[ad_1]
Alex Salmond has suggested that weak and incompetent leadership of Scotland’s institutions could undermine the case for independence, in a bitter attack on his former allies and party.
The former prime minister said huge deficiencies in the functioning of the Scottish government and the Crown Office had been exposed, as he blamed both institutions for forcing him to live a “nightmare” for the past three years.
Salmond said in a Holyrood investigation that he had sought independence “all my political life.” But that must be “accompanied by institutions whose leadership is strong and robust and capable of protecting each and every citizen from arbitrariness,” he added.
In an extraordinary indictment, Salmond said the Scottish government had not disclosed to police that Leslie Evans, Scotland’s top official, had spoken to two women who had indicated they could charge him with sexual harassment before their complaints were formally filed.
Salmond said the police had served a court order to the government seeking the release of such evidence, but that it was not delivered; the Crown Office had not been informed, nor had his criminal trial. “That is obstruction of justice,” he told the committee.
Salmond also claimed that Sturgeon had violated the ministerial code, a charge he has repeatedly rejected. He claimed that she had failed to prevent her government from spending some £ 600,000 on a policy that he had warned her all along was illegal. “I think the prime minister has broken the ministerial code. It is not the case that every minister who breaks the code should resign, it depends on what is found, ”he said.
Before being closely questioned for six hours of testimony, Salmond told the committee that he disagreed with those who claimed that Scotland was “in danger of becoming a failed state.” It said its institutions were “absolutely strong.”
Still, he said, “we cannot turn the page or move on” until the crises in their institutions are resolved. That meant Evans and the great defender, James Wolffe QC, had to resign, he said.
“The competence and professionalism of the civil service is important. The independence of the Crown Office acting in matters of public interest. Act in accordance with matters of legal advice, ”he said. “Hiding evidence from the courts matters. The duty of frankness of public authorities is important. Democratic accountability through parliamentary affairs. The suppression of evidence from parliamentary committees is important. And yes, that ministers speak the truth to parliament is important. “
During hours of testing that deepened his bitter enmity with Nicola Sturgeon, once his protégé and close friend, and his former allies in the Scottish National Party, Salmond made a series of accusations about the conduct of senior officials and former colleagues.
He also declined to be questioned by various MSPs as to whether his past conduct towards women was wrong, and did not confirm whether he had apologized to an official accused of misconduct.
Sturgeon, the prime minister, accused Salmond on Wednesday of using this investigation to deflect questions about his behavior. Salmond replied that he had been acquitted of any criminal offense: “After two court cases, two judges and a jury, I have the right to depend on the verdicts and, in particular, on the verdict of the jury.”
In giving evidence under oath, he also stated:
-
Sturgeon learned on March 29, 2018, that Salmond was being investigated for sexual harassment by her government, four days before the date she first gave to parliament, because she had agreed to meet with Geoff Aberdein, her former chief of staff, to discuss it in your Holyrood. office.
-
Three witnesses were able to confirm that Aberdein, who was not a government official at the time, was informed of the name of one of the complainants and that one of them had testified to that effect.
-
He and Sturgeon mentioned the complainant by name when they met at her home four days later, on April 2, 2018, contradicting Sturgeon’s statement at Holyrood on Thursday that he did not believe the name had been passed to Aberdein. .
-
In an exchange witnessed by his lawyer, Duncan Hamilton, Sturgeon also “offered to help” in his quest to influence the Scottish government’s harassment investigation during that meeting, a claim that Sturgeon has repeatedly rejected.
-
The Crown Office had not inexplicably ordered a police investigation into the leak of the government’s findings that it had sexually harassed two officials to the Record newspaper, even though police were investigating the SNP’s leak of text messages to a ally of his, the former Scottish judge. secretary Kenny MacAskill.
Salmond made these allegations ahead of Holyrood’s cross-party investigation investigating the Scottish government’s internal investigation into allegations of misconduct against him in 2018.
In January 2019, he won a civil action and significant legal costs of £ 512,000 after the government admitted procedural irregularities in that investigation, which meant it was illegal, unfair and tainted by apparent bias. Salmond was then indicted for 14 alleged sex crimes, including one of attempted rape, but was acquitted of all during a higher court trial in March 2020.
He criticized newspapers that described the government investigation as a failure. “The policy was not a failure. The policy was illegal. The policy was unfair and tainted by apparent prejudice. The botch doesn’t cover it. “
Salmond was pressured by several MSPs to accept that it was justified and legal for a government and parliament to pass retrospective legislation that meant retired politicians could be investigated for historical crimes.
Andy Wightman, an independent MSP on the committee, said Holyrood was voting next week on a bill to authorize retrospective investigations into MSP dating back to the start of the return in 1999. Alasdair Allan, for the SNP, said parliament Welsh Senedd and Westminster were examining similar laws.
Salmond said that was materially different than the civil service rushing to pass the internal rules used to investigate it in 2018. No one outside of a small group of senior officials was consulted on that decision, he said: it was not discussed in cabinet and John Swinney . , the deputy prime minister, did not tell parliament that it was being considered.
His victory in court meant that the policy “ended in abject disaster, total and complete.” Salmond added: “There is a big difference between the legislation considered and the development of an appalling policy in the implementation of policies in a matter of days.”
When he began testifying, he said that over the past three years he had rejected hundreds of requests from the media, did not give interviews or publish any articles about the “shock and pain” he had experienced. He said he also remained silent when Sturgeon appeared to question the not guilty verdicts of the superior court jury. “Still I didn’t say anything. Well, today that changes. “
