The key moments from Salmond’s Holyrood evidence

This afternoon, in the Robert Burns room of the Scottish Parliament, former First Minister Alex Salmond, for so many years the supreme political force north of the border, came out swinging against his successor Nicola Sturgeon and the wider Scottish establishment. In a remarkable evidence session, Salmond attacked the leadership of the Scottish government, suggested that the inquiry into its behaviour had its ‘hands tied behind its back with a blindfold on’, and argued that Nicola Sturgeon had broken the ministerial code.

Salmond’s evidence to the Holyrood inquiry – set up to investigate the Scottish government’s handling of complaints made against him – had already been mired in controversy. The Scottish Parliament had first refused to publish his written evidence until The Spectator went to court to ensure it saw the light of day. The committee then briefly published his evidence, before withdrawing it and redacting key passages about Sturgeon, after being contacted by the Crown Office. What was at stake today therefore, was not just about how much Nicola Sturgeon knew and what she did about allegations made against Salmond, but the credibility of Scotland’s institutions and its ability to investigate alleged wrongdoing. 

Here are the key moments from the session: 

Scotland hasn’t failed, its leadership has failed

In his opening statement Salmond pointed out that some had recently compared Scotland to a failed state. Salmond said he did not agree this was the case. But he argued that the leadership of key institutions was not up to scratch. In his words: ‘Scotland hasn’t failed, its leadership has failed’

So began a remarkable string of attacks on Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership. Salmond suggested that it was absurd that no one had been held accountable for the Scottish government’s botched investigation into complaints against him, which was found to have broken the law by the Court of Session. And he criticised Sturgeon’s decision to bring up allegations made against him – at which he was acquitted of in a criminal court – at a Covid press conference on Wednesday:

On independence

In one memorable moment, Salmond appeared to question the viability of Scottish independence itself. In his opening statement, Salmond suggested that the move to independence had to be accompanied by strong institutions and effective leadership:

‘The move to independence, which I have sought all my political life… must be accompanied by institutions whose leadership is strong and robust and capable of protecting each and every citizen from arbitrary authority.’

Yet his overarching argument was that Scotland’s institutions were currently fatally flawed due to this lack of leadership and accountability. In other words, as stands, Scotland is not ready to take advantage of independence. For the key figure in the independence movement to make this claim is nothing short of extraordinary.

The confidentiality of complainants

At the inquiry, Salmond was asked by MSP Jackie Baillie if the identity of a complainant was shared at meetings between Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, as a precursor to meetings with Nicola Sturgeon. Salmond said that a name was shared and alleged three other people knew that to be true.

This is incredibly dangerous territory for Nicola Sturgeon. Throughout the inquiry she has argued that key parts of Salmond’s evidence must be withheld to protect the anonymity of complainants in his criminal trial. Salmond’s evidence suggests that a complainant’s name was shared at this early stage of the complaints procedure and even made its way to the person accused. Sturgeon denied at FMQs this week that a complainant's name had been shared with Salmond.

There should be a police investigation into the Daily Record leaks

Salmond also discussed a story which appeared in the Daily Record in August 2018, which first revealed that he had been reported to the police. Salmond argued that it was clear this leak was politically motivated and called for a police investigation into the story. He also suggested that he knew who had leaked the story to the Record, but did not have enough evidence to prove this allegation.

Evidence has been withheld

Salmond has been damning about the Holyrood inquiry and its participants. At various stages in his evidence the former First Minister alleged that the inquiry had been systematically prevented from getting evidence, that it had been ‘neutered’ by the Scottish establishment and suggested that he was the only witness actually trying to give evidence.

What we haven’t learned

These past few weeks it has been argued that the Holyrood Inquiry is not capable of properly investigating the behaviour of Nicola Sturgeon, with institutions too dominated by the SNP to properly fight for the truth. The first half of the Holyrood inquiry did little to dispel these notions. Most of the questions asked by MSPs provided little heat nor light. Instead the Inquiry’s members appeared to be unwilling to examine the key allegations made by Salmond about Nicola Sturgeon’s own actions and whether she broke the ministerial code and misled the Scottish Parliament. Two questioners, Jackie Baillie and Murdo Fraser, were willing to explore these issues, and so managed to extract important information from Salmond. But the rest of the session was dominated by pretty inane questions that seemed more interested in running down the clock than getting answers.

Did Sturgeon break the ministerial code?

The second period of the session focused on Salmond’s legal challenge against the Scottish government. Salmond first suggested that Nicola Sturgeon was to blame for continuing the legal fight. He pointed out that the costs of the proceedings meant ‘presumably’ the First Minister would have signed off on continuing the legal challenge:

Salmond was then asked if he thought it would breach the ministerial code if a government minister continued with a legal challenge, knowing that it would lose. Salmond said he believed it would. His inference here was clear: if Sturgeon was advised by her lawyers that Salmond’s legal challenge would be successful, she has broken the ministerial code:

Salmond though saved his strongest remarks for later. In comments that are likely to reverberate through Scottish politics, he told the committee that ‘I have no doubt that Nicola has broken the ministerial code, but it's not for me to decide what the consequences should be,’ and called on the permanent secretary to resign and Lord Advocate to consider his position.

Pressuring of police

When it came to his criminal trial, Salmond made a series of remarkable comments. He claimed that he had seen ‘many’ messages during his criminal trial that showed Scottish government figures and SNP officials ‘not just pressuring the police’ but ‘pressuring witnesses, collusion with witnesses’ and the ‘construction of evidence’ for the police:

Murrell’s evidence called into question

In his evidence to the inquiry, Peter Murrell – the SNP’s chief executive and husband of Nicola Sturgeon – suggested that he hadn’t known much about a key meeting with Salmond which took place at the Sturgeon family home, which concerned allegations made against the former First Minister. At first Murrell said he hadn’t attended the meeting. He then updated his evidence and said he had arrived home as it ended. He claimed he wasn’t surprised to see Salmond in his house, as it wasn’t ‘unusual’ for him to pop in.

Salmond today called Murrell’s evidence into question again. The former First Minister said that he had only been to the Sturgeon family home a handful of times and was almost certainly not always ‘popping in’. Murrell may be asked to return to the inquiry to explain this discrepancy.

After six hours of testimony, Salmond's evidence has concluded. The former First Minister finished the session by calling on the committee to serve an order on his solicitors, under the Scotland Act, to request key documents and evidence. Moments earlier Salmond had been asked if he had forgiven Nicola Sturgeon. Unsurprisingly, he indicated he had not. Clearly the most high-profile vendetta in Scottish politics is set to continue.