[ad_1]
Scotland’s Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been asked to explain new allegations of “interference” by her chief of staff in a sexual misconduct investigation.
Conservative MP David davis used parliamentary privilege in Westminster to allege that officials exchanged messages suggesting that Liz Lloyd was interfering in the complaint process against Alex Salmond.
He said the message was sent on February 6, 2018, two months earlier Scotland The Prime Minister told parliament that she learned about the complaints for the first time.
David Davis used parliamentary privilege to disclose the information
Mrs. SturgeonOpponents have said it makes his story of hearing the complaints “even more implausible.”
The Haltemprice and Howden MP said he had received information from a whistleblower about the 2018 Scottish government investigation into allegations of harassment against Alex Salmond by two female officials.
At the time, Mr. Salmond challenged the legality of the investigation and it was declared “illegal” and “tainted by apparent prejudice”.
An inquiry by the Scottish Parliament he is currently investigating the mishandling of the investigation and members of his committee have complained about a lack of access to key documentation.
Mr Davis said the information he had received was related to an exchange of texts on 6 February 2018 between two Scottish government officials, suggesting that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff “is interfering in the complaints process against Alex Salmond “.
Nicola Sturgeon faces more questions
He added: “If true, this suggests that the chief of staff had knowledge of the Salmond case in February.”
He said Nicola Sturgeon had “tied himself to (an) April date in both parliamentary and legal statements. Of course, she was conscious before that: the question is how conscious and how much sooner. “
The indictment has prompted new questions from Ms Surgeon’s opponents.
Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said: “If the Prime Minister’s side became aware of the complaints against Alex Salmond in February 2018, there has been a shocking violation of the privacy and confidentiality of those women.
“February 2018 is also two months before Nicola Sturgeon originally claimed to have found out about the complaints. If her chief of staff knew about it and was interfering with the investigation, another huge gap opens up in the Prime Minister’s story.
“If officials said that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was interfering in the investigation, then it is a dismissal offense. Serious questions are raised about how he tried to interfere, how he found out, who told him, when he found out, and who .she continued counting.
“It also raises the question of whether anyone told Nicola Sturgeon that her chief of staff was interfering with the investigation. If they did, various lies have been told to the Scottish Parliament. If they did not, it still makes the Nicola Sturgeon story from when she claims to have learned of even more unlikely allegations.
“These are all ‘yes’. We need Nicola Sturgeon to immediately confirm or deny these new allegations, and agree to release the evidence that has been cited this week.”
Davis also echoed Salmond’s claim that the text messages exchanged between high-level figures within the SNP showed a concerted effort to encourage complaints against him and questioned the evidence provided under oath by the executive director of the SNP. SNP, Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband.
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon used to be politically close
He referred to Mr. Murrell’s appearance before the Holyrood harassment committee in which he said that his evidence regarding the (text) messages and their non-existence was “difficult to reconcile with the dozens of messages that were spread over a period of months since September 2018, which I have now seen. “
Referring to an “anonymous” member of the committee who was quoted as describing them as private conversations, he said: “They must understand that intervening in an ongoing police investigation is inappropriate at best and criminal at worst. Therefore, it requires a proper investigation. “
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: “As with Mr. Salmond’s previous statements and the selection of messages, the reality is very different from the picture that is presented.
“The committee has previously seen all messages involving SNP staff. Their views have been widely reported as derogatory.”
Regarding the assertions about her chief of staff, the spokeswoman said: “The comment read by Mr. Davis in relation to the chief of staff does not relate to Ms A or Ms B and, at that time, she I didn’t know there was any connection to the former prime minister. “
