Nicola Sturgeon facing demands she RESIGN as First Minister for ‘misleading the Scottish people’ over Alex Salmond sex abuse case as bombshell legal advice reveals her Government knew it would lose but went ahead anyway at a cost of more than £600,000
Nicola Sturgeon is tonight facing demands to resign as Scotland’s First Minister over her handling of the Alex Salmond sexual harassment case after bombshell legal advice appeared to blow holes in her defence.
The Scottish Conservatives said they would table a confidence vote in the SNP leader after the documents were published on the eve of her appearance at a hearing into the row over allegations levelled at her predecessor.
They showed that Ms Sturgeon and the SNP administration knew that its efforts to resist a judicial review brought by Mr Salmond in 2018 over the handling of complaints against him – over which he was exonerated – were likely to fail.
But they went ahead with the court case anyway and it ended up with Mr Salmond being awarded more than £600,000 in costs and damages.
There have been allegations that failing to heed the opinions of lawyers would have amounted to a breach of the ministerial code, a potential resignation matter. Evidence from two former SNP staff also raise doubts about Ms Sturgeon’s version of events.
Ms Sturgeon has denied breaking the ministerial code and said she will give her full rebuttal tomorrow.
Tonight Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross said: ‘There is no longer any doubt that Nicola Sturgeon lied to the Scottish Parliament and broke the ministerial code on numerous counts.
‘No First Minister can be allowed to mislead the Scottish people and continue in office, especially when they have tried to cover up the truth and abused the power of their office in the process.
The weight of the evidence is overwhelming. Nicola Sturgeon must resign.
‘No evidence she can provide tomorrow will counter the claims of numerous witnesses or refute that her government ignored the legal advice for months and lost more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money in the process.
‘We will be submitting a Vote of No Confidence in the First Minister.’
The Scottish Tories have accused Ms Sturgeon of breaching the ministerial code up to 38 times during the row.
A Conservative dossier highlights dozens of instances when they say Ms Sturgeon appears to have broken the ministerial code.
They include accusations of repeatedly misleading the Scottish Parliament about when she first knew of the allegations against Mr Salmond, delaying settling the judicial review despite legal advice, and meeting Mr Salmond on government business without any officials present or records being taken.
The burgeoning row is threatening to derail Ms Sturgeon’s push to split up the UK, with support for independence diving over recent weeks.
The Scottish Government launched an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by Mr Salmond, the former first minister, but it was found to be unlawful, unfair and ‘tainted by apparent bias’ because of prior contact between the investigating officer and two of the women who complained.
Redacted legal advice published by the Scottish Government tonight showed that lawyers advised them in September 2018 that there ‘is a real risk that the court may be persuaded by the petitioner’s case in respect of the ground of challenge based on ”procedural unfairness”.’
On December 6 2018 legal advisers told ministers that in their view the ‘least worst option’ would be to concede the petition.
They wrote: ‘We understand how unpalatable that advice will be, and we do not tender it lightly.
‘But we cannot let the respondents sail forth into January’s hearing without the now very real risks of doing so being crystal clear to all concerned.’
It took the Scottish Government until January 8 for the Government to concede the case – a week before the full judicial review was due to start.
Labour’s shadow Scotland secretary Ian Murray said: ‘It’s little wonder the SNP Scottish government tried to block the publication of legal advice.
They were told they were likely to lose case against the former first minister but made the political decision to continue proceed anyway – losing hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money in the process.’
MSPs had earlier voiced fury today after it emerged Nicola Sturgeon could ‘dodge’ questions tomorrow – as the legal advice was not due to be published until after he appearance.
Her deputy John Swinney has been accused of treating Holyrood with ‘contempt’ by dragging his heels about handing over key documents.
He previously admitted that lawyers had ‘reservations’ about continuing to resist the judicial review.
However, he insisted that legal advice will show there were ‘good public policy arguments and reasonable grounds’ for continuing the wrangling.
He agreed to release it after he himself faced a no confidence motion.
Scots Tory MSP Murdo Fraser said: ‘John Swinney’s response to the Scottish Parliament’s requests for the legal advice have been a disgrace from start to finish.
He is showing contempt for the inquiry committee and the entire Parliament.
The Deputy First Minister grandstanded about finally providing hand-picked parts of the legal advice, overlooking that he only acted when his job was on the line.
Whatever he provides may not even be published before the First Minister’s evidence session, allowing her to avoid questions on it and dodge scrutiny yet again.
‘The Scottish Conservatives will hold a No Confidence vote in the Deputy First Minister this Thursday if he has not respected the will of Parliament by then.’
Mr Swinney’s defence came in a letter to the Holyrood committee of inquiry ahead of its long-awaited session with Ms Sturgeon tomorrow.
In six hours of brutal testimony last week, Mr Salmond laid out a case that senior SNP figures conspired to try to force him out of public life over harassment claims. He was subsequently cleared of wrongdoing in a trial.
He also vented fury that the Crown Office, led by Lord Advocate James Wolffe, had forced the redaction of sections of his written evidence to the committee.
Mr Wolffe today dismissed claims of interference in the Alex Salmond probe as ‘wholly without foundation’.
Giving evidence to the inquiry he said he had recused himself from key decisions over the allegations against the former First Minister.
And he flatly rejected that idea that the Crown Office had insisted on the redaction of parts of Mr Salmond’s written evidence in a bid to hamper the process.
