Margaret Watt's questions show her to be ignorant, vindictive and entirely disinterested in understanding the remit of the enquiry.
#SalmondStitchUp
#SalmondStitchUp
Alex Cole Hamilton has made 3 attempts to rerun the trial ...
.. another who is disinterested in following the remit of the committee, so much so that Linda Fabiani has chastised him 4 times already!
Make that 5!
.. another who is disinterested in following the remit of the committee, so much so that Linda Fabiani has chastised him 4 times already!
Make that 5!
Alex Salmond steps in to answer Alex Cole Hamilton to say no formal complaints were forwarded to his deputy FM during his tenure.
Still Alex Cole Hamilton tries to rerun the trial, and Alex Salmong reminds him that there's huge legal implications to his line of questioning.
Still Alex Cole Hamilton tries to rerun the trial, and Alex Salmong reminds him that there's huge legal implications to his line of questioning.
Alex Salmond finishes by reminding him that he was the most investigated politician in 30 years with no issues.
Andy Wightman reviews 2017 #MeToo atmosphere and asks what Alex would've done.
Alex replies a careful review of existing harassment policy would've been done in conjunction with policy writers and unions and amended if required - wouldn't have had 2 different policies.
Alex replies a careful review of existing harassment policy would've been done in conjunction with policy writers and unions and amended if required - wouldn't have had 2 different policies.
AW asks about retrospective nature of new unlawful policy.
AS says if policy is robust as he believes 2010 policy was, there's no need for retrospectively in new policy, and reminds AW this is the view of the court too.
AS says if policy is robust as he believes 2010 policy was, there's no need for retrospectively in new policy, and reminds AW this is the view of the court too.
AW tries to submit letter to all other previous FMs, *except* Alex Salmond. Linda Fabiani intervenes to have clerks review this letter to consider it for submission.
Alex Salmond states that he was first aware of this only a few days ago!!
Alex Salmond states that he was first aware of this only a few days ago!!
AW asksif specific policy re sexual harassment is justified.
AS replies prior to existing policy he introduced you could justify it, but not after he brought in policy.
No need for retrospective policy if his policy was adhered to.
AS replies prior to existing policy he introduced you could justify it, but not after he brought in policy.
No need for retrospective policy if his policy was adhered to.
Alex Salmond reminds committee that no mention of this unlawful new policy was discussed during all parliamentary debates on #MeToo issues and posits that you would expect the FM or deputy would raise a policy under current discussion... AW has no further questions.
Alasdair Allan wastes 2 questions attempting to infer something ?
.
. Alex eventually gets to saying no one in my administration ended up in court of session due to unlawful application of policy.
.
. Alex eventually gets to saying no one in my administration ended up in court of session due to unlawful application of policy.
3rd question from AA leads on timelines of new policy development.
Alex *careful not to name complainer* who helped develop policy!
(Jigsaw by default as this person is 1st to be referred only by title and not name ... )
Chief of Staff.
Alex *careful not to name complainer* who helped develop policy!
(Jigsaw by default as this person is 1st to be referred only by title and not name ... )
Chief of Staff.
AS asks why 2 civil servants who claim they didn't discuss policy development on specific dates, produced a seamless policy that appeared to be a sum of both their efforts the next day?
Reminds AA that court of session thought this "unlawful, unfair and tainted with bias"
Reminds AA that court of session thought this "unlawful, unfair and tainted with bias"
AA fails to understand issues *already discussed re retrospective policymaking and leads with this again.
AS reminds AA that his legal advice *before* knowing about how policy came about, was that retrospective policy was likely to be found proceedurally unfair.
AS reminds AA that his legal advice *before* knowing about how policy came about, was that retrospective policy was likely to be found proceedurally unfair.
AA continues on this dead end line of questions. AS repeats issue and states not speculation to see what happens when bad policy is applied retrospectively, citing court of session ruling - scot gov threw in towel! Says we wont see legal advice Scotgov had because they refuse
Jackie Baillie straight in with dates and witnesses to Geoff Aberdain testimony in court.
AS confirms this to be true!
JB straight onto timeline of leak to Daily Record.
AS details interdict on Scot.gov then call from Daily Record at 8pm with substantiated story.
AS confirms this to be true!
JB straight onto timeline of leak to Daily Record.
AS details interdict on Scot.gov then call from Daily Record at 8pm with substantiated story.
Daily Record published next day.
AS states Permanent secretary upset at leak and agreed it came from Scotgov.
Police confirmed 23 suspects in criminal leak.
AS states Permanent secretary upset at leak and agreed it came from Scotgov.
Police confirmed 23 suspects in criminal leak.
JB says 2nd leak contained info only known to 2 complainers, asks how this could be.
AS says could only be Daily Record had access to gov report. Crown Agent had access, police didn't, First minister also had access.
Says IPCO confirmed only FM and Crown agent offices had this!
AS says could only be Daily Record had access to gov report. Crown Agent had access, police didn't, First minister also had access.
Says IPCO confirmed only FM and Crown agent offices had this!
AS asks JB why crown office haven't pursued this leak, but are pursuing minor leak to Kenny McAskill.
JB asks if AS knows who leaked and if police should investigate.
JB asks if AS knows who leaked and if police should investigate.
AS confirms he strongly suspects who's leaked and should police pursue.
AS says he has good grounds to suspect but says police should investigate.
AS says he has good grounds to suspect but says police should investigate.
Next questioner
Should former FMs be included in policy.
AS states if more time given to developing good policy, the less time and money would be spent defending disastrous policy!
Should former FMs be included in policy.
AS states if more time given to developing good policy, the less time and money would be spent defending disastrous policy!
Milne continues on this dead end question
AS says perhaps committee should ask "Why was this unlawful policy rushed through?"
Reminds new policy no longer included civil servants.
Say it was "an abject disaster".
AS says perhaps committee should ask "Why was this unlawful policy rushed through?"
Reminds new policy no longer included civil servants.
Say it was "an abject disaster".
McMillan questions relevanceof #metoo movement.
Alex replies no one concerned with#metto would consider this a good outcome.
Alex replies no one concerned with#metto would consider this a good outcome.
McMillan asks about timelines of policy development.
AS states why independent policy relies on FM role and questions why FM solely intervened on policy with respect to previous FMs with no consultation, but does consult on all other aspects of policy development...
AS states why independent policy relies on FM role and questions why FM solely intervened on policy with respect to previous FMs with no consultation, but does consult on all other aspects of policy development...
AS refers to WhatsApp messages, says FM should intervene if policy is unlawful. Breech of ministerial code not to do so.
AS says he had no idea, neither did all civil servants outwith FMs office know this policy was being implemented. Extraordinary behaviour for governments.
AS says he had no idea, neither did all civil servants outwith FMs office know this policy was being implemented. Extraordinary behaviour for governments.
Murdo McLeod asks FM if as privy counsel, minister and FM if it is normal practice for Lord Advocate to interfere with commission work.
AS says never, good reasons for keeping crown and parliament apart. Reminds committee he can't talk about public evidence in committee,
AS says never, good reasons for keeping crown and parliament apart. Reminds committee he can't talk about public evidence in committee,
Says this is extraordinary, intolerable and should not be allowed to happen. Says the opposite should be the case - committees should be allowed to discuss matters in private that aren't allowed in public fir good governance.
Linda Fabiani asks why parliament shouldn't have policy that exists elsewhere.
AS says this isn't his view, reminds her that this policy wasn't botched.
States court viewed it as unlawful, unfair and tainted with bias.
Policy should be carefully considered and thought out.
AS says this isn't his view, reminds her that this policy wasn't botched.
States court viewed it as unlawful, unfair and tainted with bias.
Policy should be carefully considered and thought out.
Says you wouldn't invent a policy to deal with a specific complaint.
Fabiani goes back to 2010 policy, asks for clarity on process.
AS replies deputy FM deals with complaints up to formal level.
FM only to get involved in final stage.
Fabiani goes back to 2010 policy, asks for clarity on process.
AS replies deputy FM deals with complaints up to formal level.
FM only to get involved in final stage.
Suspended session for 20 minutes
( toilet break!)
( toilet break!)
Committee resumes.
LF asks for AS on his view of how complaint process was run.
AS states he was well into judicial review before he was aware of how poorly it was handled.
AS states he was well into judicial review before he was aware of how poorly it was handled.
AS states policy remained basically unchanged regarding no prior involvement of investigating officer through all drafts.
AS adds investigating officer met complainants prior to and during policy development.
This wasn't disclosed during judicial review or criminal process *despite* crown search warrant demonstrating ongoing pattern of disclosure up to and including this committee!
This wasn't disclosed during judicial review or criminal process *despite* crown search warrant demonstrating ongoing pattern of disclosure up to and including this committee!
MM leads on costs to AS and court awards against Scotgov which court described as necessary due to illegal and deliberate incompetence of court action.
MM reminds committee that parliament has voted twice for Scotgov to disclose legal advice, yet to be forthcoming...
AS says he was told by his lawyers he had a very high chance of legal success. Says anyone would do like wise with this advice.
AS says he was told by his lawyers he had a very high chance of legal success. Says anyone would do like wise with this advice.
MM asks if Alex shared this legal advice with Nicol.
AS states he did and advised her not to proceed. He got letter from Permanent secretary office saying they were confident their action were lawful and would proceed.
AS then offered arbitration to settle matters, also rejected.
AS states he did and advised her not to proceed. He got letter from Permanent secretary office saying they were confident their action were lawful and would proceed.
AS then offered arbitration to settle matters, also rejected.
AS says high costs was because they had to have commission just to get documents.
Says government were prepared to go to court to deny existence of documents.
Governments own counsel apologised to court for government intransigence - extraordinary unheard of behaviour for gov!
Says government were prepared to go to court to deny existence of documents.
Governments own counsel apologised to court for government intransigence - extraordinary unheard of behaviour for gov!
AS says policy was published *after* complaints were submitted by this policy ..how can this be he asks?
Complaints weren't in court submissions originally because policy wasn't written - all this in court of sessions records and is why award to AS was extraordinarily high.
Complaints weren't in court submissions originally because policy wasn't written - all this in court of sessions records and is why award to AS was extraordinarily high.
Governments counsel collapsed case because their case was "unstatable" due to gov refusal to disclose key documents.
AS states dec13th court realises documents missing, Alex presents them to committee, each document incriminates Scotgov position.
Says they show govs own pleadings to court of session were misleading.!
Says they show govs own pleadings to court of session were misleading.!
AS says Scotgovs own counsel threatened to resign from case due to Scotgov behaviour.
An unprecedented and extraordinary legal event.
An unprecedented and extraordinary legal event.
MM asks who As would blame for this.
AS responds this isn't academic matter, reminds committee this is about complainers, and his lives.
Decries Scotgov refusal to heed legal advice, offer of arbitration and running up of huge costs, says only FM and other could push this far.
AS responds this isn't academic matter, reminds committee this is about complainers, and his lives.
Decries Scotgov refusal to heed legal advice, offer of arbitration and running up of huge costs, says only FM and other could push this far.
Ms Mithchell supplement as, asks who signed legal letters, asks if there is any sanction or deterrent to Scotgov actions.
AS says legal team will provide details of letters etc.
As says broader picture, this is a very big series of mistakes from Scotgov, you'd hope someone will
AS says legal team will provide details of letters etc.
As says broader picture, this is a very big series of mistakes from Scotgov, you'd hope someone will
Accept responsibility, says he cited Leslie Evan's after court case because she claimed responsibility for the policymaking.
AS someone must accept responsibility for unlawful unfair policy tainted with bias.
AS someone must accept responsibility for unlawful unfair policy tainted with bias.
Alistair asks about concepts of privilege.
Ask why AS is surprised about crown office interpretation of court instructions.
AS explains necessity of parliamentary privilege to be able to do things ordinary people can't, in order to represent it's people.
Ask why AS is surprised about crown office interpretation of court instructions.
AS explains necessity of parliamentary privilege to be able to do things ordinary people can't, in order to represent it's people.
AS says surprised crown officetook different view from Spectator case to Committee.
AS says oct4th 2018 Alex Salmonds team moved to protect complainer la and the Scotgov team didn't even attend, says this shows hypocrisy of Svotgov position on protecting complainers.
AS says oct4th 2018 Alex Salmonds team moved to protect complainer la and the Scotgov team didn't even attend, says this shows hypocrisy of Svotgov position on protecting complainers.
Asks committee is there anyone who seriously believes his evidence exposes identity of complainers!
Satlys even Lord Hope agrees with him.
Fabian says these questions are fir the SPCB not the committee.
Satlys even Lord Hope agrees with him.
Fabian says these questions are fir the SPCB not the committee.
Alistair leads on alternative ways to address complaints, asks for AS view.
AS says mediation would be obvious solution, not unusual and appears in other policies.
Reminds unlike other polices Scotgov policy is only one targeting previous employee unlike equivalent civil service
AS says mediation would be obvious solution, not unusual and appears in other policies.
Reminds unlike other polices Scotgov policy is only one targeting previous employee unlike equivalent civil service
AS dismisses suggestion court is preferable to mediation, say this isn't sweeping thing under the carpet. Says the people who reject arbitration are those who are responsible for the failed legal case .
Says mediation rejected without being offered to complainants and after legal
Says mediation rejected without being offered to complainants and after legal
Action had been initiated.
Reminds committee that Scotgov concealed this from court.
Asks if committee think this behaviour of Scotgov was good way to spend public money.
Reminds committee that Scotgov concealed this from court.
Asks if committee think this behaviour of Scotgov was good way to spend public money.
AS picks apart Lord Advocate testimonies, says was subsequently found not to stand the test of the court of session, including his view on arbitration.
AS says more information probably exists in papers Scotgov Scotgov refuses to submit.
AS says more information probably exists in papers Scotgov Scotgov refuses to submit.
Andy Wightman asks about evidence AS is willing to submit.
AS says happy to oblige if committee requests and would be well received by his legal team.
AS says happy to oblige if committee requests and would be well received by his legal team.
AW asks if AS can say more about legal advice.
AS states, lack of consent from complainers, retrospectivity, nature of investigating officers behaviour - presented her case to court *before* informing complainers, lack of access to statements and being denied access to his diary
AS states, lack of consent from complainers, retrospectivity, nature of investigating officers behaviour - presented her case to court *before* informing complainers, lack of access to statements and being denied access to his diary
Also notes unusual hybrid nature of policy development civil service/snp party both involved- unheralded behaviour.
Notes false press release from permanent secretary about nature of court finding.
Notes false press release from permanent secretary about nature of court finding.
AW last question cites witness statement saying "we will lose this case but get him in a criminal case"
AS says cisting civil case would let criminal case "ride to the rescue like the cavalry over the hill".
Adds about text messages and government documents that should've been
AS says cisting civil case would let criminal case "ride to the rescue like the cavalry over the hill".
Adds about text messages and government documents that should've been
Made available to this committee.
Says there's 17 meetings but only 1 single documents released to committee. Says this issues was a huge issue during the court cases.
Reminds committee crown office will subject him to criminal sanction if he says more ...
Says there's 17 meetings but only 1 single documents released to committee. Says this issues was a huge issue during the court cases.
Reminds committee crown office will subject him to criminal sanction if he says more ...
AW asks if AS can supply further documents.
AS says he will where possible.
AS says he will where possible.
McMillan asks if AS agrees Scotgov conceded on one issue.
AS reminds him that Scotgov collapsed the case. "The victory was as comprehensive as you can get in legal terms"
AS reminds him that Scotgov collapsed the case. "The victory was as comprehensive as you can get in legal terms"
JB leads on search warrants.
AS specified number of documents (40) that they'd never seen before and should have in court including those which show permanent secretary had meetings before process starts, and should've been disclosed in court ..
AS specified number of documents (40) that they'd never seen before and should have in court including those which show permanent secretary had meetings before process starts, and should've been disclosed in court ..
...crown office didn't even receive these documents- obstruction of justice in contravention of court order.
JB ask if AS believes permanent secretary has adhered to civil service code.
AS - NO.
JB ask if AS believes permanent secretary has adhered to civil service code.
AS - NO.
JB cites FM involvement including prior contact with complainers and policy development asks if AS believes FM has breeched ministerial code.
AS says in light of documents not being released he can't conclude otherwise, YES FM has breached ministerial code.
AS says in light of documents not being released he can't conclude otherwise, YES FM has breached ministerial code.
JB asks about Lord Advocate role in cisting judicial review.
AS says he's not suggesting criminal case was advanced for this, but does believe civil case was deliberately relayed by Scotgov to afford chance of criminal case over taking events.
AS says he's not suggesting criminal case was advanced for this, but does believe civil case was deliberately relayed by Scotgov to afford chance of criminal case over taking events.
Hopefully lesson co.ong from these events and this committee will restore peoples faith in Scottish democracy and justice.
Maureen Watt leads with convoluted questions defending Scotgov decisions and ignoring previous answers from AS ... still talking with no question ....
Still talking...
Still talking...
... are we gonna get a question from her ....
Asks if AS is really questioning when Scotgov Scotgov should've conceded.
AS says isn't that why we should see Scotgov counsels advice which parliament has twice voted to see?
Asks if AS is really questioning when Scotgov Scotgov should've conceded.
AS says isn't that why we should see Scotgov counsels advice which parliament has twice voted to see?
AS ads doesn't think Lord Advocate would've done differently from Scotgov counsel.
AS can't see why any delays should've happened in civil case.
AS can't see why any delays should've happened in civil case.
Maureen Watt asserts mediation is unsuitable.
AS says if mediation is unsuitable why is is in civil service policy and previous ministerial policy?
AS says if mediation is unsuitable why is is in civil service policy and previous ministerial policy?
Mgt Deputy convener leads on Murrel texts. Re pressuring police and more fronts he has to fire fight the better, she queries credibility of Peter Murrells explanation.
AS asks for brief pause ( been coughing throughout testimony)
Brief suspension of committee
AS asks for brief pause ( been coughing throughout testimony)
Brief suspension of committee
LF recommences session.
Margaret Mitchell repeats questions re Murrell texts.
Queries his explanation to committee
AS replies, 22nd January was preliminary hearing where his team got sight of messages but can't describe anything due to court order.
Margaret Mitchell repeats questions re Murrell texts.
Queries his explanation to committee
AS replies, 22nd January was preliminary hearing where his team got sight of messages but can't describe anything due to court order.
In AS opinion: collusion, pressure on witnesses and inventing evidence all appear in those undisclosed texts.
Cites McAskill letter to Murrell of evidence to this effect. Peter Murrell wrote back denying this.
Cites McAskill letter to Murrell of evidence to this effect. Peter Murrell wrote back denying this.
Subsequently submissions to committee show this to be a lie.
Messages in public domain plus those undisclosed show all activities should've been ceased.
Margaret say this has legal implications for Peter given his testimony to committee....
Messages in public domain plus those undisclosed show all activities should've been ceased.
Margaret say this has legal implications for Peter given his testimony to committee....
Alex Cole Hamilton leads on Geoff Aberdain meeting.
Was FM aware of these meetings.
AS replies self evidently only FM FM could've made invitation.
States it's not likely he just popped in on 500 mile round trip.
Was FM aware of these meetings.
AS replies self evidently only FM FM could've made invitation.
States it's not likely he just popped in on 500 mile round trip.
ACH say FMs evidrnce around 29th march meeting very vague. Asks if AS was aware of plan for meeting from Geoff Aberdain.
AS confirms both meetings were arranged by FM.
AS confirms both meetings were arranged by FM.
ACH asks if FM aware of complaints on 29th March.
AS confirms FM was aware of complaints prior to his attendance on this day.
AS confirms FM was aware of complaints prior to his attendance on this day.
As says March 29th meeting was not impromptu but was arranged for purpose of discussion of complaints.
ACH says if AS didn't feel need to resign because of historical airport incident why would FM claim she thought he was going to resign on 29th March.
AS says never considered resignation from SNP, why would he given he was seeking arbitration?
He gave no indication that he would.
AS says never considered resignation from SNP, why would he given he was seeking arbitration?
He gave no indication that he would.
ACH reminds obligations of ministerial code re resignation if FM has lied to committee.
AS says FM indicated happy to intervene for mediation to him ... but didn't.
AS says Nicoal vague about procedures during discussions.
AS says FM indicated happy to intervene for mediation to him ... but didn't.
AS says Nicoal vague about procedures during discussions.
AS says name of complainer was mentioned by Geoff Aberdain at meeting.
ACH says FM claimed otherwise in her submission to committee, and could be breech of code.
ACH leads on texts between AS and FM.
ACH says FM claimed otherwise in her submission to committee, and could be breech of code.
ACH leads on texts between AS and FM.
AS hadn't seem Peter Murrell during meeting.
ACH asks if meeting was about resignation would he expect Peter to attend.
AS says yes but he wasn't because the meeting wasn't about SNP business.
ACH asks if meeting was about resignation would he expect Peter to attend.
AS says yes but he wasn't because the meeting wasn't about SNP business.
Murdo says FM has denounced AS as a liar. Asks if he is.
AS says 29th march meeting was expressly about complaints not SNP business, otherwise how would he know to attend on the 4th of April. Proves it was about gov business not party business.
States FM online obliged to set
AS says 29th march meeting was expressly about complaints not SNP business, otherwise how would he know to attend on the 4th of April. Proves it was about gov business not party business.
States FM online obliged to set
record straight immediately but didn't.
AS asserts FM had obligation to intervene but didn't in contravention of ministerial code.
MM asks for AS corroboration.
AS cites Geoff Abredain and Kevin Pringle.
AS asserts FM had obligation to intervene but didn't in contravention of ministerial code.
MM asks for AS corroboration.
AS cites Geoff Abredain and Kevin Pringle.
AS say his evidence proves breech of ministerial code, and evidence withheld shows this too.
MM leads on conspiracy.
Peter Murrell
Ian McCann
Sue Riddick
AS believes this transpired as it became obvious Scotgov would lose judicial review.
MM leads on conspiracy.
Peter Murrell
Ian McCann
Sue Riddick
AS believes this transpired as it became obvious Scotgov would lose judicial review.
AS says email submission shows collusion in fishing expedition to garner witness statements during police investigation - illegal activity.
AS cites Sue Sue Riddick text message to "get witness back in the game" and "I have a plan to get him that will keep us anonymous"
These are in public domain
I would love to provide more evidence but cannot because of legal action to stop me testifying.
These are in public domain
I would love to provide more evidence but cannot because of legal action to stop me testifying.
LF ask AS to stick to remit.
AS reiterates relevance of his testimony.
Murdo asks about 4 senior SNP figures conspiring, asks if FM is party to this.
AS says he hadn't made this accusation because he hasn't documentary evidence in his gift.
Only testified about evidence allowed
AS reiterates relevance of his testimony.
Murdo asks about 4 senior SNP figures conspiring, asks if FM is party to this.
AS says he hadn't made this accusation because he hasn't documentary evidence in his gift.
Only testified about evidence allowed
Murdo ask who should resign.
AS says people he named with evidence should resign including permanent secretary and Lord Advocate.
Says institutions are fundamentally sound but those responsible should resign and if not they undermine those institutions.
AS says people he named with evidence should resign including permanent secretary and Lord Advocate.
Says institutions are fundamentally sound but those responsible should resign and if not they undermine those institutions.
Murdo asks if AS believes FM has broken code and should resign.
AS replies yes, evidence shows she broke code, but her resignation is a matter for the committee to consider.
AS replies yes, evidence shows she broke code, but her resignation is a matter for the committee to consider.
AS cites WhatsApp messages betwen him and FM as evidence of breech of ministerial code in answer to Allan's questioner thought on FMs behaviour.
AS says meeting on 4th April was about how FM could help with mediation and subsequent text messages prove this.
McMillan asks doesn't AS think SNP behaviour was justified.
AS says up until police involvement which they ignored. Says all took place *after* police investigation started, police shouldn't be pressurised, nor SNP continuing to pursue investigation and pressuring witnesses.
AS says up until police involvement which they ignored. Says all took place *after* police investigation started, police shouldn't be pressurised, nor SNP continuing to pursue investigation and pressuring witnesses.
Jackie Baillie asksif AS has covered all public text messages.
AS say yes, but has muv6more he can't disclose under threat of prosecution.
JB clarifies timelines.
AS confirms timelines.
AS say yes, but has muv6more he can't disclose under threat of prosecution.
JB clarifies timelines.
AS confirms timelines.
AS reiterates he knew name of complainer before April meeting.
AS confirms meeting was about Scotgov matter. Says he asked for permanent secretary to be made aware of issue, and was surprised that Nicola chose not to.
AS confirms meeting was about Scotgov matter. Says he asked for permanent secretary to be made aware of issue, and was surprised that Nicola chose not to.
JB asks if FM FM should've reported to civil service, and if not was it a breech of ministerial code.
AS says no doubt it should've been reported and is a breech of code.
He says Douglas Hamilton is witness to all discussions at this meeting and others.
AS says no doubt it should've been reported and is a breech of code.
He says Douglas Hamilton is witness to all discussions at this meeting and others.
JB asks why Nicola didn't report any of thos to civil service until 6th of June.
AS says he would've reported immediately and cannot offer reason why Nicola wouldn't.
JB says if someone deliberately misleads parliament is it a resigning matter.
AS says he would've reported immediately and cannot offer reason why Nicola wouldn't.
JB says if someone deliberately misleads parliament is it a resigning matter.
AS says deliberately mislead ling parliament is a resigning matter, it is for the committee to decide if this was a deliberate act by the FM.
Alastair Allan infers AS testimony might not be evidence based.
AS reminds him all his testimony is evidence based and submitted to committee, alongside evidence already in the public domain, including evidence from the criminal trial.
AS reminds him all his testimony is evidence based and submitted to committee, alongside evidence already in the public domain, including evidence from the criminal trial.
AS returns to the misapplication of court order restriction preventing the committee from accessing evidence. He doesn't believe the committee is powerless to access this.
AA asks if legal discretion exists why isn't it in bill.
AS says Lord Coulsfield report 2007 details why.
AA asks if legal discretion exists why isn't it in bill.
AS says Lord Coulsfield report 2007 details why.
AS remind committee of their responsibilities and powers, cites the crown letters saying he'd be prosecuted as a private citizen and the letters threatening the committee.
AS points to crown office preventing committee getting evidence.
Andy Wightman leads with intention of crown act, sympathises that committee should have the withheld evidence.
Andy Wightman leads with intention of crown act, sympathises that committee should have the withheld evidence.
AW asks if inescapable conclusions to remove AS from public life are substantiated.
AS cites timing of policy, airport query prior to policy draft, open accord between FM and permanent secretary placed herself at centre of policy whilst canvassing complaints.
AS cites timing of policy, airport query prior to policy draft, open accord between FM and permanent secretary placed herself at centre of policy whilst canvassing complaints.
AS cites report should've gone to police, but went to crown agent and police would've objected to publicising complaints.
5th point that external legal advice said judicial review doomed to fail, so why did it proceed to criminal trial other than to avoid losing case.
5th point that external legal advice said judicial review doomed to fail, so why did it proceed to criminal trial other than to avoid losing case.
AS cites evidence of witness pressuring and witnesses canvassing *after* police involvement.
Reminds AW that committee is still not party to a lot of evidence.
Reminds AW that committee is still not party to a lot of evidence.
AS says he's speaking under other and will not be required to offer corrective letters, because evidence refused to the committee (redacted) proves his testimony.
AS reminds the committee that they should seek to get this evidence from the crown.
AS reminds the committee that they should seek to get this evidence from the crown.
AW says police refused to accept SNPgov report.
AS says this statement was given to ICO because the crown office permitted this, but they refuse to allow this to the committee.
AS says Levy and McCrae are happy to provide but the crown office are preventing it.
AS says this statement was given to ICO because the crown office permitted this, but they refuse to allow this to the committee.
AS says Levy and McCrae are happy to provide but the crown office are preventing it.
AW leads on subject of JBs questions.
AS says it is up to committee to decide if meetings are party or gov matter but he is clear about the subject of the meetings.
AS says it is up to committee to decide if meetings are party or gov matter but he is clear about the subject of the meetings.
Maureen Watt trying to berate AS about his submissions, accuses AS of not following procedures.. ffs!
AS refutes entirely her premise, reminding her he has adhered to every restriction laid upon him.
AS refutes entirely her premise, reminding her he has adhered to every restriction laid upon him.
AS adds the one paragraph redacted in his testimony was infact evidence that was already submitted and accepted by the committee.
Reminds Maureen Watt these rules are to protect the vulnerable, not to shield the mighty!
Reminds Maureen Watt these rules are to protect the vulnerable, not to shield the mighty!
Margaret mc asks if witnesses were encouraged, what was motivation?
AS replies motivation changed over time and states complainers were poorly served and not the drivers.
AS says motivation to address probable defeat in judicial review was why criminal case was pursued.
AS replies motivation changed over time and states complainers were poorly served and not the drivers.
AS says motivation to address probable defeat in judicial review was why criminal case was pursued.
MM ask if AS potential returned to politics may have been initial motivation?
AS says motivation lies with permanent secretary and others out with civil service, concedes this may be behind drawing out judicial review process. Cites evidence withheld from committee.
AS says motivation lies with permanent secretary and others out with civil service, concedes this may be behind drawing out judicial review process. Cites evidence withheld from committee.
Andy Wightman asks if Alex Salmond has faith in Hamilton's review of ministerial code breach.
AS says he has faith in Hamilton but not his remit.
AS says he has faith in Hamilton but not his remit.
Jackie Baillie say AS has not called for FM resignation so has he forgiven her.
AS replies No, but it is for others to decide her fate.
AS replies No, but it is for others to decide her fate.
Linnda Fabiani asks for confirmation that Alex believes that malicious acts were timed for after the police involvement.
AS says yes, but for his legal teams actions 9he would've met a different fate.
AS says yes, but for his legal teams actions 9he would've met a different fate.
Alex Salmond states he believes committee desires to discharge its duty if it were allowed to.
He suggests committee uses powers to serve orders on his own solicitors who are happy to testify on Monday and uses powers to get evidence from him or the crown prior to FM appearance!!
He suggests committee uses powers to serve orders on his own solicitors who are happy to testify on Monday and uses powers to get evidence from him or the crown prior to FM appearance!!
@threadreaderapp
Unroll please
Unroll please
Apologies for the occasional typos!
I'm unaccustomed to watching, listening, abbreviating and tweeting simultaneously and continually over 125 tweets in 6 hours. I do hope you found this record informative.🙂
#SalmondInquiry
#SalmondStitchUp
I'm unaccustomed to watching, listening, abbreviating and tweeting simultaneously and continually over 125 tweets in 6 hours. I do hope you found this record informative.🙂
#SalmondInquiry
#SalmondStitchUp
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
