SCOTLAND’S prosecution service is currently assessing whether to follow up on dramatic claims made by David Davis in the Commons regarding the Alex Salmond case.
The former Brexit Secretary used parliamentary privilege on Tuesday night to reveal “whistleblower” evidence about the fall out of the Scottish Government’s unlawful investigation into Salmond and to claim Nicola Sturgeon misled Holyrood.
Davis said the First Minister’s chief of staff knew Salmond was being investigated by her officials for alleged sexual misconduct before the date she gave to MSPs.
He also alleged Sturgeon’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd had been “interfering” in the process and said he had been passed messages which pointed to “a criminal conspiracy” by senior SNP figures to remove Salmond from public life and even have him imprisoned.
Following the claims, the SNP MP Kenny MacAskill, who served as justice secretary in Salmond’s government, wrote on Twitter yesterday: “So are Crown Office going to instruct Police Scotland to interview David Davis MP regarding leaked documents? Perhaps the Crown Agent can advise.”
Last night a spokesman for the Crown Office told The National: “We are aware of the statement made in the House of Commons and are considering if any further investigation is required.”
READ MORE: Crown Office: No investigation into David Davis's claims in Commons
This morning the Crown Office said it was not investigating the substance of his claims, though it was considering if further investigation is required into how Davis came by the confidential material.
Davis told MPs on Tuesday the Crown Office was barring publication of evidence which was “critical in determining whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code”.
He said: “It is clearly in the public interest to see this evidence. I have it on good authority that there exists from February 6, 2018 an exchange of messages between civil servants Judith McKinnon and Barbara Allison suggesting that the First Minister’s chief of staff is interfering in the complaints process against Alex Salmond. The investigating officer complained, ‘Liz interference v. bad’.
“I assume that that means very bad. If true, this suggests that the chief of staff had knowledge of the Salmond case in February, not in April.
“The First Minister tied herself to that April date in both parliamentary and legal statements. She was, of course, aware earlier than that.
“The question is just how aware and how much earlier.”
Davis said he had been sent “dozens” of messages from the phone of SNP chief operating officer Sue Ruddick, which were obtained for Salmond’s criminal trial last year. Salmond wanted the jury to see them, but was blocked by judge Lady Dorrian.
He has been threatened with prosecution if he makes them public himself, as they were obtained solely for the purpose of his trial defence.
Speaking in an adjournment debate, Davis said he was making the information public because the Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Government’s mishandling of the complaints had been frustrated by Holyrood’s limited powers.
Davis said: “Now Alex Salmond has asserted that there has been, and I quote ‘a malicious and concerted attempt to remove me from public life in Scotland by a range of individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP’ who set out to damage his reputation, even to the extent of having him imprisoned.
“These are incredibly grave charges, the whistleblower clearly agrees with those charges.
“He or she starts their communication with the assertion that the evidence provided, and I quote, ‘point to collusion, perjury, up to criminal conspiracy’.”
Davis told MPs the messages presented a case “which demands serious investigation, by which I mean at the very least a thorough review of all the emails and other electronic records for the relevant personnel at all the relevant times”.
Asked about the claims during the coronavirus briefing yesterday, Sturgeon insisted she has confidence in her chief of staff and she “strongly” denies the allegations.
She said: “Other than to say that I strongly refute [sic] the suggestions and insinuations of David Davis in the House of Commons last night, I am not going to have this Covid briefing sidetracked by the latest instalment of Alex Salmond’s conspiracy theory. I have given eight hours of evidence to the parliamentary committee looking into this.
"They are now able to assess all of the evidence they’ve taken, including, I’m sure, the evidence they have in relation to the suggestions and claims made by David Davis last night. They have a job of work to do, now, I’m going to allow them to do that job of work and, in the meantime I’m going to get on with my job.”
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