A HOLYROOD committee has decided Nicola Sturgeon "misled parliament" over her role in the Alex Salmond investigation.
The Scottish Parliament's harassment committee has reached the conclusion by a majority vote ahead of the publication of its final report on the issue, according to Sky News.
The group's members have concluded that the First Minister misled the committee itself and, as a result, misled parliament – which is a "potential" breach the ministerial code.
The ministerial code dictates that any minister found to knowingly be in breach should resign. However, Sky News reported that the word "knowingly" was not included in the text agreed by the committee.
By five votes to four, the group said Sturgeon's evidence was "an inaccurate account of what happened and she has misled the committee on this matter".
The decision is likely to increase pressure on Sturgeon to stand down before May’s election, although it is unclear whether the act was deemed a resignation-worthy offence.
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: What did we learn from Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance in front of committee?
A Scottish Parliament spokeswoman said the committee is still considering its report.
It is expected to be published in the coming days.
The National understands that a senior Scottish Tory source has steered away from suggestion that Salmond committee’s verdict on Sturgeon has been finalised over concern that the leak could flip “finely balanced” majority of one.
The Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints was set up after a successful judicial review by Salmond resulted in the Scottish Government’s investigation being ruled unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias”, with a £512,250 payout being awarded to him for legal fees in 2019.
This latest development comes after Conservative MP David Davis used parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons to read out messages that he suggested showed a “concerted effort by senior members of the SNP to encourage complaints” against the former first minister.
READ MORE: Crown Office: David Davis’s Alex Salmond claims being considered
According to Davis, the messages disclosed by a whistleblower “demands serious investigation”, with one alleging the investigating officer in the case complained of interference by Sturgeon’s chief of staff.
The message is alleged to have been sent by Judith Mackinnon to the Government’s communications director on February 6 2018, almost two months before the First Minister claims to have first known about the investigation of her predecessor.
A spokesman for the First Minister said: “The First Minister told the truth to the committee in eight hours of evidence, and stands by that evidence.
“It is clear from past public statements that opposition members of this committee had prejudged the First Minister at the outset of the inquiry and before hearing a word of her evidence, so this partisan and selective briefing – before the committee has actually published its final report – is hardly surprising.
“The question of the First Minister’s adherence to the ministerial code is being considered independently by James Hamilton, and we expect to receive and publish his report soon.”
At First Minister's Questions today Ruth Davidson took up some of Davis's claims.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon in blistering attack on 'Alex Salmond and his cronies' after Tory MP's claims
During robust exchanges Sturgeon pointed to a statement made last night by a Salmond complainer who said Davis's claims that Lloyd had interfered in the investigation were "fundamentally untrue".
She then objected to Davidson's stance that she was speaking up for the women involved in the case.
"Ruth Davidson has stood up again and mouthed one of the conspiracy theories in terms of my chief of staff," said Sturgeon.
"We heard yesterday from a complainer who had asked for the help of my chief of staff say categorically that what was being suggested by David Davis was and I'm quoting here 'fundamentally untrue and deliberated misrepresented'."
Under legal challenge from Salmond in 2019, the Scottish Government conceded its investigation into complaints against him from two female civil servants was unlawful because it was “procedurally unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias”.
The former first minister was later charged with sexual offences and was last year acquitted in the High Court in Edinburgh of all 13 of the charges against him.
During an appearance lasting nearly six hours before the committee last month, Salmond suggested messages he had been shown ahead of demonstrated that there had been “collusion of witnesses” and “construction of evidence” involving Sturgeon’s allies.
In his speech in parliament, Davis echoed Salmond’s claims, citing messages among SNP officials including Peter Murrell, who is the party chief executive and Sturgeon’s husband, that he said showed improper meddling in a police inquiry.
The spokesman for Sturgeon said every message involving SNP staff had already been seen by the parliamentary committee investigating the handling of the complaints against Salmond.
“As with Mr Salmond’s previous claims and cherry-picking of messages, the reality is very different to the picture being presented,” the spokesperson said.
Some analysts have questioned whether the messages are the smoking gun Salmond suggests, citing judge Lady Dorrian’s decision ahead of his trial that they should not be put before the jury.
“If there was compelling evidence of a conspiracy, why would a judge refuse to allow that to go in front of a criminal trial?” Andrew Tickell, lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, wrote last month in the Sunday National.
Asked yesterday if she had full confidence in her chief of staff, Sturgeon answered with one word: “Yes”.
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