Alex Salmond Inquiry - Lord Advocate Statement, 2 Mar 2021

Описание: I have watched the eight hours, (less the breaks), of grueling questioning of the FM. I've also watched many additional hours of the Parliamentary Inquiry by the CSGHHC & my understanding is:

The only part the SNP government played in all of this was to:
1) commission the Civil Service to update the Fairness at Work policy after the Me Too movement revelations

2) order inquiries into:
a) what led to the conceding of the Judicial Review
b) FM code of conduct

The FM is accused of TWO things
1) misleading parliament about appointments/meetings with Alex Salmond
2) not acting on legal advice that led to taxpayers money being lost on the Judicial Review.

Both accusations are being investigated thoroughly by either the cross-party committee, who are looking into why 'the government' lost the Judicial Review or by James Hamilton QC, who is specifically looking into the claims of the FM breaching the Ministerial Code.

Of course the evidence given to the committee by the Permanent Secretary, Lesley Evans, (Civil Service), wasn't high profile news & neither was the evidence from the Investigating Officer, Judith MacKinnon, (Civil Service); Perhaps they should have been.

I think there's more smoke than any fire could reasonably justify.

Much of the smoke appears to be generated around the lack of disclosure of documents & unanswered questions but little detail of the reasons for this are reported & opposition parties are making huge amounts of hay out of that lack of clarity:

1) the government legal advice is privileged - as is the case for all governments.

2) the court order, made by an independent Judge, to protect the complainants identity

3) the combination of 1&2

4) the committee has been able to see much of the undisclosed material but is prevented from publishing or discussing it in public.

5) James Hamilton QC is able to view ALL & ANY information because his investigation is conducted in private & his judgement will be published when concluded.

6) the most recent plumes of smoke are equally disproportionate to the sparks that generated them:

a) the Spectator publication & the Redactions on the same article published on Parliament website ... It was the cross-party SPCB that made the decision to redact NOT the SNP.

b) the '100 unanswered questions' were either:
i) irrelevant to the committee remit
ii) meant breaching the court order
iii) required the FM to make assumptions on events or conversations she had no direct knowledge of.

Judicial Review:
1) Government law officers appeared determined to carry on (Crown Office)
2) Lord Advocate - “no question of conceding”
3) 22 Dec “watershed moment” case unstateable - (government legal Counsel).
1, 2 & 3 not SNP

FM breaching of the Ministerial Code - Mostly a different independent inquiry being conducted in private by James Hamilton QC which will be published when its concluded.

I don't think the FM mislead parliament because:

1) she told them about the contact she had with Alex Salmond.

2) not remembering the details of the 29 March is plausible given it was essentially the making of an appointment & not much more than relaying the importance & urgency.

3) the 'corroboration' of Geoff Aberdein's recollection was not actually corroboration because they were not there. They retold what Aberdein told them had been said.

So who to believe? Alex Salmond's former Chief of Staff or the FM.

Of course, as the FM said many times during the eight hours of questioning, ask the other person who was in the room in a private session rather than relying on hearsay.

4) MSPs asked when she first 'knew' about the 'complaints' made against Alex Salmond.
She may well have known there was an investigation without knowing anything about the complaints before 2 April.

I'm not sure it even matters tbh because the FM had no part in:
1) updating the Fairness at Work policy beyond the Cabinet commissioning it.
2) the investigation
3) producing the final report by the Permanent Secretary, (Civil Servant), leading to the Judicial Review & criminal case.

I'm not hopeful that CSGHHC conclusions will be of any practical use to anyone or fulfill their remit.

They mostly appear to be making politically bias points & electioneering rather than uncover:
1) errors made in the updating of the policy
2) poor application of the policy in the investigation
3) lack of scrutiny before compiling the final report.

More likely to get a fair & coherent conclusion from the independent inquiry by James Hamilton QC into the claims that the FM breached the Ministerial Code.

I'm not surprised though that so many people think as they do, given the appalling reporting of it in the mainstream media.

The main problem appears to be that people think that when the mainstream media say 'the government' they mean the SNP. They don't. They mean the wider government machine - Which includes Civil Servants, staff & advisers; Something the mainstream media appear to be happy to not clarify.