READ: Transcript of Alex Salmond’s full press conference after winning case

Salmond had taken the Government to court over alleged unfairness in its procedure of investigating sexual harassment claims against him, which he denies.

This morning, the Government admitted in court that it had not followed the correct legal procedure in dealing with the accusations, and accepted legal defeat.

READ MORE: Scottish government admits 'failure' in dealing with Salmond accusations

Later, Salmond took part in a press conference on the case. Below is the transcript of this conference.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Alex Salmond: I’d firstly obviously like to thank my outstanding legal team. I’d like to thank my family and my friends for standing with me over the last few months. I’d particularly like to thank the over 4000 people who contributed to the crowdfunder and who made this court action possible. I’ll be writing to them this afternoon.

I made it clear that if there was a surplus in the fund that it would go to good causes in Scotland and abroad and given that there is now likely to be a surplus in the fund given the concession of expenses made by the Scottish Government to the maximum extent, then that will now be done.

I am thinking on three things.

The last time I was in that court was to be sworn in as First Minister of Scotland. I never thought it possible that at any point I would be taking the Scottish Government to court and while I am glad about the victory that has been achieved today. I am sad that it was necessary to take this action.

The consequences are very clear, because the process has been agreed as unlawful, as unfair and tainted by apparent bias, then the Scottish Government have had to concede on the case and on the expenses to the maximum extent. That is going to raise a cost to the public purse of many, many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

And all of this was unnecessary, because throughout the process, we offered mediation and legal arbitration so that this matter could be settled without having to come to the highest court in the land. At every stage, that was rebuffed by the Permanent Secretary.

I notice in their submissions that the Advocate for the Government accepted institutional responsibility – not personal – but institutional responsibility. Therefore, I suggest that the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government now accepts that responsibility and considers her position.

READ MORE: Alex Salmond calls for resignation of top civil servant

The second question is lack of candour. This case turned and came to a conclusion by the total surrender of the Government’s position, because of the documents commission, ordered by Lord Pentland, which met between Christmas and New Year, where civil servants under oath, had to produce hundreds of documents which the Government had refused before that, to provide to the court.

I would have thought a public authority, given what these documents showed – and these documents, for now at least, are under the protection of the court – would not have required a court order in order to have transparency and openness and to allow the case to be settled on its merits.

Thirdly, I am struck by this fact. I have been deeply troubled throughout the case by the leaking of confidential information by whoever. Any complaints process has to be transparent, balanced, fair and confidential. That’s in the interests of the complainers and those complained about. We have a process – or at least had one – in the Scottish Government called fairness at work. I know about it because I introduced it. Thank goodness that is still in force, at least for civil servants as opposed to the total mess introduced by the Permanent Secretary.

But if confidentiality is breached, then it undermines the entire process – obviously that was done in terms of leaks to a tabloid newspaper – and also crucially, by a leak of the reported advice of the Lord Advocate, breaching a central requirement of the separation of criminal justice from politics – something I have never seen done in recent Scottish history.

Presumably, these leaks were deliberate and malicious and yet the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government has refused to hold an inquiry as to where these leaks came from. All in all, my summary would be this: I am obviously glad – delighted – by the result today. The Government have made an abject surrender in terms of the case, before we even got to the first day of hearings before Lord Pentland. I am just sad, that it was necessary to take this action in this Court of Session to prove that point.

Back in August when I made my last comments on these matters, I said that the process used against me was unfair, unlawful and tainted by bias. I also said that I was not guilty of any criminality. This first of these has been established. The second is to come.

For a former First Minister of Scotland requiring to take the administration of the Scottish Government to court to establish that point should not have been necessary. The person who is responsible for that institutional failure, the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, should consider her position and take the appropriate action.

Can I thank again my legal team, my family and friends and the people who supported this case. Glad to have won and sad that it has been necessary.

Journalist: Are you entirely innocent of any crimes of sexual misconduct and if you are saying that, should the police now drop their investigation?

Alex Salmond: I am certainly not guilty of any criminality – certainly not in the way the Permanent Secretary is suggesting and I’ve never, incidentally, said I was an angel – but throughout this process I have said that it is important that I didn’t comment on it until it was concluded. It has now done that and I am now commenting on it. On the same token, I am certainly not going to comment on police enquiries. I will face that matter when I come to it.

Journalist: You say the Permanent Secretary should now consider her position, where does that leave the current First Minister?

AS: My view is the key phrase, apart from the obvious collapse of the Government’s case, remember a case they said that they would fight vigorously across the court. The key thing today was the phrase “institutional responsibility”. I think that institutional responsibility lies with the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government. In the documents now in care of the court, it is clear that this process was under draft by the civil service weeks before it was even commissioned by any Scottish Government minister.

My view of what Nicola Sturgeon should do now is that she should concentrate on achieving independence for Scotland, particularly in current political circumstances.

Journalist: You speak about abject surrender. One thing the Scottish Government did not concede in court was the credibility of the two women complainants or the veracity of the complaints that they made. To that extent, you still stand accused. What do you say to those two women today?

AS: The Scottish Government have conceded that their process was unlawful, was unfair and was tainted by apparent bias. Everybody in court heard Lord Pentland read out these words. Everybody, whether you are the person who is complaining or the person who is complained about, needs a process that is transparent, fair, just and above all: confidential. That hasn’t happened in this case and that is to the detriment of the complainers and the complained about. I have always championed a proper complaints process.

I introduced one in the Scottish Government called Fairness at Work – which in the court documents, the trade unions described as something of which we should all be proud – totally different from the botched mess introduced by the Permanent Secretary. It is important for those who have complained and who have been complained about, that these things are done fairly, properly and with justice. That is the institutional failing of the Scottish Government.

Journalist: Amber Rudd had to resign because of the incompetence of her civil servants. Surely the First Minister should go

AS: I don’t think the two cases are comparable. I have said why I think that the Permanent Secretary should take responsibility for two reasons: Firstly, the admission that this was not, as was put, an individual failing of the investigating officer, but those who appointed her, those who had knowledge of the process, the detail of the process when they allowed it to happen it was an institutional failure. But the procedure the Scottish Government tried to put in place was very much a civil service procedure, the ultimate judge in these matters was the Permanent Secretary.

If you are setting yourself up as a judge – in contrast incidentally to the previous procedure, which had a panel of people – you should go through some of the training required to be able to sit in judgement. That institutional failure, in my view, is the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government. Lastly, and I think this is an absolutely crucial point, the procedure was under many drafts from the civil service long before they got a commissioning letter from any government minister.

Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans, left, with the First Minister

The National: Do you think that you can rebuild your relationship with the Scottish Government?

AS: Yes, I am an ardent campaigner for Scottish independence and I have a relationship therefore with everybody who supports Scottish independence. These are matters about justice, transparency, the effectiveness of process and the rights of those complained about and those who complain – all of these things have been swept aside by the Scottish Government and by their institutional failure and I think the person responsible should be considering her position.

Journalist: The Scottish Government have already said that they will consider reinvestigating these complaints. What do you say to that possibility?

AS: There was a procedure opened to them. They could have applied for a remission which would have allowed them to correct the question of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has a crucial role – that is the person who is responsible for the compilation of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The role is all-pervasive. I saw that remark of the Permanent Secretary. I think she should reflect. It sounds like someone who is incredibly anxious to save her job and I would have thought that a cost of potentially – and I don’t know the exact figure – more than half a million pounds to the public purse already, that perhaps the Permanent Secretary should consider her position.

Journalist: Would you welcome a second investigation?

AS: Let me put it this way: The Scottish Government fell at the first fence. I think they would have fallen at all the other fences as well. There was a point where the judge picked up one of the other transparent unfairnesses in the process. There was three grounds in the petition we put forward. The first was fairness – an essential prerequisite in any process. The second was a retrospective process. The third was the question of the Scottish Government’s competence in these matters.

They fell at the first, they would have fallen at the others as well. The process has been found to have been unlawful, unfair and tainted by bias. You couldn’t get more tainted. When she has had time for mature reflection, I hope that the Permanent Secretary considers her position, not events in the future. I cannot think that, in a day of abject humiliation for the Scottish Government, that seems like a correct or proper response. I am not putting out the bunting today. Yes, I am glad to have won. I am really, really sad to have been forced to take this action against a government I led for almost eight years.

Journalist: Will you now seek to rejoin the SNP?

AS: That is my intention. There are a few matters which have to be sorted first. There are clear and obvious legal options open that I have to discuss with my legal team and I will be making whatever decisions necessary to affect that. But, as you’ll understand, there is admission of unlawfulness, unfairness and tainting by apparent bias then the matter I discussed, wouldn’t, I suspect, be the most difficult case to win.

Journalist: What are those clear and obvious legal options?

AS: I will leave these things to my solicitor and my legal team. I respect their competence in the matter.

Journalist: Are you talking about compensation?

AS: I will discuss these with my legal team and I will address these matters and considerations in due course.

READ MORE: READ: Full statement from Alex Salmond on court case victory

Journalist: If the Scottish Government does re-open the investigation, would you be willing to cooperate with that?

AS: For the reasons I set out previously: If you consider the role of the Permanent Secretary and you consider the phrase, tainted by bias, then you see why that is an extraordinary and desperate statement put out today by the Permanent Secretary. I really do think that she should be considering her own position, not events in the future. I would think that that Permanent Secretary has a range of considerations, not least of which is the waste of perhaps half a million pounds of badly-needed public money in things which we asked – repeatedly – for mediation and legal arbitration. All of this was unnecessary.

It was the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government who determined to force me to take action in the Scottish Court of Session today. And with that, can I thank you all very much indeed. It has been frustrating over the last few weeks not to be able to comment on this and I am glad to be able to comment on it to you today.