SNP data dump after Scotttish IC’s threat of legal action. Thousands of pages of heavily redacted communications, but there are still nuggets in there.
1. Failure to Record Meetings with Alex Salmond (Potential Breach of Sections 4.22 and 4.23)
Context from the Remit (Repeated in Multiple Batches, e.g., Batch 1, Pages 1, 21, 32, etc.): The investigation's starting point is the allegation that Sturgeon "failed to feed back the basic facts of meetings and discussions held with Alex Salmond to her private office." These sections of the Code require ministers to record external contacts that could influence government policy or decisions to avoid undisclosed influence.
Specific Meetings in Question (Batch 1, Pages 1, 157, 162, etc.):29 March 2018: Meeting with Geoff Aberdein (Salmond's former Chief of Staff) at Scottish Parliament.
2 April 2018: Meeting with Salmond at Sturgeon's home.
23 April 2018: Telephone conversation.
7 June 2018: Meeting at SNP Conference in Aberdeen.
14 July 2018: Meeting at Sturgeon's home.
18 July 2018: Telephone conversation.
Potential Evidence:
In her written response to Hamilton (Batch 2, Pages 187 and 210), Sturgeon admits she did not immediately record the early meetings with her private office. She states: "I advised the Permanent Secretary of the meeting on 2 April and the call on 23 April, in my letter to her of 6 June 2018." This indicates a delay of over two months for the April 2 meeting, which she justifies as necessary to "protect the confidentiality and independence of the process" (arguing the Code didn't directly apply, putting her in a "Catch 22" situation). She considered the Code but chose not to follow it strictly to avoid compromising the investigation.
Salmond's letter to Hamilton (Batch 4, Pages 80-81, 122): He claims the April 2 meeting was about government business (harassment complaints), not party matters as Sturgeon described, and accuses her of failing to record contacts promptly. He argues non-intervention in an "unlawful" process could itself be a breach, but notes her explanation for the home meeting (thinking it was party business) is misleading.
This admission and contradiction could support a breach, as the Code emphasizes transparency to prevent undue influence.
1. Failure to Record Meetings with Alex Salmond (Potential Breach of Sections 4.22 and 4.23)
Context from the Remit (Repeated in Multiple Batches, e.g., Batch 1, Pages 1, 21, 32, etc.): The investigation's starting point is the allegation that Sturgeon "failed to feed back the basic facts of meetings and discussions held with Alex Salmond to her private office." These sections of the Code require ministers to record external contacts that could influence government policy or decisions to avoid undisclosed influence.
Specific Meetings in Question (Batch 1, Pages 1, 157, 162, etc.):29 March 2018: Meeting with Geoff Aberdein (Salmond's former Chief of Staff) at Scottish Parliament.
2 April 2018: Meeting with Salmond at Sturgeon's home.
23 April 2018: Telephone conversation.
7 June 2018: Meeting at SNP Conference in Aberdeen.
14 July 2018: Meeting at Sturgeon's home.
18 July 2018: Telephone conversation.
Potential Evidence:
In her written response to Hamilton (Batch 2, Pages 187 and 210), Sturgeon admits she did not immediately record the early meetings with her private office. She states: "I advised the Permanent Secretary of the meeting on 2 April and the call on 23 April, in my letter to her of 6 June 2018." This indicates a delay of over two months for the April 2 meeting, which she justifies as necessary to "protect the confidentiality and independence of the process" (arguing the Code didn't directly apply, putting her in a "Catch 22" situation). She considered the Code but chose not to follow it strictly to avoid compromising the investigation.
Salmond's letter to Hamilton (Batch 4, Pages 80-81, 122): He claims the April 2 meeting was about government business (harassment complaints), not party matters as Sturgeon described, and accuses her of failing to record contacts promptly. He argues non-intervention in an "unlawful" process could itself be a breach, but notes her explanation for the home meeting (thinking it was party business) is misleading.
This admission and contradiction could support a breach, as the Code emphasizes transparency to prevent undue influence.
2. Attempt to Influence the Harassment Investigation
Allegation (Batch 1, Pages 1-2, 21-22, etc.): It was suggested that Sturgeon used information from the 2018 meetings to "attempt to influence the conduct of the investigation" into complaints against Salmond under the government's harassment procedure.
Potential Evidence:Sturgeon's response (Batch 2, Pages 187, 210): She denies influence, stating she excluded herself from the process to avoid it and only informed the Permanent Secretary later when legal action seemed imminent. However, she admits discussing the Code implications with her Chief of Staff after April 2 and choosing not to disclose immediately.
Salmond's claims (Batch 4, Pages 81, 122): He alleges Sturgeon knew of the complaints earlier than she claimed and that her non-intervention allowed an unlawful process to continue, potentially influencing it indirectly. He points to her Parliamentary statements as "questioned by MSPs as misleading" regarding the timing and nature of meetings.
No direct evidence of active influence, but the delay in recording and conflicting timelines could imply passive allowance of issues.
Allegation (Batch 1, Pages 1-2, 21-22, etc.): It was suggested that Sturgeon used information from the 2018 meetings to "attempt to influence the conduct of the investigation" into complaints against Salmond under the government's harassment procedure.
Potential Evidence:Sturgeon's response (Batch 2, Pages 187, 210): She denies influence, stating she excluded herself from the process to avoid it and only informed the Permanent Secretary later when legal action seemed imminent. However, she admits discussing the Code implications with her Chief of Staff after April 2 and choosing not to disclose immediately.
Salmond's claims (Batch 4, Pages 81, 122): He alleges Sturgeon knew of the complaints earlier than she claimed and that her non-intervention allowed an unlawful process to continue, potentially influencing it indirectly. He points to her Parliamentary statements as "questioned by MSPs as misleading" regarding the timing and nature of meetings.
No direct evidence of active influence, but the delay in recording and conflicting timelines could imply passive allowance of issues.
3. Misleading Parliament (Potential Breach of Section 1.3(c))
Context: Section 1.3(c) states: "It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead the Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation."
Allegation: Salmond and MSPs claim Sturgeon misled Parliament about when she first learned of the complaints (claiming March 29, 2018, but allegedly earlier) and the purpose of the April 2 meeting (party vs. government business).
Potential Evidence:MSPs' letter to Hamilton (Batch 4, Pages 224-225): A cross-party group (Alex Cole-Hamilton, Margaret Mitchell, Jackie Baillie, Murdo Fraser) urges expanding the investigation to include whether Sturgeon "knowingly misled Parliament" based on Salmond's submission contradicting her account. They cite her FMQs response where she says Hamilton can look at any issues, but argue the facts must be established as the versions "cannot both be true."
Salmond's submission references (Batch 1, Pages 117, 135; Batch 4, Page 192; Batch 2, Page 259): He accuses Sturgeon of "repeatedly misleading parliament and giving 'untrue' evidence," including about the timing of her knowledge and meeting details. Opposition claims this exposes "allegations of a cover-up."
Sturgeon's FMQs quote (Batch 4, Pages 80, 122): She states Hamilton is "not restricted" and can examine any potential breach, including misleading Parliament, but the MSPs question if her account holds up against Salmond's evidence.
Context: Section 1.3(c) states: "It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead the Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation."
Allegation: Salmond and MSPs claim Sturgeon misled Parliament about when she first learned of the complaints (claiming March 29, 2018, but allegedly earlier) and the purpose of the April 2 meeting (party vs. government business).
Potential Evidence:MSPs' letter to Hamilton (Batch 4, Pages 224-225): A cross-party group (Alex Cole-Hamilton, Margaret Mitchell, Jackie Baillie, Murdo Fraser) urges expanding the investigation to include whether Sturgeon "knowingly misled Parliament" based on Salmond's submission contradicting her account. They cite her FMQs response where she says Hamilton can look at any issues, but argue the facts must be established as the versions "cannot both be true."
Salmond's submission references (Batch 1, Pages 117, 135; Batch 4, Page 192; Batch 2, Page 259): He accuses Sturgeon of "repeatedly misleading parliament and giving 'untrue' evidence," including about the timing of her knowledge and meeting details. Opposition claims this exposes "allegations of a cover-up."
Sturgeon's FMQs quote (Batch 4, Pages 80, 122): She states Hamilton is "not restricted" and can examine any potential breach, including misleading Parliament, but the MSPs question if her account holds up against Salmond's evidence.
4. Failure to Settle the Judicial Review (Potential Breach Related to Wasting Public Funds)
Allegation: Failing to act on legal advice to concede Salmond's judicial review early, leading to £500,000+ in costs, could breach duties under the Code (e.g., section 1.6 on standards and confidence).
Potential Evidence:Hamilton's email to Salmond (Batch 4, Pages 152, 163): He expresses interest in "hearing more detail on the suggestion that failing to settle the judicial review constitutes a breach of the Ministerial Code," indicating it's under consideration.
Salmond's claims (Batch 4, Page 81): He notes the government disregarded external legal advice on poor prospects of success, extending to Sturgeon "agreeing with or permitting the Permanent Secretary to disregard" it. This ties to non-intervention as a potential breach.
Allegation: Failing to act on legal advice to concede Salmond's judicial review early, leading to £500,000+ in costs, could breach duties under the Code (e.g., section 1.6 on standards and confidence).
Potential Evidence:Hamilton's email to Salmond (Batch 4, Pages 152, 163): He expresses interest in "hearing more detail on the suggestion that failing to settle the judicial review constitutes a breach of the Ministerial Code," indicating it's under consideration.
Salmond's claims (Batch 4, Page 81): He notes the government disregarded external legal advice on poor prospects of success, extending to Sturgeon "agreeing with or permitting the Permanent Secretary to disregard" it. This ties to non-intervention as a potential breach.
Overall Assessment
These documents show strong allegations from Salmond and MSPs, supported by Sturgeon's own admission of delayed recording (which she justifies but acknowledges risked a breach accusation). Contradictions in timelines and meeting purposes could indicate misleading Parliament, a serious breach requiring resignation if proven knowing.
No "smoking gun" like internal emails proving intent, but the communications suggest a pattern of delayed transparency and potential influence avoidance that critics argue breaches the Code.
The files emphasize the investigation's independence, with Hamilton open to broader issues (e.g., misleading Parliament) despite the initial remit.
These documents show strong allegations from Salmond and MSPs, supported by Sturgeon's own admission of delayed recording (which she justifies but acknowledges risked a breach accusation). Contradictions in timelines and meeting purposes could indicate misleading Parliament, a serious breach requiring resignation if proven knowing.
No "smoking gun" like internal emails proving intent, but the communications suggest a pattern of delayed transparency and potential influence avoidance that critics argue breaches the Code.
The files emphasize the investigation's independence, with Hamilton open to broader issues (e.g., misleading Parliament) despite the initial remit.
@threadreaderapp unroll please
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
