Alex salmond cancels bombshell appearance at inquiry

* FORMER SCOTTISH FIRST MINISTER ALEX SALMOND HAS CANCELLED HIS BLOCKBUSTER TESTIMONY AT HOLYROOD INQUIRY  * MR SALMOND HAD BEEN EXPECTED TO GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT BOTCHED HANDLING OF SEX

ASSAULT CLAIMS AGAINST HIM  * SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT REDACTED MOST DAMNING PARTS OF HIS ALREADY-PUBLISHED EVIDENCE AGAINST NICOLA STURGEON * EX-FIRST MINISTER ACCUSES MS STURGEON OF LYING ABOUT

WHEN SHE KNEW OF A PROBE INTO SEX ASSAULT CLAIMS  * HIS ALLIES ALSO CLAIM MS STURGEON'S ALLIES COOKED UP SEX ASSAULT CLAIMS IN PLOT TO PREVENT HIS POLITICAL COMEBACK By JAMES GANT FOR

MAILONLINE and JACK WRIGHT FOR MAILONLINE Published: 07:56 EDT, 23 February 2021 | Updated: 04:11 EDT, 9 March 2021 Alex Salmond has cancelled his appearance at the inquiry into the Scottish

Government's botched handling of sex assault claims against him after Holyrood redacted the most damning parts of his already-published evidence against First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

  Scotland's former First Minister had been expected to give evidence tomorrow about the investigation and face questions about his claims that Ms Sturgeon misled parliament and

breached the ministerial code. However, prosecutors had asked for portions of Mr Salmond's testimony to be redacted because of unspecified 'grave concerns' - and in an

extraordinary step today key paragraphs from his written statement were removed.  A Scottish Parliament spokesman announced tonight that Mr Salmond would not be attending, stating: 'Mr

Salmond has informed the Committee that he will not be attending tomorrow's meeting to give evidence. 'The Committee will instead meet in private to discuss the implications of Mr

Salmond's response and the next steps for its work.'  His lawyers wrote to the MSPs saying their client was available to appear instead on Friday. Their letter said: 'It is

now clearly impossible for him to attend tomorrow in these circumstances, but he remains willing to attend on Friday. He accepts that is entirely in the hands of the Committee to whom he has

asked that we copy this correspondence.' The Government's investigation of the allegations was found to be 'tainted by apparent bias' after it emerged the investigating

officer had prior contact with two of the women who made complaints. Mr Salmond, who was later acquitted of 13 charges of sexual assault in a criminal trial, was awarded a £512,250 payout

after he successfully challenged the lawfulness of the government investigation. A parliamentary inquiry, the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, was

established to look into the Government's actions.  Mr Salmond had been scheduled to appear before the committee at 12.30pm tomorrow. His lawyers warned there was 'no legal

basis' for parliament's decision to redact his earlier evidence. In his written submission, Mr Salmond named people he claims were involved in a 'malicious and concerted'

attempt to see him removed from public life, including Ms Sturgeon's husband and SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, and her chief of staff Liz Lloyd. He also described the Crown

Office, the body responsible for prosecuting crimes in Scotland, as 'unfit for purpose' under its current leadership. His allies claim sexual assault allegations against him were

part of a plot designed to prevent his political comeback and cooked up by Ms Sturgeon's allies while the #MeToo movement gripped the world. The Scottish Government was immediately

accused of a cover-up - and with media attention glued to Ms Sturgeon's roadmap out of the coronavirus lockdown, opposition figures were quick to point out that the timing had all the

hallmarks of burying bad news.   The SNP civil war now threatens to tear the party apart just 10 weeks before the Holyrood elections, which some fear could lead to a second independence

referendum if the nationalists dominate.  ALLEGATIONS, DISCUSSIONS, DENIALS AND A 'FORGOTTEN' KEY MEETING BETWEEN STURGEON AND SALMOND November 2017: Allegations regarding Alex

Salmond's behaviour are raised with the SNP by Sky News. Nicola Sturgeon said she spoke to him about this – and he 'denied it'. No further action was taken. March 29, 2018: Ms

Sturgeon meets Geoff Aberdein - Mr Salmon's chief of staff - in her Scottish parliament office where she has admitted they discussed the possibility of a meeting with Mr Salmond. Ms

Sturgeon – after initially forgetting about this meeting – says there was 'the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature'. April 2, 2018: Ms

Sturgeon and Mr Salmond meet at the First Minister's home. According to Ms Sturgeon, this is the first time she heard of the complaints made against him. Despite this, she has insisted

that the matters discussed were party business. April 23, 2018: Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond hold a 'substantive' phone discussion. During this call, Ms Sturgeon claims that Mr

Salmond asked whether she would speak to Leslie Evans about 'mediation' with the complainants. A special adviser was in the room at the time. June 6, 2018: Ms Sturgeon writes to

Mrs Evans to inform her that she has held discussions with Mr Salmond. June 7, 2018: Ms Sturgeon again meets Mr Salmond, this time in Aberdeen ahead of the SNP party conference. July 14,

2018: Ms Sturgeon meets Mr Salmond at her home near Glasgow. July 18, 2018: Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond speak again on the phone. Ms Sturgeon said that 'by this time' she was

'anxious – as party leader and from the perspective of preparing my party for any potential public issue – to know whether his handling of the matter meant it was likely to become

public in the near future.' This is the last time Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond speak. During this time they also exchange a number of WhatsApp messages in which they discuss the affair –

including Mr Salmond's decision to seek a judicial review over the government's probe into the two complaints.  January 2019: Mr Salmond wins sexual harassment inquiry case against

Scottish government and is awarded £500,000 in legal fees.   March 23, 2020: Alex Salmond is cleared of all sexual assault charges and his supporters demanded a full inquiry into the

Scottish Government's handling of the scandal. January 24, 2021: Speaking on the Andrew Marr show, Ms Sturgeon denies misleading the Scottish Parliament after 'forgetting' to

tell MSPs about her meeting with Mr Salmond's aide on March 29, 2018. February 8, 2021: Peter Murrell, the SNP's chief executive and the First Leader's husband, is accused of

a 'dismal and shifty' performance as he gave evidence to the inquiry on Zoom. February 16, 2021: Mooted date for Ms Sturgeon to appear before the inquiry.  Mr Salmond's

testimony was made public two weeks ago after a legal battle by the Spectator magazine that argued the risk of identifying his accusers should not stop the claims about the Scottish

Government being made public.   But after the evidence was published and in the public domain, the Crown Office wrote to the parliament and purportedly raised concerns about possible

contempt of court. The Scottish Parliament's Corporate Body (SPCB) agreed to remove the submission and replace it with a redacted version with five sections censored. Mr Salmond's

legal team questioned the motives behind the censorship of the testimony, with lawyer David McKie demanding to see any legal justification for the parliament redacting swathes of his

submission and warning there could be a 'material risk' if he appeared to give oral evidence as planned. Mr McKie wrote: 'Our client's submission was carefully reviewed

by us and by counsel before submission. 'There is no legal basis for the redactions that we are aware of which you now propose having gone through that extremely careful exercise.'

Mr McKie described the decision to subsequently redact evidence as a 'significant surprise and concern', and said: 'We therefore require to see urgently the legal basis for

the proposed redactions in order that we can properly advise our client and make further representations. 'These could have a material bearing on whether he is able to attend tomorrow.

'As matters stand, we have advised him that the apparent intervention from the crown suggests that there has to be a material risk to him in speaking to his submission. He cannot be

placed in legal jeopardy.' After the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) 'collectively' decided to remove and redact the evidence, a Scottish Parliament spokesman said:

'The SPCB agreed to republish the submission in redacted form in line with representations from the Crown Office. 'We cannot comment any further on the redactions as the Crown

Office has advised that its correspondence on this matter must be kept confidential.' Mr Salmond was due to accuse Ms Sturgeon's husband and other top aides of a

'malicious' plot to send him to prison over sexual assault. Despite the allegations, Ms Sturgeon insists the former first minister has 'not a shred of evidence' against

her.    Publisher of the Spectator Andrew Neil said: 'Scots were brought up to believe their legal system was among the best in the world. Not after the latest shenanigans of the Crown

Office. 'Let us step back and appreciate the enormity of events in Scotland today. Former First Minister Alex Salmond is accusing First Minister Nicola Sturgeon of lying to/misleading

Parliament and part of a ScotGov/SNP move to jail him.  'The Sturgeon Clown Office is insisting that crucial evidence supporting the Salmond case be redacted, which means it can't

be considered by the official Inquiry into his claims. This in a democracy. Or former one. 'The important point to grasp here is that if the Crown Office succeeds in un-publishing

Salmond's submission then the Inquiry cannot consider it when it comes to finalising its conclusions. Devious.'   Mr Salmond's lawyer says the decision to censor his evidence

is of 'significant surprise and concern' and said the Crown Office's intervention 'only serves to reinforce' his fears about prosecutors.  Two pieces of Mr

Salmond's evidence were published on the Scottish government website yesterday. The first, previously published by the Spectator, had the accusations of Ms Sturgeon lying to Parliament

about when she first learned of an investigation into accusations of sexual assault. The most serious risk to Ms Sturgeon in the unfolding drama is Mr Salmond's claim is evidence in

this statement that she lied to the Scottish Parliament about when she knew about the investigation into sex assault allegations against him. If it's proven she lied, she could be

forced to resign. In that statement Mr Salmond says his chief of staff met her on March 29, 2018, to discuss the probe - she later told the Scottish Parliament that she first learned of the

probe on April 2 2018.  Mr Salmond says this is a breach of the Ministerial Code. Ms Sturgeon would later claim to have 'forgotten' the March 29 meeting.    The second previously

unreleased statement named Ms Sturgeon's husband and four other aides and civil servants and accused them of being complicit in a 'malicious' effort to bring sexual harassment

and attempted rape charges against him of which he was cleared. Also among his evidence is an email sent by Ms Sturgeon's office to Scotland's top civil servant Leslie Evans

saying Scottish government sexual harassment policy should be expanded to include former ministers. The message, sent on November 17, 2017, came 11 days after the first claims of sexual

assault against Mr Salmond. He says the 'radical expansion' of the policy 'must have been inserted to allow the complaint against me to be prosecuted'. Mr Salmond's

other explosive statement names five of Ms Sturgeon's top aides and civil servants accusing them of colluding against him in a 'malicious' plot to have him charged with 13

counts of sexual assault. He called for some of them to resign and claims their conduct could amount to a 'conspiracy' at the highest levels in Scottish government. He claimed in

the submission the 'inescapable conclusion' was that there was a 'malicious and concerted' attempt to see him removed from public life in Scotland. Ms Sturgeon's

husband and SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, Principal policy adviser Leslie Evans, chief of staff Liz Lloyd, compliance officer Ian McCann and chief operating officer Sue Ruddick were all

complicit in efforts to damage his reputation, Mr Salmond says. In his latest statement, Mr Salmond alleges that while probing sexual assault claims against him, SNP officials were also

drafting the Fairness at Work Policy 2010. He claims Ms Lloyd drafted an amendment in November 2017 to tweak a policy to include 'former Ministers, including from previous

administrations regardless of Party'. He makes the link between this email and the claims made against him by the female complainants - meaning he could be prosecuted.  NICOLA

STURGEON'S AIDES WHO ALEX SALMOND ACCUSES OF BEING COMPLICIT IN EFFORTS TO DAMAGE HIS REPUTATION Nicola Sturgeon's husband and SNP Chief Executive Peter Murrell Peter Murrell has

been chief executive of the SNP since 1999. The 56-year-old was educated at Craigmount High School and Glasgow University before moving into politics. He later worked in the Banff and Buchan

constituency office of former First Minister Alex Salmond, who he now faces accusations from. He met Ms Sturgeon in 1988 at the constituency office and they became a couple in 2003. The

pair got married in July 2010 at Òran Mór Glasgow. Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd Nicola Sturgeon's Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd is no stranger to controversy. Only last month the special adviser

was blasted for tweeting criticism of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. As a civil service she is supposed to remain apolitical. The rules say she 'must not take public part in political

controversy', including on 'social media'. Now she is also wrapped up in accusations she was part of a 'witch hunt' to destroy Alex Salmond. Ms Lloyd has been at the

top of Scottish politics for nearly a decade - being a Spad for nine years and chief of staff for six years. Before that she was head of the SNP's media operations for four years and

an adviser to MSP Jim Mathers for three years earlier. Edinburgh University educated Lloyd studied an MA in American studies and an MSc in European and comparative public policy before

entering politics. Her LinkedIn calls for: 'a strong, successful and independent Scotland.' Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans The head of Scotland's civil service could be

sacked from the role as MSPs prepare to 'throw her under the bus'. Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans is expected to be slammed in a report on Holyrood's handling of the Alex

Salmond affair. There are reportedly plans underway to get Ms Evans out of office earlier than her scheduled leave next spring. A source told The Sunday Times MSPs on the special committee

are 'preparing to throw her under a bus'. Ms Evans is a 62-year-old civil servant from Northern Ireland who moved to Sheffield as a child before studying music at Liverpool

University. She started living in Scotland in 1985 and joined the government in 2000 after 20 years working in local authorities. She was the first woman to land the top civil service job -

from May 2015 - and earns around £175,000 a year. Chief Operating Officer Sue Ruddick  The mother of three is the chief operating officer for the Scottish National Party. She worked in

London as chief of staff for the SNP Westminster Group before heading up to Scotland. Ms Ruddick had before that been a parliamentary press and research assistant after being a part time

swimming teacher. The Aberdeen University educated politico has a master's degree in history and also took courses in German, Spanish, sociology, psychology and international relations.

Her LinkedIn profile says: 'A pro-active and talented Communications Professional with extensive experience in corporate image development and business administration. 'Proven

track record of successful design, implementation and management of innovative communication strategies leading to significant increases in efficiency and gains for the company.'

Compliance Officer Ian McCann Ian McCann is the point of contact at SNP Headquarters in Edinburgh, according to the party's website. His Twitter bio says: 'Two kids, two chins,

eclectic taste in film and music. I mostly avoid discussion of politics, but if I do, I reserve the right to joke.' He often retweets First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and is followed by

SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford.     He says there was also a political intervention when Ms Sturgeon and the Permanent Secretary agreed before December 2017 that she should be

distanced from the policy and only told when it was done. Mr Salmond claims: 'When the Permanent Secretary agreed with the First Minister that she should take over as key decision maker

in terms of this new policy she was already aware of the developing complaints against me. 'Therefore she put herself at the centre of a policy in the full knowledge that I would

likely be the first (and perhaps only given the subsequent declaration of illegality) subject of its implementation. Doing so from a position of already being tainted by bias is an

extraordinary decision.' He also says the Scottish government was advised by external counsel in October 2018 that the 'balance of probability' was that 'they were

heading for likely defeat' in its case against him. He said: 'And yet, despite that advice and the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds of avoidable legal fees, the Scottish

Government pressed on with a case they expected to lose.'  He added: 'However, underlying all of this and perhaps the most serious issue of all is the complete breakdown of the

necessary barriers which should exist between Government, political party and indeed the prosecution authorities in any country which abides by the rule of law.' Mr Salmond faced 13

charges including one of attempted rape, one of intent to rape, nine charges of sexual assault and two of indecent assault.  The ex-SNP leader was cleared of all charges by a jury following

an 11-day trial at the High Court in Edinburgh. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on 12 charges and returned a not proven verdict on a charge of sexual assault with intent to rape.  In

his submission to the inquiry, Mr Salmond said had it not been for the jury system, a campaign to remove him from public life might have 'succeeded'. In a different submission, Ms

Lloyd ardently rejected being part of a conspiracy and said this was 'not substantiated by any evidence'. She also denied leaking details of a Scottish Government inquiry into the

allegations to the Daily Record newspaper. According to Mr Salmond, the 'most obvious and compelling evidence of such conduct' is contained in materials the Crown Office

'refuses to release'. He said: 'That decision is disgraceful.' Mr Salmond has called for evidence he obtained ahead of his criminal trial - but was not used in court - to

be released by prosecutors, but they have refused. He said such a move 'makes it impossible for the Committee to complete its task; and that the 'only beneficiaries of that

decision to withhold evidence are those involved in conduct to damage (and indeed imprison) me'.   Mr Murrell has previously denied there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond. Mr Salmond

has also used his final submission before he is expected to appear at Holyrood to demand resignations over the affair, hitting out at the 'real cost' to the Scottish people which

he believes to be 'many millions' of pounds. He said: 'No one in this process has uttered the simple words necessary on occasions to renew and refresh democratic institutions

- 'I resign'.' But last night Miss Sturgeon claimed there was 'not a shred of evidence' of a conspiracy. She told STV News: 'He has made claims, or he appears

to be making claims or suggestions there was some kind of conspiracy against him or concerted campaign against him. 'There is not a shred of evidence about that, so this is the

opportunity for him to replace insinuation and assertion with evidence. I don't believe he can because I know what he is saying is not true. 'If he can't provide that evidence

he should stop making these claims about people because they're not fair.' She refutes Mr Salmond's claims that she did breach the ministerial code. She added: 'The

Scottish Government, of course, made a mistake in this. But this week it's an opportunity for Alex Salmond – I hope he will come to the committee on Wednesday. An SNP spokesman said:

'This is just more assertion without a shred of credible evidence.' Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross told MailOnline: 'The SNP have used every trick in the book to

subvert the Scottish Parliament and protect Nicola Sturgeon. 'Preserving the anonymity of the female complainers is paramount. 'However, Parliament must have the power to hold the

SNP government to account for its actions which failed these women and cost taxpayers at least £1million. 'There are serious questions about the dual role of the Lord Advocate as a

Scottish Government minister and head of what is supposed to be an independent and impartial prosecution service. 'The people of Scotland deserve so much better than the SNP sleaze of

Sturgeon and Salmond.' Scottish Labour interim leader Jackie Baillie added: 'The committee must be able to see all relevant evidence if we are ever to get to the truth of the

matter. However, it has been reported that the Crown Office wrote to the Scottish Parliament threatening the Parliament with contempt of court action following the publication of Alex

Salmond's evidence. 'Given that the Lord Advocate is in charge of the Crown Office and a member of the Government, he should be invited to come before Parliament and make an urgent

statement, along with the Crown Agent David Harvie. 'And - given the significant public interest - I have asked the Presiding Officer to publish the letter from the Crown Office to the

Parliament, so that we can better understand the restrictions placed on the Corporate Body. 'Too much time and money has been spent on this sordid tale. The committee must be able to

get on with its work, unobstructed and without information being inappropriately withheld.' Chairman of the Spectator Mr Neil tweeted: 'Using lame and bogus jigsaw identification

excuses, it's almost as if the Crown Office was acting on behalf of Scot Gov to stop important/embarrassing information from reaching the public domain, where it belongs.' He

added: 'The important point to grasp here is that if the Crown Office succeeds in un-publishing Salmond's submission then the Inquiry cannot consider it when it comes to finalising

its conclusions. Devious.' Yesterday, Rape Crisis Scotland demanded the Scottish parliament should convene an 'emergency' meeting to rethink the decision to publish Mr

Salmond's submission. Chief executive Sandy Brindley warned it was 'inexplicable' Holyrood chiefs would 'knowingly publish' material which could risk identifying

someone who had complained about Mr Salmond.  Ms Sturgeon is expected to give evidence at the inquiry next week. Alex Salmond's submission to the Harassment Complaints Committee last

night 1 Submission Alex Salmond Introduction This is my fourth submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry. It should be read in addition to, and in conjunction with, the three other previous

submissions. Those prior submissions relate to the application of the procedure (phase 2), the Judicial Review (phase 3) and the Ministerial Code (phase 4). This final document accordingly

includes an introduction and overview of matters linking each of the four individual submissions It thereafter includes submissions on 1. phase 1 of the Inquiry. 2. the question of

'conspiracy' 3. Crown Office Documentary evidence exists to support all of the factual statements made in this submission. I have sought to provide that to the Committee where it

is within my power to do so. Despite repeated requests, however, Crown Office has not provided the Committee with the critical evidence which was unable to be led in the High Court. Perhaps

even more concerning is the direction from Crown Office that I face the prospect of criminal prosecution for even referring to the existence of such evidence or specifying (even in broad

terms) what that evidence is. One of their letters even suggested that the Committee's use of such documentation might also constitute a criminal offence My hope and belief, expressed

outside the High Court in Edinburgh after my acquittal, was that documents which were not put before the jury and the public would be published in the course of this Inquiry. To date, and

despite the centrality of those documents to the remit of this Committee and the overwhelming public interest in their publication, Crown Office continue to veto any such publication under

threat of prosecution. Despite that deplorable prohibition, I can confirm that all of the material factual statements made in this submission are supported by documentary evidence. Where I

am legally allowed to direct the Committee to such documents, I will be happy to do so. Overview The Committee has achieved progress in the volume of documentation supplied. However it has

been fundamentally obstructed in three key areas. First on the legal advice which the Government received from external counsel in the Judicial Review. In normal circumstances the

extraordinary discovery by this Committee that both Senior and Junior Counsel to the Government threatened resignation because the case they were being asked to argue was unstateable would 2

have been headline news. However, despite two parliamentary votes, the full advice from Counsel hasn't been provided to the Committee. It is extraordinary that the Lord Advocate, who

could sanction such advice being published, has refused to do so. The legal provision for him to publish in the public interest is clear. Inexplicably, the Lord Advocate has been able to

simply refuse that request and to get away with doing so in the face of the will of the Committee and of Parliament. Despite that, it appears from what has emerged that by October 2018

external counsel advised the Government that, on the balance of probability, they were heading for likely defeat. And yet, despite that advice and the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds

of avoidable legal fees, the Scottish Government pressed on with a case they expected to lose. This submission explains why. Second the restriction arises as a result of the failure of the

Government to provide documents from when the Judicial Review started in August 2018 until the Scottish Government finally conceded in January 2019. There were 17 meetings with external

Counsel, daily meetings on progress of defending the Judicial Review (according to Paul Cackette, acting Solicitor to the Scottish Government during the case) and thrice weekly meetings

according to Ms Judith Mackinnon, the Investigating Officer. However, the Committee has yet to publish (or to my knowledge see) a single relevant minute, email, text message or 'One

Note' from that entire period relating to those meetings despite being assured that such documents would be provided. Of particular interest to the Committee would be the extent to

which various parties were informed of the progress of the case and in particular whether the Lord Advocate's expressed views on 'sisting' (pausing) the Judicial Review

pending the criminal case were discussed, how widely and with whom. Thirdly, the crown response to the section 23 request has hindered rather than assisted the Committee. The information

provided was neither sought nor publishable by the Committee. Those in Crown Office providing that information must have been well aware of that. However, text messages which could be

properly considered and published and which have been part of the Committee's questioning and would bear directly on the veracity of evidence given under oath to this Committee have

been withheld. The blocking of the Committee in this matter and others is nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the anonymity of complainants, which I support and have upheld at every

stage in this process. Rather, it is a matter of the shielding of some of the most powerful people in the country who are acutely aware of how exposed they would become. The Parliamentary

Committee has already heard evidence of activities by civil servants, special advisers, Ministers and SNP officials which taken individually could be put down to incompetence, albeit on an

epic scale. However taken together, and over such a prolonged period, it becomes impossible to explain such conduct as inadvertent co-incidence. The inescapable conclusion is of a malicious

and concerted attempt to damage my reputation and remove me from public life in Scotland. It is an attempt which would, in fact, have succeeded but for the protection of the court and jury

system and in particular the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary. However, underlying all of this and perhaps the most serious issue of all is the complete breakdown of the

necessary barriers which should exist between 3 Government, political party and indeed the prosecution authorities in any country which abides by the rule of law. In each of the written

submissions under Phases 1-4 of the Inquiry remit I have sought to explore those themes, and identify evidence to assist the Committee in doing its job holding the Executive to account. The

success, or failure, of this Committee in doing so will have a very significant bearing on public confidence in the ability of Parliament more generally to expose failures across Government.

The ramifications of a Committee unable to complete its work due to delay, obstruction and refusal on the part of those under investigation are both profound and chilling. Phase 1 In

relation to Phase 1, I am asked for evidence regarding the development of the policy. I would make the following general comments, on which I will be very happy to expand in oral evidence.

1) Fairness at Work The Committee has heard evidence on the origins of the Fairness at Work Policy 2010 ('FaW'). As First Minister I approved the policy and, in contrast to any

other witnesses before this Inquiry, I was actually involved in its development. Implementation of the policy was achieved with the co-operation of the trade unions and I was pleased to be

the First Minister who sanctioned its adoption. As Appendix 1 from a Management Board meeting of 23 November 2009 makes clear, it was not evolved as a result of specific complaints about

Ministers at the time but reflected long standing trade union grievances about Ministerial Offices stretching back to the days of the Scottish Office. FaW was the first workplace policy to

include Ministers and I approved it on the basis that it was made compatible with the statute based Ministerial Code in which the First Minister is the final decision maker on the fate of a

Minister facing a complaint. This was done by placing the Deputy First Minister in the deliberative part of the policy. The result was that only after a recommendation had been made would

the First Minister finally decide. This was aimed at avoiding him or her judging twice on the same case. The policy was negotiated over a period of 18 months, was carefully constructed,

balanced and lawful. It was well received by all concerned. In the event there were no formal complaints made against any Minister under the policy and thus it was never invoked.

Specifically and to my knowledge the present First Minister was never informed about any complaints against me because there were none. Similarly I was never informed about any complaints

against her or any other Minister under the terms of this policy because there were none. 4 In the evidence of Ms Richards (25th August 2020) she revealed that there have been two complaints

under FaW against current Ministers since 2017. Presumably these will have been dealt with under the FaW provisions including the involvement of John Swinney as Deputy First Minister. This

Committee is charged with finding out what went wrong. It should also look at what can be done now to put matters right. Fairness at Work, of which the Permanent Secretary admitted in her

evidence (in response to Ms Mitchell on 18th August 2020) to 'not being an expert', is in reality a carefully considered policy which is still in operation for the civil service

and for serving Ministers with regard to bullying complaints. The Permanent Secretary's extraordinary claim in the same evidence session that it does not cover harassment can only be a

result of her admitted lack of familiarity with the policy. In reality it covers this explicitly in paragraph 3.2.1. As recently as December 2017 FaW was hailed by the unions in a letter to

the Permanent Secretary as an achievement 'of which we all should rightly be proud and something that sets up as being more assiduous than our counterparts down south' ( FDA

Convener) FaW is legal, not illegal. It is procedurally fair, not unfair. It was carefully considered, not rushed. It achieved the central longstanding workforce ambition of having Ministers

on the same footing as civil service managers. No doubt it can be updated and improved but the current position of limbo is ridiculous. The concept of a civil service investigation into

people over which they have no legitimate jurisdiction is nonsensical and the idea of passing the results to the relevant political party for action is self- evidently ludicrous. If legal

action wasn't taken against the government it would inevitably follow against any political party which attempted to proceed with any form of disciplinary action on such an unlawful

basis. Fairness At Work should be reinstated at the earliest opportunity pending the Dunlop review. 2) The Development of the 2017 Procedure The Committee has already clearly established

that there was no discussion or information presented to either Parliament or Cabinet on the 31st October 2017 of extending work place policies to former Ministers. Nor was there any

suggestion that this should be done in the Head of the Civil Service's letter of 3rd November 2017. And of course it was not carried forward in any other administration in the U.K. and

was opposed by of the UK Cabinet Office when they were briefly consulted on the proposal later in November 2017. As she wryly asked the Scottish Government at that time, was there also to be

such a retrospective policy for former civil servants? Nor was the new policy signalled in any of the internal communications with staff until February 2018. The claim of the Government is

that it came about independently from James Hynd who was tasked with drafting the policy and delivered the first draft applying ONLY [Redacted] [Redacted] 5 to Former Ministers on November

8th 2017. However the previous day Ms McKinnon had circulated a 'routemap' of a policy which also suggested applying to former Ministers. Mr Hynd reacted to that on 8th November

saying that 'neither of the pathways involving Ministers look right'. It is stretching credibility to believe that this radical departure from all previous policy in the Scottish

(or any other) administration was simultaneously and independently dreamed up by two separate civil servants. This is despite Mr Hynd telling the Committee on August 25th 2020 that he

started with 'a blank sheet of paper'. In one of the many letters to the Committee from civil servants correcting their evidence, Ms Mackinnon conceded on October 31 2020 that

these things were 'happening in parallel'. Indeed they were and there was a common factor. That common factor is the Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans whose office was deeply

involved in directing the work of both James Hynd on his policy and Ms Mackinnon on her route map. In addition we know now that Ms Evans went to see the First Minister on November 6th about

her information that Sky News were about to run a story concerning Edinburgh airport. I am now in the position to know exactly what this issue was about and the Permanent Secretary's

fears that it was about to break as a major story were groundless. However in the febrile atmosphere of November 2017 a sense of proportion and due process was in short supply. In reality I

had spent 30 years in public life in Scotland and for most of that time was certainly the most investigated person in the country by the press. It is inherently unlikely that misconduct had

remained unreported and undiscovered over such a period. Mr Murrell confirmed in his evidence to this Committee that he had never heard of any such complaint against me in my entire time in

politics and the First Minister confirmed this on BBC television to Andrew Marr on 7 th October 2018. Regardless, the chronology revealed by the evidence tells us that the Permanent

Secretary briefed the First Minister on 6 th November 2017 on the proposed story involving Edinburgh Airport. Further, the Permanent Secretary was contacted by Barbara Allison about a

separate concern from a former civil servant on November 8th 2017. Having briefed the First Minister on the first of these it might be considered unlikely that she did not brief her on the

second. In that context, the notion that a policy instructed immediately afterwards which specifically, and uniquely, extended to cover allegations against former ministers is co-incidental

and unrelated is hardly sustainable. If further confirmation of the basis for the policy were needed, the Committee has evidence of two directly political interventions at this stage. First,

the Chief of Staff to the First Minister drafted a specific amendment on 17 November 2017 which amended the commissioning letter instructing the policy proposing the wording 'but also

former Ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of Party'. This was in an email to Leslie Evans' Private Secretary. It is impossible to accept that such a

radical expansion of the jurisdiction of the Scottish Government to cover not just former ministers of the current administration but also those of previous administrations (many of whom are

no 6 longer even in elected office never mind in Government) was not specifically inserted to allow the complaint against me to be prosecuted. The second political intervention was when the

First Minister and the Permanent Secretary reached agreement, perhaps at their meeting on November 29th but certainly before December 5th 2017, that the policy should be recast in order

that FM should be taken out of the policy proper and only consulted or even informed after the process was complete. This was a fundamental change in the policy. The timing of this is

significant. When the Permanent Secretary agreed with the First Minister that she should take over as key decision maker in terms of this new policy she was already aware of the developing

complaints against me. Therefore she put herself at the centre of a policy in the full knowledge that I would likely be the first (and perhaps only given the subsequent declaration of

illegality) subject of its implementation. Doing so from a position of already being tainted by bias is an extraordinary decision. Despite her protestations to the contrary the Permanent

Secretary was chiefly responsible for the pursuit of an unlawful policy which has cost the Scottish people millions of pounds. In her letter of 21st June 2018 to Levy and McRae she describes

the policy as 'established by me'. She claimed ownership of it then, but not now. When asked at the Committee she said 'there seems to have come into being a tradition of

calling it my procedure. It is not; it is a Scottish Government procedure and one that has been agreed by Cabinet..' In fact, this procedure was never even seen by Cabinet or

Parliament. It was established by Ms Evans. In her presentations before the Committee, the Permanent Secretary still seems oblivious to the scale of the disaster she has inflicted on all

concerned or the enormity of the misjudgements she has made. The view that she should have resigned on 8th January 2019, the day that Lord Pentland's interlocutor judged the policy Ms

Evans established and the actions taken as 'unlawful', 'unfair' and 'tainted by apparent bias' is widely shared not least by Cabinet Ministers. The damage she

has done to the reputation of the civil service is very significant. In my view, any person conscious of the responsibility of holding high office would have resigned long ago. Instead Ms

Evans' contract was extended. 3) The role of the Investigating Officer As the Committee has already discovered the 'prior contact' of the Investigating Officer with the

complainants was not 'welfare', as was indicated to Parliament, but was specifically contact about emerging complaints, weeks before the policy under which they were to be pursued

was even approved. The Committee has already established that complainants were informed that Ms McKinnon would be appointed the Investigating Officer in early December 2017, 7 long before

complaints were actually made. The Committee has further established that the draft policy was even shared with one complainant for her comment and that Ms Mackinnon was in contact with both

complainants to discuss the basis on which future complaints might be submitted under the policy. Documentation which finally emerged at the Commission and Diligence ordered by the Court of

Session at the end of December 2018 demonstrated that the Government pleadings were false in terms of the nature of this contact. This has been admitted by the Lord Advocate in his evidence

to the Inquiry on 8 th September 2020. Again, such conduct appears to carry no sanction. These are serious matters, especially so for a Government making statements to a public court. For

example the 'OneNote' from Judith McKinnon dated January 9th 2018, and revealed as a result of the Commission process, speaks to 'changing' the position of a reluctant

complainant, the sharing of complaints, and of it 'being better to get the policy finalised and approved before formal complaint comes in' and of not telling the FFM until we are

'ready'. It is this information that was completely at odds with the government pleadings in the Judicial Review and indeed stands in stark contrast with the oral evidence

presented to the Committee. These practices are not just wrong, they are an affront to the principles which underpin workplace and human resources policy across the country. The Committee

has made reference to ACAS guidance at various stages of the Inquiry. How such conduct could even be contemplated by an individual employed at significant public expense and with a string of

HR qualifications remains to be explained. Watching the evidence before the Committee, it is apparent to me that even after having conduct declared illegal in the Court of Session, those at

fault in the civil service still cannot accept the fact that they did something seriously wrong. In reality behaving unlawfully is as serious as it gets for any public servant. The repeated

claim that the terminology somehow changed for the first to the final drafts of the procedure thus causing confusion for those implementing the policy is not just irrelevant (since it is

only the final version that matters) it is also untrue. In fact one of the very few unchanged provisions in the policy as it went through numerous drafts and redrafts between November 8th to

the final iteration on December 20 2017 was that the Senior Officer/ Investigating Officer should have 'no prior involvement'. Nor is it credible that the claim that the need for

impartiality of an investigating officer or equivalent was misunderstood. On the contrary, both James Hynd (10th November 2017) offering 3 names at 'arms length' and Judith

McKinnon (7th November 2017) seeking to engage an 'independent party to investigate' recognised this at an early stage. Whether that person came from the broader civil service or

outside it is secondary. Perceived freedom from bias is an easily understood concept which is well established in common law and in workplace policy. The appointment of Judith McKinnon in

this light was always wrong and is incomprehensible particularly in the 8 face of the fact that she has confirmed before this Committee that the nature of her prior contact with the

complainants was well known and indeed sanctioned among her colleagues and line managers. When the fact of it was discovered by the Government's external Counsel (and even after the

duty of candour was explained to government lawyers by them on November 2nd and then by the court on November 6 th , both 2018) the attempt was still made in pleadings to present it as

'welfare' contact. The documents which demonstrated this to be false had to be extracted from the Government by a Commission and Diligence procedure under the authority of the

court as granted by Lord Pentland. The documents then produced under that procedure emerged despite the Government being willing to certify to the Court that these documents simply did not

exist. That conduct is outrageous for a Government. At the Commission itself, Senior Counsel for the Government (himself blameless for the debacle) felt compelled to apologise to the court

repeatedly as new batches of documents emerged. It is highly probable that had this documentation not been concealed from the court (and from the Governments own counsel) the falsity of the

Government's pleadings would have been avoided. The fact that even after the Government case collapsed, misinformation then appeared in both a press release from the Permanent Secretary

and the First Minister's statement to Parliament of 8th January 2019 speaks to an organisation unable and unwilling to admit the truth even after a catastrophic defeat, the terms of

which they had conceded to the Court of Session. The interests of the complainants I also want to make a submission about the claims by the Scottish Government to have promoted the interests

of the women who raised complaints. That is, on the evidence before the Committee, clearly false. The Permanent Secretary claimed to the Committee that the interests of the complainants

were paramount in the Government thinking. This is very far from the case. The complainants were brought into the process by conduct 'bordering on encouragement' as it was

submitted by my Senior Counsel to Lord Pentland in the Judicial Review The complainants were assured that they would be in control of the process and that any police involvement would be

their choice. This assurance has been stipulated from the earliest origins of the policy (eg Nicola Richards' email to Permanent Secretary of 23 November 2017) and remained in place

until the Permanent Secretary countermanded it in her instruction to Ms Richards to send her decision report to the Crown Agent in August 2018, a move taken against the direct wishes of the

complainants. 9 They were offered the option of making 'anonymous complaints' for which there is no provision in the policy. However, when it came to actually protecting the

anonymity of the complainants through a court order in the Judicial Review in October 2018 the Government was not even represented by Counsel in court. It was, in fact, me who instructed

Counsel to seek that anonymity on the part of the women concerned. The investigation was carried out against the advice of the police who pointed out that the Scottish Government were not

competent to conduct the investigation. This has been made available to the Committee in the police evidence from the Chief Constable. The reports to the Crown Office (instead of the police)

were made against the express wishes of both complainants and in direct conflict with the terms of the policy at paragraph 19. The leak of the story to the Daily Record on August 23 2018

was made with no consideration of the impact on the complainants, impact which the Permanent Secretary described in her evidence as causing considerable distress to all concerned. That, of

course, was in itself in direct contravention of the confidentiality of the process promised to the complainants, and also to me. However, it had been the Permanent Secretary's own

intention, despite police advice to the contrary, to issue a press statement confirming the fact of the complaints on Thursday 23 August 2018. This Committee's remit is to examine the

actions of those in authority. Accordingly the conduct of the Permanent Secretary and the civil servants and special advisers involved is important. To claim, as the Scottish Government has

done, that the wishes and welfare of those who had made complaints were central to the decision making is demonstrably untrue. The leak to the Daily Record In my view, the circumstances of

the leak of the details of the complaints to the Daily Record on 23rd/24th August 2018 should be thoroughly examined. It is highly likely that the leak came from within the Scottish

Government and, in all likelihood, from one of the Special Advisers to the First Minister. The background facts may assist The Permanent Secretary instructed her staff to send her Decision

Report to the Crown Agent on or about August 21st 2018 The Crown Agent, according to the police informed them of the Government's intention to release a story of the fact of the

complaints to the press and the Chief Constable and another senior officer advised against it and refused to accept a copy of the report. We know, therefore, that the desire of the Scottish

Government to get these matters into the public domain is fully supported by evidence. Despite this police advice, two days later the Government informed my legal team they intended to

release a statement at 5pm on Thursday 23 August 2018. We advised 10 that we would interdict the statement pending our Judicial Review petition and the statement was withdrawn. On the

strength of that undertaking, we didn't require to seek interdict. We were then informed at around 4pm that the Daily Record newspaper had phoned the Scottish Government press office

with knowledge of the story but had no confirmation. At 8pm, the Record phoned and then emailed at 8.16pm claiming confirmation had now been given and broke the story at 10pm. The second

story they printed on Saturday 23rd August 2018 contained specific details from the complaints and demonstrates that they also had access to the Permanent Secretary's decision report or

an extract from it. This leak was (according to the ICO) prima facie criminal, deeply damaging to my interests and those of the complainants and a direct contravention of the assurances of

confidentiality given to all. After I formally complained to the ICO, the conclusion of the ICO reviewer assessing these facts was that she was 'sympathetic to the thesis that the leak

came from a Government employee'. The only reason no further action could be taken was because the specific individual could not be identified without police investigation. I intend to

return to that police complaint when this Committee has concluded its review. I should say that I am confident that I know the identity of those involved in the leak. John Somers, The

Principal Private Secretary to the First Minister confirmed that her office had received a copy of the Permanent Secretary's report in evidence on 1st December 2020. However, that

evidence was then corrected to say that it had not been received. However, that is difficult to reconcile with the ICO review report (paragraph 4.8) which list the PPS, and therefore The

Private Office as one of the stakeholders 'who has access to the internal misconduct investigation report'. It is unlikely that a leak to the Daily Record came from mainstream

civil service. The overwhelming likelihood is that it came from a Special Adviser to the First Minister who had access to the report or an extract from it which was the basis of the Daily

Record story of August 25th 2018. The question of 'conspiracy' It has been a matter of considerable public interest whether there was 'a conspiracy'. I have never adopted

the term but note that the Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as 'the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal.' I leave to others the

question of what is, or is not, a conspiracy but am very clear in my position that the evidence supports a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort amongst a range of

individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned. That includes, for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (Chief

Executive), Ian McCann (Compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (Chief Operating Officer) of the SNP together with Liz Lloyd, the First Minister's Chief of Staff. There are others who, for

legal reasons, I am not allowed to name. 11 The most obvious and compelling evidence of such conduct is contained within the material crown office refuses to release. That decision is

frankly disgraceful. Refusing to allow the Committee to see that material both denies me the opportunity to put the full truth before the Committee and the public, and makes it impossible

for the Committee to complete its task on a full sight of the relevant material. The only beneficiaries of that decision to withhold evidence are those involved in conduct designed to damage

(and indeed imprison) me. From a very early stage in the Judicial Review the Government realised that they were at risk of losing. By October they were told by external counsel that on the

balance of probability they would likely lose. This is the legal advice they have hidden from the Committee in defiance of two parliamentary votes. As the Committee has heard in evidence

there were 17 meetings of the Committee formed to monitor and plan the Scottish Government defence of the Judicial Review between August 2018 and January 2019. Paul Cackette in his evidence

said that there were daily meetings while Ms Mackinnon suggested three times a week. Despite this information being offered at the evidence session of 1 st December no information has been

received by the Committee of any of these meetings. I believe there have to be such emails which show the Lord Advocate's advice on the possibilities of sisting (pausing) the Judicial

Review behind the criminal case. The advantage of doing so in a context where the Judicial Review was likely to be lost was clear. Any adverse comment or publicity about the illegality of

the Scottish Government actions would be swept away in the publicity of my arrest and subsequent criminal proceedings. It became common knowledge in government, special advisers and the SNP

that the Judicial Review was in trouble for the Government and the hope was that police action would mean that it never came to court, that the JR would be overtaken by the criminal

investigation. In evidence Ms Allison on 15th September 2020 specifically denied that the Scottish Government had any role in contacting potential witnesses or former civil servants after

the police investigation had started on August 23rd 2018. This is not true. I enclose at appendix 2 a copy of an unsolicited email sent by Ms Allison herself to an ex Scottish Government

employee on August 27th who then received a further unsolicited email from Ms Ruddick of the SNP the following day (appendix 3) The individual concerned, who provided a defence statement,

had never even been a member of the SNP. I believe her contact details were given to Ms Allison by a Government Special Adviser. Another Special Adviser was in contact with the majority of

people who thereafter became complainants in the criminal trial, shortly after the story being leaked to the Daily Record on August 23rd 2018. In his evidence session of 8 February 2021 Mr

Murrell spoke of the letter sent by the FM round all SNP members on 27th August 2018. I pause briefly to note that despite the email reaching 100,000 members, not one complaint about me was

received in response. However, what he did not disclose was the email round SNP staff and ex staff members sent by his Chief Operating Officer from late August 2018 (enclosed as 12 appendix

3). This email was sent selectively. Some staff members were targeted and sent it. Others were not. The recruitment of names to receive this email provoked opposition. Appendix 4 shows the

refusal of a senior member of the SNP administrative team at Westminster to supply names to HQ. The staff member expressed the view that she was not prepared to take part in an obvious

'witch-hunt' which would be incompatible with her professional responsibilities as a lawyer. At Appendix 5 I enclose the terms of an affidavit of the staff member who has agreed to

have it shared with the Committee. What is clear is that even at the time of the initial trawl for potentially supportive individuals, there was profound disquiet about the ethics and

legality of the approach. In addition to advocating the 'pressurising' of the police (those text messages are public and before the Committee), Mr Murrell deployed his senior staff

to recruit and persuade staff and ex staff members to submit police complaints. This activity was being co-ordinated with special advisers and was occurring after the police investigation

had started and after I ceased to be a member of the SNP. From the description of the material released to the Committee under section 23 it is clear that any supporting evidence

establishing this point was not shared with the Committee by the crown office. Why? It was clear that defeat in the Judicial Review would have severe consequences. Cabinet Ministers thought

it should lead to the resignation of the Permanent Secretary. The Special Adviser most associated with the policy believed that her job was in jeopardy and accordingly sought to change press

releases in light of that. The First Minister's team felt threatened by the process as did the civil service. The documentary evidence shows that special advisers were using civil

servants and working with SNP officials in a fishing expedition to recruit potential complainants. This activity was taking place from late August 2018 to January 2019, after the police

investigation had started. The Judicial Review cannot be viewed in isolation. The effect of it, and its likely result of a defeat for the Scottish Government led to the need to escalate

these matters to the police, even if that meant doing so entirely against the wishes of the two women who had raised concerns. The Permanent Secretary's 'we've lost the battle

but not the war' message of January 8th 2019 to Ms Allison whilst on holiday in the Maldives is not (as she tried to claim) a general appeal for equality but rather shows her knowledge

that there were further proceedings to come and her confidence that the criminal procedure would render such a loss in the Court of Session irrelevant. I note in passing, that such language

is, in any event, totally incompatible with the role of a professional civil servant. The Role of the Crown Office The Crown Office has intervened three times to deny this Committee

information for which it has asked. This has been done by reliance on legislation which was never designed to obstruct the work of a Parliamentary Committee acting in the public interest and

investigating 13 the actions of the Scottish Government. I know this to be true because I was First Minister when the legislation was passed in 2010. The true purpose of s. 162 of the

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 was to prevent witness statements falling into the hands of the accused and being used to intimidate or exert retribution on witnesses and

further because of instances of evidence ending up held or disposed of in an insecure fashion. The basis of the legislation was Lord Coulsfield's Report (2007) and the intent was to

clarify the legal requirements of disclosure and to establish practical arrangements to prevent the misuse of disclosure. Thus section 162 (and 163) had nothing whatsoever to do with

preventing relevant evidence being presented to a parliamentary Committee and its misinterpretation as such by the Crown Office is a profoundly disquieting development which strikes at the

heart of the parliamentary system of accountability. On 17th September 2020 the Crown Office said that our proposal to the Committee to identify the existence of documents which had not been

provided by the Government but which had been disclosed to me in the criminal case would be covered by Section 163 of the 2010 Act that 'any person who knowingly uses or discloses

information in contravention of section 162 commits an offence' Just in case we did not get the message he repeated the same point on 3 November 2020. On 17th December 2020 the

Crown's representative went further to block information specifically requested by the Committee 'For you or your client to accede to the request of the clerk to the Committee

would require both the use and disclosure of said information. As such what is proposed would amount to a clear breach of section 162 which, by reference to section 163 would amount to a

criminal offence'. He then appears to suggest that the Committee itself would be in danger of prosecution if we had acceded to the clerk's request. 'Further, any person who

received such information from you or your client would also be in breach of section 162, and consequently section 163, if they use or disclose that information. In these circumstances I do

not consider what is proposed is acceptable' This is a letter from an unelected official citing legislation passed by this Parliament for quite different reasons and using it to deny

information to a Committee of elected parliamentarians. Some of the information we intended to provide included Government documents which should have been provided to the Committee in the

first place. This position is extraordinary and totally unacceptable. Given this attitude to disclosure by the Scottish Government and Crown Office, it becomes highly surprising that when

this Committee exerted section 23 powers to require documents it was given irrelevant information for which it had not asked and could never be published while relevant information remained

undisclosed. It is also clear that Government SPADS were briefing the media on this information before members had even seen it. This is not the behaviour of a prosecution department

independent of government influence. 14 The Lord Advocate said in his evidence on 17th November 2020 that he thought the Committee has seen this correspondence. As far as I am aware this is

not the case Nevertheless, I am happy now to provide that correspondence if the Committee so wishes. In his latest letter of 8th February the Lord Advocate pointedly fails to answer the

specific question from the Committee Convener of 3rd February seeking confirmation that all Government records had been provided. As was glaringly clear from his evidence and his inability

to address the most basic of questions, his denial of provision of the legal advice of external counsel, his costly delay in settling the case, his refusal to confirm what the Committee

eventually found out that both Counsel threatened to resign from the case, the Lord Advocate is deeply compromised between his twin roles as head of prosecutions and chief government legal

adviser. However the matter goes further yet. The Permanent Secretary has confirmed in evidence to the Committee that the referral to the crown office was contrary to the express wishes of

the complainants. In spite of his protestations that he recused himself from anything to do with the criminal investigation. I believe that the Committee should ask the Lord Advocate

directly whether he instructed two unwilling complainants to make police statements. Secondly the Committee has heard of the highly unusual route via the Crown Agent that the Permanent

Secretary ordered her staff, against the wishes of the complainants, to present her report to the Chief Constable. Crown Agent David Harvie's line manager at that time was Leslie Evans,

the Permanent Secretary. The Crown Office under current leadership is a department simply not fit for purpose. Summary The procedure was devised when the Permanent Secretary, as decision

maker, had knowledge of emerging complaints against me. From the outset the Permanent Secretary was compromised and should not have taken on that role. The procedure was unsound not just in

its implementation but in its genesis. It was devised 'at pace', probably with the purpose of progressing complaints against me and certainly without proper care or regard to its

legality or effective consultation with the unions. The documents disclosed to the Committee demonstrate further serious abuses of process by both the Investigating Officer and the Permanent

Secretary. In a further breach of the duty of candour the Government owed to the Court, those documents were not made available at Judicial Review. The Investigating Officer had not just

'prior involvement', but subsequently regular contact with the complainants of a nature and level which was self-evidently inconsistent with that of an impartial official. 15 The

Permanent Secretary who in her own words 'established' the procedure met or spoke to both complainants on multiple occasions (including in mid process) and failed to disclose this

in either the civil or criminal case. The procedure was conceptually flawed and would have collapsed on principle even if it had been properly implemented. It is a retrospective, hybrid

policy, which claims jurisdiction over private citizens who might have no connection whatsoever with the Scottish Government and shows complete confusion between the legitimate roles of

Government and political parties. It is demonstrably unfair. It transgresses the most basic principles of natural justice in not even allowing the person complained about the right to

prepare their own defence. In addition, the Permanent Secretary denied access to civil servants, witness statements or even my diaries until they were pursued in a subject access request.

The Government wasaware at a very early stage that they were at significant risk of defeat in the Judicial Review, and by October 2018 were advised that, on the balance of probabilities,

they were likely to lose. Nevertheless they kept the clock running and the public ended up paying over £600,000 as a result. This information on likely defeat in the JR was communicated to

key decision makers – the Permanent Secretary, First Minster, the Lord Advocate, the Chief of Staff- in meetings with external Counsel through October and November 2018. The interests of

complainants were disregarded by the Government in refusing mediation initially without consultation, being given no consultation whatsoever on the possibility of arbitration, being given

false assurances on the Government accepting their clear view against reporting matters to the police and then sending the report to the Crown Office against their express wishes. The

Government didn't even instruct counsel to attend court for the procedural hearing to address my application to guarantee the anonymity of complainants. The Crown Office has blocked key

information coming to this Inquiry by wilfully misinterpreting legislation designed for other purposes. The Lord Advocate is manifestly conflicted in his roles as both Government legal

adviser and prosecutor. The advice of the Lord Advocate at one stage included, for example, the option of sisting (pausing) the Judicial Review to allow a criminal case to overtake the JR

proceedings. A consequence of this happening would have been to protect the government from the catastrophic damage arising from losing the judicial review and a finding of unlawful conduct.

This prospect provided an incentive and imperative for the recruiting and encouragement of police complaints from others. This was done by the closest advisers to the First Minister and

senior SNP officials actively involving civil servants AFTER the police investigation had started. 16 The Permanent Secretary ordered her decision report to be sent to the Crown Agent, David

Harvie, against the terms of the policy and the wishes of the complainants. At that time I understand that she was his line manager. Against police advice the Permanent Secretary decided to

press release the fact of complaints on Thursday 21st August 2018. That publication was only prevented by threat of legal action by my solicitors. A matter of hours later, there was what

the ICO assessed as a prima facie criminal leak of information including details of complaints to the Daily Record, in breach of my rights of confidentiality, and those of the complainants.

Such action was also contrary to the express assurances of confidentiality offered to all parties and central to such workplace issues. The Judicial Review was only conceded when both

Counsel threatened to resign from the case The policy and actions of the Permanent Secretary and the Government were accepted as and then judged as 'unlawful', 'procedurally

unfair' and 'tainted by apparent bias'. The real cost to the Scottish people runs into many millions of pounds and yet no-one in this entire process has uttered the simple

words which are necessary on occasions to renew and refresh democratic institutions - 'I Resign'. The Committee now has the opportunity to address that position. Rt. Hon. Alex

Salmond 17th February 2021 From: Alex Salmond Sent: 15 February 2021 03:07 To: David McKie ; Duncan Hamilton Subject: APPENDIX 2 From: Date: August 27, 2018 at 7:46:13 AM GMT-5 To: REDACTED

Cc: Subject: Personal Hello (REDACTED) I am not sure if you will remember me. I was Director of People/HR at the time you worked with Scottish Government. I hope that this finds you well.

You may be aware that there has been considerable media coverage here over the past few days in connection with the former First Minister. We are aware that this coverage has been quite

upsetting for some people and we are keen to support in any way we can. Your name and email address has been provided by a current employee at the Scottish Government, noting that you were

someone who worked with Scottish Government previously and they were keen to ensure that you were offered any support you may require. I would be very happy to have a chat by phone or by

email and put you in touch with the various support channels if that would be helpful. Kind regards Barbara BARBARA ALLISON, Director, Communications, Ministerial Support and Facilities

Scottish Government. Tel: Sent from my iPad IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this email is confidential and is for the use of the addressee only. Some or all of the information may be

legally privileged. Any disclosure, use or copying of the information in this email other than by the intended recipient, is prohibited and would be a breach of confidentiality. If you have

received this email in error, please notify the author by replying to this email or telephoning 0141 307 2311. Levy & McRae has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that any email

attachments have been swept for viruses. Accordingly, no liability is accepted for any damage caused as a result of a virus. Please ensure that you carry out appropriate virus checks before

opening any attachments. Unless related to the business of the firm, the opinions expressed within this email are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute those of Levy

& McRae. Levy & McRae is the trading name of Levy & McRae Solicitors LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in Scotland with number SO305445. A list of members is open

to inspection at our office. Our email system is subject to random recording and monitoring by us. [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] Appendix 2 Please be

aware of cyber-crime We will not change bank account details during the course of a transaction. If you are due to transfer money to Levy & McRae and have received an e-mail with the

sort code and account details you should call your Levy & McRae contact to corroborate these details. Please use a phone number from our website or terms of engagement letter and not one

from the same e-mail as contains the bank account details. For other advice on protection from cyber-crime, see the action fraud website - www.actionfraud.org.uk Appendix 3 Appendix 5

Submission by Alex Salmond – Phase 4 – Ministerial Code 1 Submission by Alex Salmond – Phase 4 – Ministerial Code Introduction 1. This is a submission to the Parliamentary Committee under

Phase Four of the Inquiry. This submission is compliant with all legal obligations under the committee's approach to evidence handling and takes full account of the Opinion of Lady

Dorrian in the High Court as published on 16th February 2021. All WhatsApp messages between myself and the First Minister referred to in this submission, have previously been provided to the

Parliamentary Committee by the First Minister and published by the Committee. The Terms of Reference 2. Mr Hamilton, the independent adviser on the Ministerial Code, wrote to me on 8th

September, 29th October, 16th November, 4th and 19th December. I replied on 6th and 17th October, 23rd November and 23rd December. I finally agreed under some protest to make a written

submission. The reason for my concern was that the remit drawn up for Mr Hamilton focuses on whether the First Minister intervened in a civil service process. As I have pointed out to Mr

Hamilton, I know of no provisions in the Ministerial Code which makes it improper for a First Minister to so intervene. 3. To the contrary, intervention by the First Minister in an

apparently unlawful process (subsequently confirmed by the Court of Session) would not constitute a breach precisely because the First Minister is under a duty in clause 2.30 of the

Ministerial Code to avoid such illegality on the part of the Government she leads. 4. Further, to suggest intervention was a breach would be to ignore and contradict the express reliance of

the procedure on the position of the First Minister as the leader of the party to which the former minister was a member in order to administer some unspecified sanction. 5. It will

accordingly be a significant surprise if any breach of the Ministerial Code is found when the terms of reference have been tightly drafted by the Deputy First Minister to focus on that

aspect of the First Minister's conduct. 6. By contrast, I have information which suggests other related breaches of the Ministerial Code which should properly be examined by Mr

Hamilton. I have 2 asked that he undertake that investigation. I have drawn his attention to the apparent parliamentary assurance from the First Minister on 29th October 2020 that there was

no restriction on Mr Hamilton preventing him from doing so. 7. Mr Hamilton has failed to give me a clear response as to whether these related matters relevant to the Ministerial Code, but

outwith the specific remit, are going to be considered. However, in his letter of 4th December he did indicate that he was inclined to the view that such matters could be considered and will

take into account arguments for their inclusion. Since that time I understand members of the Committee have received further assurances. It is on that basis I make this submission. 8. In

doing so, I would note that it does not serve the public interest if the independent process of examination of the Ministerial Code (which I introduced as First Minister) is predetermined,

or seen to be predetermined, by a restrictive remit given by the Deputy First Minister. 9. A restricted investigation would not achieve its purpose of genuine independent determination and

would undermine confidence in what has been a useful innovation in public accountability. 10. I would accordingly urge Mr Hamilton to embrace the independence of his role and the express

assurance given to the Scottish Parliament by the First Minister that he is free to expand the original remit drafted by the Deputy First Minister and to address each of the matters

contained in this submission. Breaches of the Ministerial Code. 11. Beyond the terms of the remit set for Mr Hamilton by the Deputy First Minister, there are other aspects of the conduct of

the First Minister which, in my submission, require scrutiny and determination in relation to breaches of the Ministerial Code. 12. I was contacted by phone on or around 9 March 2018 and

further the following week by Geoff Aberdein, my former Chief of Staff. The purpose of the contact was to tell me about meetings he had held with the First Minister's Chief of Staff,

Liz Lloyd, at her request. 13. In the second of these meetings she had informed him that she was aware of two complaints concerning me under a new complaints process introduced to include

former Ministers. She named one of the complainers to him. At that stage I did not know the identity of the other complainer. 14. On receipt of the letter from the Permanent Secretary first

informing me of complaints on 7th March 2018 I had secured Levy and McRae as my solicitors and Duncan Hamilton, Advocate and Ronnie Clancy QC as my counsel. 15. Even at this early stage we

had identified that there were a range of serious deficiencies in the procedure. There was no public or parliamentary record of it 3 ever being adopted. In addition it contained many aspects

of both procedural unfairness and substantive illegality. There was an obvious and immediate question over the respect to which the Scottish Government even had jurisdiction to consider the

complaints. In relation to former Ministers (in contrast to current Ministers) it offered no opportunity for mediation. The complaints procedure of which I was familiar ('Fairness at

Work') was based on the legislative foundation of the Ministerial Code in which the First Minister was the final decision maker. I wished to bring all of these matters to the attention

of the First Minister. I did not know at that stage the degree of knowledge and involvement in the policy on the part of both the First Minister and her Chief of Staff. 16. Mr Aberdein had

been asked by Ms Lloyd to be her contact with me and they jointly arranged a meeting with the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament on 29th March 2018. This meeting was for the purpose

of discussing the complaints and thereafter arranging a direct meeting between myself and the First Minister. There was never the slightest doubt what the meeting was about. Any suggestion

by the First Minister to the Scottish Parliament (Official Report, 8th October 2020) that the meeting was 'fleeting or opportunistic' is simply untrue. It was agreed on the 29th

March 2018 at the meeting in the Scottish Parliament attended by Mr Aberdein and the First Minister and another individual that the meeting between myself and the First Minister would take

place on 2nd April at her home near Glasgow. Self-evidently only the First Minister could issue that invitation to her private home. 17. In attendance at the meeting on 2nd April 2018 were

Mr Aberdein, Mr Hamilton, Ms Lloyd and myself. The First Minister and I met privately and then there was a general discussion with all five of us. My purpose was to alert the First Minister

to the illegality of the process (not being aware at that time of her involvement in it) and to seek an intervention from the First Minister to secure a mediation process to resolve the

complaints. 18. I was well aware that under the Ministerial Code the First Minister should notify the civil service of the discussion and believed that this would be the point at which she

would make her views known. The First Minister assured us that she would make such an intervention at an appropriate stage. 19. On 23rd April 2018, I phoned the First Minister by arrangement

on WhatsApp to say that a formal offer of mediation was being made via my solicitor to the Permanent Secretary that day. In the event , this offer was declined by the Permanent Secretary,

even before it was put to the complainers. 20. By the end of May, it was becoming clear that the substantial arguments my legal team were making in correspondence against the legality of the

procedure were not having any impact with the Permanent Secretary. My legal team advised that it was impossible properly to defend myself against the complaints under such a flawed

procedure. They advised that a petition for Judicial Review would have excellent prospects of success given the Government were acting 4 unlawfully. However I was extremely reluctant to sue

the Government I once led. I wanted to avoid the damage both to the Scottish Government and the SNP which would inevitably result. To avoid such a drastic step, I resolved to let the First

Minister see the draft petition for Judicial Review. As a lawyer, and as First Minister, I assumed that she would see the legal jeopardy into which the government was drifting. I therefore

sought a further meeting. 21. On 1st June 2018 the First Minister sent me a message which was the opposite of the assurance she had given on the 2nd April 2018 suggesting instead that she

had always said that intervention was 'not the right thing to do'. That was both untrue and disturbing. On 3rd June 2018 I sent her a message on the implications for the Government

in losing a Judicial Review and pointing to her obligation (under the Ministerial Code) to ensure that her administration was acting lawfully and (under the Scotland Act) to ensure that

their actions were compliant with the European Convention. 22. The First Minister and I met in Aberdeen on 7th June 2018 when I asked her to look at the draft Judicial Review Petition. She

did briefly but made it clear she was now disinclined to make any intervention. 23. My desire to avoid damaging and expensive litigation remained. My legal team thereafter offered

arbitration as an alternative to putting the matter before the Court of Session. That proposal was designed to offer a quick and relatively inexpensive means of demonstrating the illegality

of the procedure in a process which guaranteed the confidentiality of the complainers. It would also have demonstrated the illegality of the process in a forum which would be much less

damaging to the Scottish Government than the subsequent public declaration of illegality. I was prepared at that time to engage fully with the procedure in the event my legal advice was

incorrect. In the event, of course, it was robust. I explained the advantages of such an approach to the First Minister in a Whatsapp message of 5th July 2018. 24. At the First

Minister's initiative which I was informed about on the 13th July we met once again at her home in Glasgow at her request, the following day, 14th July 2018. There was no one else at

this meeting. She specifically agreed to correct the impression that had been suggested to my counsel in discussion between our legal representatives that she was opposed to arbitration. I

followed this up with a WhatsApp message on the 16th July 2018. 25. On 18th July 2018 the First Minister phoned me at 13.05 to say that arbitration had been rejected and suggested that this

was on the advice of the Law Officers. She urged me to submit a substantive rebuttal of the specific complaints against me, suggested that the general complaints already answered were of

little consequence and would be dismissed, and then assured me that my submission would be judged fairly. She told me I would receive a letter from the Permanent Secretary offering me

further time to submit such a rebuttal which duly arrived later that day. As it turned out the rebuttal once submitted was given only cursory examination by the Investigating Officer in the

course of a single day and she had already submitted her final report to the Permanent 5 Secretary. My view is now that it was believed that my submission of a rebuttal would weaken the case

for Judicial Review (my involvement in rebutting the substance of the complaints being seen to cure the procedural unfairness) and that the First Ministers phone call of 18th July 2018 and

the Permanent Secretary's letter of the same date suggesting that it was in my 'interests' to submit a substantive response was designed to achieve that. 26. In terms of the

meetings with me, the only breaches of the Ministerial Code are the failure to inform civil servants timeously of the nature of the meetings. 27. My view is that the First Minister should

have informed the Permanent Secretary of the legal risks they were running and ensured a proper examination of the legal position and satisfied herself that her Government were acting

lawfully. 28. Further once the Judicial Review had commenced, and at the very latest by October 31st 2018 the Government and the First Minister knew of legal advice from external counsel

(the First Minister consulted with counsel on 13th November) that on the balance of probability they would lose the Judicial Review and be found to have acted unlawfully. Despite this the

legal action was continued until early January 2019 and was only conceded after both Government external counsel threatened to resign from the case which they considered to be unstateable.

This, on any reading, is contrary to section 2.30 of the Ministerial Code. 29. Most seriously, Parliament has been repeatedly misled on a number of occasions about the nature of the meeting

of 2nd April 2018.  31. In her written submission to the Committee, the First Minister has subsequently admitted to that meeting on 29th March 2018, claiming to have previously

'forgotten' about it. That is, with respect, untenable. The pre-arranged meeting in the Scottish Parliament of 29th March 2018 was 'forgotten' about because acknowledging

it would have rendered ridiculous the claim made by the First Minister in Parliament that it had been believed that the meeting on 2nd 6 April was on SNP Party business (Official Report 8th

& 10th January 2019) and thus held at her private residence. In reality all participants in that meeting were fully aware of what the meeting was about and why it had been arranged. The

meeting took place with a shared understanding of the issues for discussion - the complaints made and the Scottish Government procedure which had been launched. The First Minister's

claim that it was ever thought to be about anything other than the complaints made against me is wholly false. The failure to account for the meeting on 29th March 2018 when making a

statement to Parliament, and thereafter failing to correct that false representation is a further breach of the Ministerial Code. Further, the repeated representation to the Parliament of

the meeting on the 2nd April 2018 as being a 'party' meeting because it proceeded in ignorance of the complaints is false and manifestly untrue. The meeting on 2nd April 2018 was

arranged as a direct consequence of the prior meeting about the complaints held in the Scottish Parliament on 29th March 2018. 32. The First Minister additionally informed Parliament

(Official Report 10th January 2019) that 'I did not know how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint, I did not know how the Scottish Government intended to deal with the

complaint and I did not make any effort to find out how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint or to intervene in how the Scottish Government was dealing with the

complaint.' I would contrast that position with the factual position at paragraphs 18 and 25 above. The First Minister's position on this is simply untrue. She did initially offer

to intervene, in the presence of all those at the First Ministers house on the 2nd April 2018. Moreover, she did engage in following the process of the complaint and indeed reported the

status of that process to me personally. 33. I also believe it should be investigated further in terms of the Ministerial Code, whether the criminal leak of part of the contents of the

Permanent Secretary's Decision report to the Daily Record was sourced from the First Minister's Office. We now know from a statement made by the Daily Record editor that they

received a document. I enclose at Appendix B the summary of the ICO review of the complaint which explains the criminal nature of the leak and the identification of 23 possible staff sources

of the leak given that the ICO Prosecutor has 'sympathy with the hypothesis that the leak came from an employee of the Scottish Government'. My reasoning is as follows. The leak

did not come from me, or anyone representing me. In fact I sought interdict to prevent publication and damage to my reputation. The leak is very unlikely indeed to have come from either of

the two complainers. The Chief Constable, correctly, refused to accept a copy of the report when it was offered to Police Scotland on August 21st 2018 by the Crown Agent. It cannot,

therefore have leaked from Police Scotland. Scottish Government officials had not leaked the fact of an investigation from January when it started. The only additional group of people to

have received such a document, or summary of such a document, in the week prior to publication in the Daily Record was the First Minister's Office 7 as indicated in paragraph 4.8 of the

ICO Prosecutor's Report. In that office, the document would be accessed by the First Minister and her Special Advisers. I would be happy to support this submission in oral evidence. Rt

Hon Alex Salmond 17th February 2021 Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF T. 0303 123 1113 F. 01625 524510 www.ico.org.uk Our ref: CH/IC/0295/2018 Mr David McKie Levy

& McRae Pacific House 70 Wellington Street Glasgow G2 GUA By email only: Dated 28 May 2020 Dear Mr McKie Re: Your Client – Mr A. Salmond/ Your Ref DMK/LL/STE039-0001 1. Introduction 1.1

Further to a request made on behalf of your above client, I have been asked to review a decision made by the Criminal Investigations Team (CRIT) at the ICO to discontinue an investigation

into potential offences under s.170 Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018, in accordance with the Victims Right to Review scheme. 1.2 I am a Solicitor (Prosecutor) based within the Regulatory

Enforcement Team at the ICO. I confirm that I have had no previous dealings with the matter. 1.3 My remit is to consider whether, having investigated the complaint, the decision made by the

investigations team to not investigate further was correct and reasonable. [Redacted] Appendix B 1.4 I have had full access to, and have carefully reviewed, all material gathered and held by

CRIT during the course of their investigations. 1.5 The review concerns the outcome of an investigation into a complaint made under s.165 DPA 2018 on behalf of Mr Salmond to the ICO on the

29 October 2018. 1.6 The complaint pertained to the suspected unlawful obtaining and disclosing of personal data relating to Mr Salmon to the press in August 2018; a potential offence under

s.170 DPA 2018. 1.7 The data was contained within a report relating to the outcome of an internal misconduct investigation, which was leaked to the press on the 23 August 2018 and published

in the Daily Record on 23 and 25 August 2018. 1.8 Furthermore, the fact and content of legal advice from the Lord Advocate to the Scottish Government regarding the allegations made against

Mr Salmond were reported in an article in The Sunday Post published on the 26th August 2018 and again in The Herald on 12 November 2018. 2. Relevant Law 2.1 Under s.170 DPA 2018, it is an

offence to, knowingly or recklessly, obtain, disclose, procure disclosure or retain personal data without the consent of the data controller. 2.2 The information contained in the internal

misconduct report and the legal advice was highly sensitive and personal, in that it related to allegations of misconduct made against Mr Salmond. It would certainly meet the definition of

'personal data' pertaining to a living individual as per s.3(2) DPA 2018. 2.3 It was clear from the events set out in the complaint sent on behalf of Mr Salmond that the personal

data had indeed been obtained and disclosed to the press. 2.4 The ensuing investigation by the ICO was to establish whether any individual could be identified and potentially prosecuted for

the unlawful obtaining and/or disclosing of the data under s.170 DPA 2018. 2.5 The offence of unlawfully obtaining and/or disclosing personal data contrary to s.170 DPA 2018 is an offence

committed against the data controller. In this matter, the personal data contained in the internal misconduct investigation report and in legal advice from the Lord Advocate, belonged to the

Scottish Government (SG). 2.6 The SG was therefore the data controller in accordance with s.3(6) DPA 2018 and the potential complainant in this matter. 2.7 As the data subject under s.3(5)

DPA 2018, Mr Salmond would however also be classed as a 'victim'. Any impact on him resulting from the offence would of course therefore be an important consideration in

ascertaining the level of harm caused by the offence. 2.8 The issue for the investigations team was whether the source of the data leak could be identified, to enable a prosecution to be

brought against the individual responsible under s.170 DPA 2018. 3. Review of the evidence 3.1 In order to identify a suspect, it would be necessary to identify the method of disclosure

used. 3.2 A forensic examination of the IT systems used by the SG was carried out as part of the Data Handling Review conducted by the Data Protection Officer at the SG following the data

leak. 3.3 No evidence was found that data was leaked through email, document sharing or downloading to portable media device. Furthermore, no evidence was found that a third party had

unlawfully accessed the SG's IT systems. 3.4 Without an electronic trail to follow, it was difficult to uncover the method of disclosure used. 3.5 To progress the investigation, a

witness would be needed who would be willing to provide information about the method of disclosure (for example, by hard copy being passed in person) and the identity of the culprit. 3.6 The

Daily Record had declined to provide information as to how or by whom they came by the copy of the report, relying on the journalistic exemption within the DPA 2018, clause 14 of the

Editors Code of Practice and s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. 3.7 23 members of staff were identified as having knowledge of, or involvement in, the internal misconduct enquiry. These

members of staff were interviewed by the Data Protection Officer at the SG as part of their Data Handling Review. The interviews did not disclose any information which would enable a

suspect to be identified. 3.8 In the absence therefore of any further information coming to light, or any witness coming forward, there was insufficient evidence to point to any specific

suspect and to allow the investigation to move forward. 4. Representations on behalf of Mr Salmond 4.1 In addition to all the material provided by the SG, I have also considered the

representations made on behalf of Mr Salmond in previous correspondence with Levy & McRae, in particular the submission that the timing of the leak to the press raises an irresistible

conclusion that the leak came from within the SG. 4.2 The leak came a few hours after the SG had notified their intention to publish a press release and very shortly after Levy & McRae

had given notice of their intention to apply for an interim interdict. The effect of the leak was to defeat the court action because the information was by then in the public domain. 4.3 I

have also considered the statement of Detective Chief Superintendent , helpfully provided by Levy & McRae. The statement confirms that at a meeting on the 21 August 2018, the police were

offered a copy of the internal misconduct investigation report but refused to take it. Furthermore, at that meeting, DCS voiced [Redacted] [Redacted] concerns about the SG making a public

statement about the outcome of their investigations. 4.4 Levy & McRae point to this statement to show that the SG (or an employee thereof) wanted the information to get into the public

domain and to show that the police are highly unlikely to have been the source of the leak. 4.5 The SG sent a proposed press release to Levy & McRae on the 23 August. In response, Levy

& McRae notified the SG of their intention to apply for an interim interdict. The SG responded by confirming that they would not issue the press release in the meantime. Events were then

of course overtaken by the leak of the information to the press and into the public domain. 4.6 I have sympathy with the hypothesis that the leak came from an employee of the SG and agree

that the timing arguably could raise such an inference. It was still necessary to identify a suspect. 4.7 The interviews with the relevant staff members didn't provide any leads however

and no other person had come forward volunteering information. 4.8 There remains the possibility that the leak came from elsewhere. The list of stakeholders who had access to the internal

misconduct investigation report includes the original complainants, the QC, the First Minister's Principal Private Secretary, the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service and Mr

Salmond and Levy & McRae, as well as the relevant staff members of the SG. 4.9 The list of stakeholders who had access to the legal advice provided by the Lord Advocate during the

misconduct investigation included staff within the Lord Advocate's office, the Permanent Secretary's Office and officials in the SG's Legal Directorate. 4.10 Following

investigation, there was no evidence to identify any specific individual within these lists, or any member of staff working for anybody within these lists, as a potential suspect. 5. Review

of decision by CRIT 5.1 As investigators, CRIT must have regard to the provisions of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996, specifically s.23(1) Code of Practice Part II. 5.2

Point 3.5 provides that the investigator shall pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry. CRIT have a duty therefore to investigate data complaints to an appropriate extent. 5.3 During this

investigation, it is clear that CRIT gathered extensive information from the SG, seeking further information and clarification where needed. 5.4 The result was no suspect could be identified

from the evidence collated and the decision was taken that the investigation could not be progressed without further information coming to light. 5.5 I am satisfied that the complaint had

been investigated to an appropriate extent, with all reasonable avenues of inquiry considered and/or pursued. 5.6 When deciding whether to proceed to prosecute in any case, I am required to

apply the two stage test prescribed by the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Crown Prosecution Service. 5.7 The first stage is to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to

provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Without a suspect, there is simply no realistic prospect of conviction because there is nobody to prosecute and/or convict. I do not therefore

even reach the second stage of the test, which is to consider whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute. 5.8 I am satisfied that in the absence of any suspect, the decision to

discontinue the investigation was correct and reasonable in all the circumstances. 5.9 If further information comes to light, for example if a witness comes forward, then I have no doubt

that the matter would be properly revisited. At the present time, however, I am satisfied that there are no grounds to re-instate the investigation. Yours sincerely, Solicitor (Prosecutor)

[Redacted] James Hamilton Independent Adviser on the Scottish Ministerial Code c/o E: Alex Salmond, c/o Levy & McRae Pacific House 70 Wellington St Glasgow G26UA 8 September 2020 Dear Mr

Salmond, SCOTTISH MINISTERIAL CODE: FIRST MINISTER'S SELF-REFERRAL As you may know, I have been appointed as the independent adviser to consider the First Minister's self-referral

under the Ministerial Code. I attach a copy of the Parliamentary answer which sets out the remit for the referral. My purpose in writing is to seek your cooperation in my enquiries, and to

request from you a range of information to assist me in preparing my report. I would be grateful if you would supply me with a general statement about your actions and involvement in the

matters covered by my remit. This should include, but not be limited to: an indication of what were the intentions that lay behind your actions and, in particular, the series of contacts

that you had with the First Minister; and, any other information that would assist me in my considerations. In addition to a general statement, I would welcome your response to a series of

specific questions as follows: 1. Details of all contacts you, or anyone representing you, had with the First Minister or any civil servant or special advisor between 16 January 2018, when

the first complaint was made under the Scottish Government's Procedure for the Handling of Harassment Complaints involving Current or Former Ministers, and 18 July 2018, when a second

telephone conversation took place, which, according to the First Minister, was the last contact between the First Minister and yourself. Could you also provide details of the purpose of your

communication with the First Minister? [Redacted] Appendix C EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN MR ALEX SALMOND AND MR JAMES HAMILTON 1. Mr Salmond to Mr Hamilton 31st December 2020 Dear

Correspondence for Mr Hamilton Please see attached correspondence, submission and two appendices for the attention of Mr James Hamilton. Please confirm receipt and thank you for your

assistance. Best wishes for 2021 Yours for Scotland Alex Salmond 2. Mr Hamilton to Mr Salmond 19th December 2020 Dear Mr. Salmond, Further to my letter of 7 December 2020, I repeat my

enquiry whether you are prepared to provide a written statement to help me with my investigation. It would be very helpful to have a written statement from you, with as much information as

you feel able to provide, setting out your responses to the questions included in previous correspondence. [Redacted] Appendix D As you are aware the Ministerial Code provides that the First

Minister may refer matters to the independent advisers to provide her with advice on which to base her judgment about any action required in respect of Ministerial conduct. The First

Minister has made such a referral to me on foot of which I have sought written statements from all the persons whom I have identified as likely to have evidence relevant to that remit. I

have now received written statements from every person whom I have so identified except you. As you are also aware I have no power to compel any person to cooperate with me. That being so I

must formulate my advice on the evidence and information which is available to me. I also consider that the First Minister is entitled to expect that I will do so in a reasonably expeditious

manner. I therefore now intend to complete my consideration of written statements as soon as possible. In order for any statement from you to form part of that consideration I will need to

receive it without delay. If you do intend to make a statement I would appreciate it if you could let me know when I might expect to receive it, otherwise I shall assume that you have

decided not to become involved in this process. Yours sincerely, James Hamilton 3. Mr Hamilton to Mr Salmond Dated 4th December 2020 but emailed on 7th December 2020 Dear Mr. Salmond Thank

you for your letter of 23 November sent via email to . I consider it necessary in order for me to fulfil my remit that I obtain a full understanding of what was the purpose of the meetings

between you and the First Minister and what occurred at them. Your evidence is therefore of great importance to me. I am prepared to consider any arguments you may wish to advance about the

scope of my remit. However, until I know what evidence you wish to give it would be premature for me to form a decided opinion on whether the remit should be extended or, in the event that I

accepted the case for an extension, on how I should then proceed. My inclination is to think that in the case of matters which form part of, or are closely related to, the subject matter of

the remit it could be open to me to consider whether any provisions of the Ministerial Code other than those mentioned expressly in the remit had been broken. However, that situation is

distinct from broadening the factual scope of the inquiry. I am, of course, prepared to consider any arguments you may wish to make before coming to a final conclusion on this point.

Although the procedure for an inquiry by an independent advisor under the Ministerial Code is a relatively informal one the rules of natural justice apply including in particular my

obligation to hear both sides of any question which arises for determination. This, in my opinion, extends not only to the [Redacted] consideration of evidence but also to any questions

which may arise as to the scope of the remit. It follows that if a question arises as to whether a particular matter can be regarded as falling within the scope of the remit or, if it does

not, whether that scope ought to be expanded, it would be wrong of me to take a decided view on those issues based solely on your submissions without also giving the First Minister an

opportunity to comment on them. I would therefore suggest that you let me see your proposed evidence as soon as possible, together with any observations you may wish to make about the scope

of the remit. If necessary I will then seek the First Minister's observations before I decide how I should deal with the matter. Finally, with regard to your suggestion that there was a

'criminal leak' to a newspaper I have no function to investigate crimes which should be reported to the proper authorities. Yours sincerely, James Hamilton 4. Mr Salmond to Mr

Hamilton 23rd November 2020 Dear Mr Hamilton Thank you for your letter of 29th October. I apologise for the delay in replying, but I had assumed that it had crossed with the exchange in the

Scottish Parliament, detailed below, of that same date. To that end, I was awaiting a follow up letter from you, confirming that indeed your remit was not 'limited to one aspect of the

Ministerial Code'; • Oliver Mundell (Dumfriesshire) (Con): Will the First Minister agree to expand the ministerial code investigation to include her statements to Parliament and her

actions on the legal advice regarding the judicial review into Alex Salmond's alleged behaviour? • The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon): My view right now is that James Hamilton, who is

the adviser undertaking the investigation into the ministerial code, is not restricted at all in the issues that he can look at. If he thinks that there are any issues that engage the

ministerial code or could in any way constitute a breach of the ministerial code, my view is that he is free to look at them. If he considers that that requires any change to his official

remit, I am sure that he is perfectly able to say that. However, for the record and to be clear, I do not consider his remit to be limited to just one aspect of the ministerial code. You

will have noted that this parliamentary exchange seems at odds with your letter, which suggests that you are restricted to answering the 'questions asked in the referral'. You

state; 'As you are aware the remit of the referral was set out by the Deputy First Minister in a PQ response to the Scottish Parliament made on 6 August 2020. Considering that the

principal matter I am asked to consider concerns an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code in the First Minister's failure to record contacts with you it seems entirely logical to ask

the question whether the First Minister was in fact involved in any way in the Scottish Government investigation. In seeking to answer the questions asked in the referral I will of course

have to consider any relevant surrounding circumstances.' As detailed in my previous letter, I know of no aspect of the Ministerial Code which prevents a First Minister intervening in a

process, not least one which was found by the Court of Session to be 'unlawful', and as one consequence of which said process is currently being examined by the SGHHC Committee of

the Scottish Parliament. As I understand it, not intervening to ensure Government is not acting unlawfully when there is a danger that this might be the case, could be considered a breach

in terms of the Ministerial Code. Non-intervention in this matter is relevant to the period covering spring and summer of 2018, and in the autumn, this extended to agreeing with or

permitting the Permanent Secretary to disregard external legal advice on the Government's prospects of success in the Judicial Review. This was further compounded by Parliamentary

statements on repeated occasions, which have been questioned by MSPs as misleading, most pertinently in relation to the timing of when the First Minister first knew of the investigation and

the explanation that the 2nd April meeting was held in the First Minister's private home because she thought it was a matter of party business. There is, of course, the further question

of the criminal leak of protected information to the Daily Record newspaper on 23/24th August 2018 and what, if anything, was the First Minster's state of awareness of the

circumstances and the potential involvement of her staff in same. When I established the independent procedure for referral of purported First Ministerial breaches of the Ministerial Code,

it was an innovation and one carried through in good faith. I appointed people of outstanding calibre, such as yourself as independent advisors, so that no-one could suggest that any

referrals were being 'fixed' either by the civil service or the Government. It would be disappointing if this is now being done by the Deputy First Minister, by virtue of confining

your terms of referral. I look forward to your confirmation that your remit is not 'limited to just one aspect of the Ministerial code'. On that basis I will submit the evidence

for which you have asked. Two final matters. Firstly, I enclose the letter from the Crown Office which you requested. As you will note, it threatens prosecution if I were to reveal to the

Parliamentary Committee (and presumably to yourself) documents which were disclosed in the course of the criminal case. Secondly, I confirm that the record of Whatapp messages between the

First Minster and myself from 5 November 2017 to 20 July 2018 supplied to the Parliamentary Committee by the First Minister and published on their website is correct. There is however, one

exception. I look forward to hearing from you Yours sincerely Rt Hon Alex Salmond [Redacted] 5. Mr Hamilton to Mr Salmond Dated 29th October 2020 but emailed on 16th November 2020 29 October

2020 Dear Mr. Salmond, As I set out in my letter dated 29 October, I am in the process of considering written submissions in relation to the matters referred to me by the First Minister as

independent adviser in relation to the Ministerial Code and considering what additional information I may need to gather. I have now received written submissions from all the principal

persons whom I believe may have relevant evidence except for you. I would hope to be able to consider any written submission you might wish to provide as part of that process. It would

therefore be helpful to me if you could indicate whether you intend to provide a written submission and if so when it might be available. Yours sincerely, James Hamilton 6. Mr Hamilton to Mr

Salmond 29th October 2020 Dear Mr. Salmond, Thank you for your emails of 6th October and 17th October asking various clarification questions about the work I am undertaking. I apologize for

the delay in acknowledging your first email, and for the delay in providing a substantive response. Your correspondence raised a number of significant questions which I wanted to give full

consideration to. Regarding the first point, I note what you say about representing yourself. I will, of course, have no control over what you put in your submissions. I can confirm that I

will do my best to ensure that nothing in my report will be in breach of any applicable court orders. In relation to your second point, thank you for drawing my attention to the two court

interlocutors attached to your letter. I will have regard to these when conducting my investigation. I would indeed appreciate receiving a copy of the letter from the Crown Office which you

refer to. Again, as I have just stated, I will do my best to ensure that nothing in my report will be in breach of any applicable court orders. On the third point, as you will know, James

Hynd's role as head of Cabinet Secretariat includes supporting Ministers in matters relating to the Ministerial Code. On that basis, Mr. Hynd supported the Deputy First Minister in

establishing the referral I have been asked to undertake. Mr. Hynd has stepped away from the process and has been appointed as Head of Secretariat Support to support my work as I require. I

can confirm therefore that James Hynd will not play any role in relation to the day to day conduct of the inquiry or in the finalisation of my report and any recommendations that I may make.

I note your comment concerning my remit. As you are aware the remit of the referral was set out by the Deputy First Minister in a PQ response to the Scottish Parliament made on 6 August

2020. Considering that the principal matter I am asked to [Redacted] [Redacted] consider concerns an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code in the First Minister's failure to record

contacts with you it seems entirely logical to ask the question whether the First Minister was in fact involved in any way in the Scottish Government investigation. In seeking to answer the

questions asked in the referral I will of course have to consider any relevant surrounding circumstances. In relation to the issues raised in your second email, I can confirm that any

response to my enquiries relating to the factual matters I am asked to enquire into will be used in the compilation of the report. I have not yet decided fully on the format of the report

but any reply to such enquiries will be liable to be published with the exception of material which cannot be made public as a result of court orders or for other legal reasons. I have set

out various matters relevant to your questions in my recent correspondence with the Parliamentary committee. https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/ James Hamilton.pdf

With regard to incidental queries it would not be my intention to publish them as a matter of routine and it would be my preferred option to make no comment pending the completion of my

enquiries. However, I am concerned not to favour or be perceived to favour any particular interested party in the matter and therefore if I were asked questions concerning contacts between

interested parties and me I might well think it proper or necessary in the public interest and in particular in the interests of transparency to give a full reply. For that reason I cannot

exclude the possibility that any correspondence between us might at some stage be published. I hope this answers your questions. As you know, I am currently in the process of considering

written submissions and what additional information I may need to gather. It would be helpful if you were able to indicate when you would be able to offer a written submission. James

Hamilton 7. Mr Salmond to Mr Hamilton 17th October 2020 Mr James Hamilton Independent Adviser on The Scottish Ministerial Code. 17th October 2020 Dear Mr Hamilton Further to my letter of 8th

October I await an answer to the questions posed or an acknowledgement of the email. Could you ask your staff to provide this? I am now in receipt of several press queries on whether I have

been in communication with you. My practice with the Parliamentary Committee has been to 'no comment' but draw attention to the publication of correspondence. However, I doubt

that it is your intention to publish correspondence and therefore I would wish your guidance on how to reply to these questions. On which subject I enclose a letter which my lawyers sent to

the Parliamentary Committee on 14th October, which is clearly relevant to your remit, however it be defined. Yours sincerely The Rt Hon Alex Salmond Appendix 1 Dear WhatsApp Messages between

Mr Salmond and First Minister Thank you for your email of 13th October. These are the additional messages we referred to in our letter of 27th November which were omitted from the First

Minster's earlier submission. Apparently as a consequence of our informing the Committee of this omission, the First Minister has already read them out on live Sky News television in an

interview with Sophy Ridge on October 11th without seeking our client's permission to release his data. In these circumstances he considers that it would be perverse for him to object

to them being seen and published by your Committee. However, we make the assumption that you only intend to publish material relevant to the Committee's remit. The message of 5th

November 2017 is the First Minister initiating contact over a Sky News press inquiry while the message on 6th November was the First Minister wishing to speak further after an approach on

the same subject from the [Redacted] Permanent Secretary. These are at least arguably relevant to the Inquiry and he is content that they are published. The first two messages of 9th

November concern the First Minister's objections to the launch of our clients TV Show that day on RT (as confirmed by her on Sky News) and are therefore not relevant to your enquiry and

should not be published. However the third message of 9th November beginning 'Ps' is a direct reference to her earlier messages of 5th November and should be published. Our

client's message to the First Minister of 10th November is a continuation of our client's disagreement with the First Minister over the television show and a reference to the then

bid for the Scotsman newspaper. As such it should not be published. In addition, in our letter of 27th September we raised the question of the reasons for the redaction of the name of the

person who had relayed the message from the First Minister that she wished to meet our client for a third time on this issue. You explained that it was the First Minister had redacted this

information from our client's message of 13th July 2018 at 11.01am. Since it was our client's message, we are aware of no legal reason for this redaction; it seems highly relevant

to your deliberations and our client is content to see the message published in full. Can you please clarify the reason for redaction with the Scottish Government? Our client is content to

provide a copy of the unredacted message. However, we will leave the final decision on publication to your Committee. However we would ask that this information is shared with Committee

members. As we previously noted for completeness our client has a record of a missed call from the First Minister to our client at 13.05 on the 18th July. Our client hopes that this is

helpful. Yours sincerely David McKie Partner 8. Mr Salmond to Mr Hamilton 6th October 2020 Mr James Hamilton Independent Adviser on the Scottish Ministerial Code 6th October 2020 Dear Mr

Hamilton, Thank you for your letter of 8th September. I do indeed have information which will be of assistance to your enquiries and am happy to assist you if I can. However I would like to

accept your offer of clarification on your request and ask first for answers to the following points; Firstly, I am prepared to represent myself in presenting you with evidence. I am a

private individual and simply cannot afford to hire further legal representation as my lawyers are fully occupied dealing with the Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry. Vast sums of public funds

have already been expended by Scottish Government officials in legal representation in this process. I am also informed that other witnesses are relying on their political party to finance

their legal representation. I will represent myself and am therefore in no position to accept responsibility as to whether my submissions are in line with legal requirements as you suggest

in your letter. That will require to be your responsibility and I will be grateful if you could now confirm this. Secondly, on a related point, the remit drawn by the Deputy First Minister

refers to the anonymity orders drawn up by the 'court in the criminal proceedings'. I would draw your attention to the rather more relevant ruling of Lord Woolman in the civil

proceedings of 8th October 2018. This was sought by my counsel and as I recall the Scottish Government were not even represented by counsel at that hearing. Also relevant would be the

interlocutor of Lord Pentland of January 8th 2019 after concession of the Judicial Review, where certain Scottish Government documents were reduced by the Court as the product of an unlawful

process. For ease of reference I have copied you both of these court interlocutors. Please confirm that you shall not be relying on, or accepting into evidence, said unlawful documents as

any part of your enquiries. You may also be aware that my solicitors have been informed by letter from the Crown Office that if they present or even describe to the Parliamentary Committee

information gained in disclosure in the criminal proceedings they will be liable to prosecution. I am happy to provide you with this letter if you wish. Please confirm if this threat applies

to your enquiry because there are indeed relevant documents under this restriction. However, given that much of this documentation was obtained by Crown search warrant from the Scottish

Government it would be open for the Government to supply you with it. Your difficulty is that you do not know what it is and I am currently debarred from informing you. Thirdly, I understand

from the Parliamentary Committee hearings in answer to a question from Ms Jackie Baillie that the civil servant who has been allocated responsibility for leading support for your enquiry is

Mr James Hynd. However Mr Hynd was himself deeply involved in the Scottish Government's unlawful complaints procedure. Indeed he claimed under oath at both the Commission which was

required as part of the Judicial Review in December 2018 and in front of the Parliamentary Committee last month to be the original author of the policy. I do not dispute Mr Hynd's

personal integrity although I note he was forced to write to the Committee to correct an impression he had unwittingly given about me in his evidence. However, please clarify his status and

position in your enquiry given his prior involvement in this matter. Fourthly, the remit given to your investigation by the Deputy First Minister lays a surprising stress on whether she

interfered in the Scottish Government investigation. It might even be suspected that this remit has been set up as a straw man to knock down. There is no general bar on Ministers intervening

in a civil service process of which I am aware and indeed there are occasions when Ministers are actually required by the code to intervene to correct civil service behaviour. What I wish

to know is whether matters which, by contrast, are specified in the Ministerial code such as the primary responsibility of not misleading Parliament (contrary to 1.3 (c) of the code), such

as the failure to act on legal advice suggesting the Government was at risk of behaving unlawful (contrary to 2.30 of the code), and such as the Ministerial failure to ensure civil servants

gave truthful information to parliament (contrary to 1.3 (e) of the code) will have at least equal status in your deliberations or are you confined to the political remit which you have been

set? If your enquiry has been confined by Ministers then please tell me if you have the authority to expand that remit unilaterally? If not, will you seek the authority of those in the

Scottish Government who set the remit to expand it into these, and other, areas? Finally since the Parliamentary Committee has demanded full transparency and expressed an interest in your

deliberations I have copied them into this email. As I am answering your enquires personally please direct all future correspondence to me directly at . Yours faithfully The Rt Hon Alex

Salmond [Redacted] Nicola SturgeonAlex Salmond