PETER Murrell has been accused of “contradictions and discrepancies” in his evidence to the Alex Salmond inquiry and is facing calls to reappear before it.
The SNP chief executive and Nicola Sturgeon’s husband was quizzed on Tuesday by MSPs on the Holyrood committee examining the Scottish Government’s probe into harassment allegations against the former First Minister. He was asked about discussions between Salmond and his wife at their home and, under oath, said he did not know about the claims until they became public. He insisted Sturgeon did not disclose details of the meetings in their home.
Initially, he said he had not been at home for the meetings but during questioning revealed he had returned while one was in progress and got a “sense” it was serious. His wife had said in her written evidence that she suspected Salmond, her former mentor, was set to quit the SNP, so the meetings were about party matters rather than official government business – which should be recorded. Murrell said he was told the meeting was about government issues and Sturgeon did not warn him her predecessor was facing sexual harassment accusations.
Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s deputy leader, asked about a “council of war” WhatsApp chat reportedly set up by the SNP’s chief operating officer after the conceded judicial review in January 2019 that resulted in a £512,250 payout to Salmond.
Murrell repeatedly insisted he did not have WhatsApp and had no knowledge of the group or messages being shared, but an English tabloid has since reported an account linked to his number was “last seen” just weeks ago.
In a letter to the committee after the story’s publication, Murrell said he has WhatsApp on his phone but does not use it: “There are several messaging apps on my phone that I don’t use. This includes profiles on Facebook Messenger, LinkedIn, Instagram, Slack, Skype, and WhatsApp, none of which I use.”
Baillie said Murrell “must explain the contradictions and discrepancies in his evidence to the committee as a matter of urgency”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel