Day eight of the Alex Salmond trial getting under way at the High Court; everyone still seems to be here rather than in self-isolation. Defence case to continue
Shelagh McCall taking the lead for the defence with their first witness of the day, Samantha Barber. She was chief exec of Scottish Business in the Community when Alex Salmond became first minister, and attended dinners at Bute House.
Shelagh McCall asking about the dinner with a celebrity after which Woman H says she was sexually assaulted by Alex Salmond. Samantha Barber says her recollection is that Woman H wasn’t able to go to that dinner. She says it’s her recollection that it was just the three of them.
Cross examination from Alex Prentice; he suggests to Samantha Barber that Woman H was at the dinner. She says “I absolutely genuinely have no recollection of seeing [Woman H] that night.”
Next defence witness is Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh says Woman H texted her in 2015 to discuss a personal political project, saying “it would be great to work with Alex again”. Court looking at screenshots of texts
(quite difficult to report much of this evidence due to jigsaw ID issues)
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh says she was at the event where Woman K had her photo taken with Alex Salmond; she says she was next in line and didn’t see anything untoward happen. Shelagh McCall asks if she noted any apparent discomfort on the part of Woman K; “no I did not”.
Next defence witness is Fergus Mutch, who worked for Alex Salmond. He says he was with Woman J in his company in the days after the alleged incident at Bute House; he says she was “in good form” and “professional at all times”, and says she was “relaxed” in Alex Salmond’s company
After mid morning break, defence calls Kirk Torrance. He was working for SNP and also says he saw Woman J in days after the alleged incident at Bute House; did she seem upset? “Quite the opposite”. He says Woman J was “enthusiastically” gossiping with other staff
Another witness, a civil servant says working for Alex Salmond was “a privilege & a penance”; it was “very exciting & fast paced, but it was tough & you have to be resilient”. FM “could be very demanding” and “quite fierce” if people weren’t on their game, but could also be “fun”
Next defence witness is Geoff Aberdein, who worked for Alex Salmond. He says the FM was “firm but fair”; the job was “all hours, hectic, very demanding” - but it was “one of the best experiences of my life”
It’s the lunch break at court, btw. The debate over what can and can’t be reported is particularly intense today so not been tweeting much!
Court back in session, defence questioning a civil servant who says she never felt uncomfortable around Alex Salmond; she says she was not aware of any system prohibiting women from working alone with him at night
Court also hears from Alexander Anderson, who worked for Alex Salmond; he says the former FM “has always been tactile” and approachable and would shake hands with and hug people in the street. But witness says his behaviour was “absolutely not inappropriate”
Court told that one witness hasn’t turned up and another, a police officer, has been called away on urgent business - so we’re out of witnesses for today. Gordon Jackson says he has a few to go through tomorrow, but “nothing major”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ScotGov has released its external legal advice from the Salmond judicial review. It's basically set out as a timeline of documents; starting from 27 Sept, when counsel were satisfied that most grounds were "weak", but there was "real risk" over the ground of procedural unfairness
However advice changed quickly on 31 October, when the extent of contact between the investigating officer and complainers became clear; Roddy Dunlop QC said he was "very concerned indeed" and said this "presents a very real problem" - adding that IO may have been "not eligible"
Paper trail then jumps forward a month to 6 December, where Roddy Dunlop and Christine O’Neill say that “the ‘least worst’ option would be to concede the petition”. However emails from the following week say the Lord Advocate argued there was “no question” of dropping the case
From independence strategy to trans rights, NEC factionalism to Alex Salmond, the SNP gives every impression of being a party threatening to tear itself apart on the eve of a crucial election.
People will point to the SNP still polling very strongly (and perhaps more to the point, opposition parties very poorly) but there’s an old saying about divided parties not being winners for good reason...and about there only being one poll that matters
In order to turn a majority in the polls into an *actual* majority - particularly in the Holyrood system, which actively discourages them - you need to turn out your base, to get those who say they’d vote for you to actually do it. Infighting *really* doesn’t help with that.
The (virtual) Court of Session will be hearing arguments about whether or not Holyrood can legislate for indyref2 today and tomorrow - case brought by activists like @MartinJKeatings rather than ScotGov, but obvs the ruling could have interesting implications...
As is standard with the Court of Session I don't imagine there will *be* a ruling this week, but the judge says her "intention is to provide an opinion within days rather than weeks"
It's going really well so far anyway, with a row developing between the judge and the QC for the petitioners over the timetable for the hearings which appears to have ended with everyone being muted. So yes, the zoom courtroom has some similarities to your family zoom quiz
Latest in the back and forth between Alex Salmond and the Holyrood inquiry committee - they're now asking if he can come in on February 2nd *at the very latest*. Have also offered 26 January - altho they've also invited Peter Murrell to give further evidence on one of those dates
One minor detail I'd pick out from that letter is the note that committee members "unanimously" agreed to invite Mr Salmond to give evidence on 2 Feb. Perhaps a hint that things have not been entirely unanimous during their deliberations so far...
If they can't come to an agreement, *in theory* the inquiry committee could actually compel Alex Salmond to attend, although I imagine he would be able to produce a "reasonable excuse" what with the whole pandemic thing going on
Figure a lot of people have a lot of questions right now so thought a quick thread signposting to where what info we have is might be helpful...
This is the current law on travel restrictions, in force now. It includes a legal ban on travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and in and out of council areas in levels three and four, without a “reasonable excuse” legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/344/s…
Again the cross-border travel laws are in force *now* - the plan was they would be relaxed for Christmas, the change is that they now will not. Travel *within* Scotland permitted on Christmas Day - but next day whole mainland goes into L4, which means no movement between councils
MSPs will vote on a motion of no confidence in John Swinney as education secretary today. We already know it'll fail, because the Greens won't back it - so why are the opposition pressing ahead with it? [thread alert] bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla…
While the outcome is obvs the immediately important thing for parents and pupils, politically the narrative is significant too, with an election looming - and ScotGov seem to have successfully seized control of it
Especially with focus now shifting to A-level results down south, with Scotland as a case study in a potential solution which pleases students rather than of the underlying problem, opposition parties can't afford to leave this as essentially a "John Swinney saves the day" story