Thread by @ScotiaIndyref2

Breaking - Nicola Sturgeon's government has spent more than £50,000 "preparing" civil servants to give evidence about the Alex Salmond affair at hearings where they suffered "collective memory loss", it has emerged.
Information obtained by The Daily Telegraph shows that

by early November, £54,378 of taxpayers’ money had been spent on external assistance to help senior civil servants get ready for appearances at a Holyrood inquiry.
The Scottish Government refused to say which organisation or individual had been hired, but members of the

committee branded the cost “astonishing” and said it raised questions over whether witnesses had been “coached”.
Staff logs released in response to a Freedom of Information request also show that witnesses spent several hours preparing for sessions, only to then face criticism

for “forgetting” crucial details, giving misleading evidence, or dodging questions.
Despite the extensive and costly preparation, and appearing under oath, four of the six civil servants were forced to correct or clarify their evidence after their appearances.
The committee

is investigating how more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money came to be lost to Mr Salmond, after he successfully challenged the fairness and legality of a Scottish Government probe into sexual harassment complaints against him in court.
A source close to Mr Salmond said:

“The bill for the cover up continues to mount. It can hardly be said that they are getting value for money given the woeful performance of mandarins in front of the committee.
"It is clearly much more difficult, and much more costly, to dissemble than it is to tell the truth.”

The information relates to six senior civil servants who were involved in the botched inquiry, including Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, Ms Sturgeon’s chief mandarin.
It shows that Barbara Allison, director of communications and ministerial

support, spent two weekends and set aside two working days to prepare for two evidence sessions.
She faced criticism after she twice claimed under oath in her first session that she had not received a text message from Ms Evans, in which she wrote “battle maybe lost but not

the war”, on the day Mr Salmond won his judicial review.
Mr Salmond’s allies believe the message is evidence of a conspiracy against him.
But Ms Allison wrote to the committee shortly before her second appearance, admitting she had received the message after all.
James Hynd,

head of cabinet, prepared for 21-and-a-half hours for one session. Ms Evans spent three-and-a-half hours preparing for her first two sessions, as well as conducting preparation work over two weekends. Judith Mackinnon, whose role investigating the allegations after having

prior contact with complainers ultimately cost the government its legal case on the grounds of “apparent bias”, spent 23-and-a-half hours preparing for her appearance in October. These included a 90 minute “trial run” the day before her appearance.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, the LibDem MSP and a committee member, said: “To learn that the government has spent more than £50,000 of taxpayers' money prepping civil servants to come before our committee, when their performance has been patchy at best considering the collective memory

loss that seems to have afflicted the civil service, is astonishing.
“It also raises the very real concern that these civil servants are being coached - that their answers are not natural, and once again, we might not be getting the full truth in our work.”
Murdo Fraser, the

Tory MSP who also sits on the committee, also questioned the Scottish Government’s tactics.
He said: “The SNP Government might want to consider asking for a refund of their £54,000 considering how many top civil servants have had to correct their evidence to the inquiry.

“They have wasted thousands of pounds on coaching civil servants how to answer questions. Surely, all that was needed was to speak the truth?”
Mr Salmond has been invited to give evidence to the inquiry in person on Tuesday.
He said on Wednesday he would not be able to

accept the invitation to attend next week, in part due to concerns over Covid restrictions. He suggested February 16 as an alternative date. Mr Salmond's team has also been in a legal wrangle with the Crown Office over the disclosure of documents obtained by him during his

trial at the High Court last year where he was cleared of a series of charges of sexual misconduct.
The Crown Office said he would be committing a criminal offence by divulging the information to the committee, a situation Mr Salmond believes will prevent him from abiding

by his oath to tell “the whole truth”, and the letter from his lawyer said an extension would allow more time to resolve the issues.
Meanwhile, Ms Sturgeon confirmed on Wednesday that James Hamilton, the former head of the Irish prosecution service in Ireland, could examine

“all of the allegations” against her in relation to his probe into potential breaches of the ministerial code. She denies all breaches, although Mr Salmond has accused her of repeatedly misleading parliament over her handling of the allegations against him.
If it is

established that she knowingly lied to parliament, Ms Sturgeon would be expected to resign.
Mr Salmond won a judicial review against the Scottish Government in January 2019. He was later cleared of all 13 sexual assault charges at his trial in March, following a separate

criminal probe.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “It is completely untrue that Scottish Government witnesses have been coached. In line with the Scottish Government’s commitment to cooperate fully with the committee, civil servants have prepared for and provided over

21 hours of oral evidence on complex and historical events, in line with the data protection, confidentiality and legal restrictions that apply.
“Scottish Government witnesses are providing evidence to the best of their knowledge on behalf of ministers. However they are also

giving their own recollections, under oath, of complex events that took place some time ago.
“Where further information or clarification has been required, we have followed up quickly in writing, including to correct inaccurate assertions by some committee members.”