that has hitherto been kept secret. On the face of it, there are very good reasons explaining why the SNP and the Scottish government would wish to keep it that way. Ostensibly, Davis’s intervention is motivated by concern that the Scottish parliament and its members lack the ability to pursue the truth wherever it may lead. He came, he said, to strengthen the Scottish parliament, not to bury it.
Why is the SNP banning books? On 5 January the Scottish government introduced a strict new lockdown in response to the spread of a more infectious strain of Covid-19. As a student at the University of Edinburgh, one particular restriction has baffled me ever since. Unlike in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the Scottish government decided to ban students from reading, borrowing or even touching books in their university libraries. Even as fears rose over the rapidly spreading ‘Kent’ variant, it seemed that this policy lacked any scientific foundation. The Scottish government’s explanation for its book ban is baffling, and seems to be just copied and pasted advice from public websites and bluster over the importance of fighting Covid.
Loyalty is an important virtue. Indeed, it was loyalty to my former boss which led me to offer to act as Alex Salmond’s spokesman during his Court of Session battle with the Scottish Government. It was, at the time, a thankless task, trying to persuade sceptical former media colleagues that the whole affair was a stitch-up. Those same journalists don’t require much persuasion today. Once the Scottish Government belatedly conceded the errors in their flawed complaints procedure, at a cost to the taxpayer of at least a million pounds, and the accusations against Salmond were thrown out by a criminal court, the repercussions began.
