NICOLA Sturgeon yesterday hit out at the Tories, accusing them of pre-judging the inquiries into the Scottish Government’s unlawful handling of allegations against former First Minister Alex Salmond.
During a rowdy Holyrood session, Tory Holyrood leader Ruth Davidson said it was already clear the SNP leader had broken the Ministerial Code.
Sturgeon, she added, should now “go”.
But the First Minister told her to wait and allow due process to take place, instead of playing “desperate political games”.
The clash followed Sturgeon’s mammoth eight-hour evidence session on Wednesday in front of the Holyrood harassment inquiry.
The cross-party committee is investigating how the Government botched a probe into accusations made against Salmond.
READ MORE: Seven-point lead for Scottish independence in latest poll
He had the civil service report set aside at a judicial review after it emerged that the investigating officer had previous substantial contact with the two women who made the allegations.
In the Court of Session, Lord Pentland said it had been tainted by bias. He awarded Salmond more than £500,000 in costs.
A jury later cleared him of 13 charges of sexual assault.
During First Minister’s Questions, Davidson said the Government was in the habit of holding back crucial evidence.
She said: “We know that for weeks this Government were definitively and beyond any doubt, ignoring legal advice, but the case only became unstateable so late because this Government withheld crucial documents for so long.
“They withheld documents from their own lawyers. They withheld them from the court, and they continue to withhold them from this Parliament.
“What we’ve already seen shows that there’s no argument that this Government ignored legal advice stated, the argument is if it did so for three weeks, or for more than three months.
“There’s no argument if the First Minister was at fault for losing more than half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money. The argument is only about how much she’s to blame for.
“And there’s no argument if Nicola Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code. The argument is only about how badly she broke it. We believe that the sanction is to go. Why doesn’t she?”
Sturgeon replied: “Ruth Davidson has just shown her true colours and the Conservative’s true colours all over again, because of course she stands up here and says scrutiny and democracy and due process is really important, but just as on Tuesday night when the Conservatives prejudged my evidence to the parliamentary inquiry, she just prejudged the outcome of the independent inquiry into the Ministerial Code.
READ MORE: Tory hopes of no-confidence vote in Nicola Sturgeon dealt blow by Greens
“This is just about desperate political games for the Conservatives. I suspect the private polling is even more desperate than the public polling right now because remember, the people of Scotland have been voting no confidence in the Conservatives since the 1950s.”
The Tories have threatened to hold a vote of no confidence in both Sturgeon and Deputy First Minister John Swinney.
They’ve said the motions are kept on the table until the full legal advice from the Government’s court battle with Salmond is released to MSPs.
Parliament twice voted for the publication of the papers in November, but it’s only this week that the Government has released some of the documents.
However, Tory hopes for a successful vote of no confidence were dashed yesterday when the Greens said it would not have their backing.
Patrick Harvie, the party’s co-leader, told BBC Good Morning Scotland that some had been looking to turn the committee’s inquiry into “a piece of opportunistic political theatre”.
He said it would be “untenable” to back the vote given that the committee had not yet reached a conclusion.
Harvie also suggested that his party would not support a vote of no confidence in Swinney.
He told the BBC he was “utterly dismayed at the way that this issue has been turned into a piece of opportunistic political theatre”.
He added: “I want to see this committee given the information it needs and the time that it needs. I want to see the report that it comes out with, I also want to see the outcome of the independent investigation into the Ministerial Code.
“Let’s remember that this committee, while important, is composed of politicians. It’s pretty transparent that there are people involved in that process who are being nakedly party political and opportunistic about it.
“Those who are pre-empting the committee and deciding what the outcome should be before the evidence has been heard. That shows contempt for the committee inquiry.”
Meanwhile, the Government last night published more of their legal advice. The new papers include an exchange between the Lord Advocate and the First Minister on sisting, or pausing, the civil case to allow the criminal case to run its course.
READ MORE: How the Sturgeon-Salmond saga has affected the EU's perception of Scotland
Last week, in his evidence session to the committee, Salmond said the Government was hoping the criminal trial would “ride to the rescue” and prevent its unlawful investigation of him suffering a “cataclysmic” civil court defeat.
He said: “If the criminal case had been advanced, then the civil case wouldn’t have gone ahead pending the outcome of the criminal case.
“Many people seemed to invest a great deal of hope that the criminal case would ride to the rescue, like the cavalry over the hill, and the civil case would never be heard.”
Sturgeon rejected that during her evidence, telling the committee “to the best of my knowledge, there was no attempt to sist the judicial review”.
In a note written to the First Minister on September 17, 2018, the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC wrote: “The question arises as to how to minimise the potential impact of the reporting of these [judicial review] proceedings on any future criminal process.
“There are two potentially available mechanisms to that end:
“(i) a sist (ie the petition is put on hold for a period of time to allow the criminal investigation to proceed);
“and (ii) reporting restrictions.
“I am satisfied that, if reporting restrictions are competent, these would adequately protect the public interest in any future criminal proceedings.”
Swinney said: “This puts beyond any doubt that there was any attempt to delay the judicial review so that it would be overtaken.”
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