Sturgeon’s near 50 conversations with Alex between April and July 2018 are evidence of her inability to delegate to Evans the authority to investigate the allegations so she contented her ego and passed on the responsibility whilst retaining overall control.
In her written submission to the Holyrood Inquiry Sturgeon finally admitted to the meeting on 29 March 2018, claiming to have previously “forgotten” about it. The pre-arranged meeting in the Scottish Parliament of 29 March 2018 was ‘forgotten’ about because acknowledging it would have rendered ridiculous Sturgeon’s later claim in Parliament that she believed that the meeting on 02 April 2018 at her private residence was SNP Party business.The attendance of Liz Lloyd, in her formal capacity as Chief of Staff proves this was not true. The meeting exclusively discussed Government business.
Sturgeon also told the Holyrood Inquiry that prior to meeting with Alex at her private residence on 02 April 2017 she did not know the Scottish Government was dealing with complaints, she did not know how the Scottish Government intended to deal with the complaints and she had not made any effort to find out how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaints or to intervene in how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaints and she first learned of the complaints against Alex when he visited her home on 02 April 2018.
Sturgeon’s assertion that the meeting on 29 March 2018 was ‘fleeting or opportunistic’ was untrue. The evidence from Aberdein was that he was told of the allegations in early March 2018 by Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff, liz Lloyd, who arranged a meeting between Aberdein and Sturgeon on 29 March 2018 to discuss matters arising. At the meeting it was agreed Sturgeon would meet with Alex at her private residence on 02 April 2018……… Self-evidently only Sturgeon could issue an invitation to her private home.
In reality therefore all participants to the meeting of 02 April 2018 were fully aware of what the meeting was about, why it had been arranged and what was to be gained from a shared understanding of the allegations and the scope of the new Scottish Government procedure.
Sturgeon’s claim that it was ever thought to be about anything other than the allegations made against Alex is wholly false. And, in the presence the other participants she did promise to intervene and put an end to the investigation at the appropriate time.
Moreover she pledged to engage in and closely monitor the progress of the allegations and report the status of that progress to Alex personally over the following months.
Murrell’s evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry suppports the view that the meeting was official Government business. He said: ” Nicola met Alex at our private residence in Glasgow on 02 April 2018. She said she couldn’t discuss the details. I didn’t press the matter only found out what the meeting was about four months later.” His revelation surprised the Holyrood Inquiry since they had tacitly accepted Sturgeon’s assertion that she had agreed to meet Alex in her home in her capacity as SNP leader, rather than on government business, raising questions about why Murrell, as the Party’s Chief Executive, had not been invited to participate in the meeting.
22 April 2018: 20:31: Alex to Sturgeon: “it would be help if I could call you on WhatsApp 10.30am and 12 noon tomorrow.”
22 April 2018: 21:05: Sturgeon to Alex: “I’ll be in the car until 1100 on way to Inverness so 10.30 will be ok. I’ll not be free again after that until 12.30/1300. There will be others in car so I’ll not be able to talk openly…it’ll be later in day before I can be in private.”
22 April 2018: 22:03: Alex to Sturgeon: “In which case I will Phone just after 10.30am with update and we can perhaps speak properly later on.”
23 April 2018: Alex to Sturgeon: “My legal team has writtten to Evans seeking to resolve matters through mediation We believe her responses to date are unacceptable and her judgements flawed in law.”
Sturgeon’s recollection: Alex sent me a message on 22 April 2018 asking to speak to me by phone. As previously advised to Parliament, I spoke to him by phone on 23 April (the substantive call took place early evening after a call in the morning had to be aborted due to poor signal). He asked me if I would make the Permanent Secretary aware that I knew about the investigation and encourage her to accept his request for mediation. I said that I was not willing to do so. A special adviser was in the room with me during this call, though not on the line.
24 April 2018: Evans responded rejecting the offer of mediation as the investigation “is still in the fact finding stage” stating that, as such, mediation would “not be appropriate at this time.” The letter reiterated that, if Alex was planning to make a substantive response, he should do so by 25 April 2018.
25 April 2018: Alex wrote to Evans stating that a response would be provided the following day.
26 April 2018: Alex wrote to Evans about the rejection of the offer of mediation and asked for clarification as to what stage the procedure was at in light of her comment that it was in the fact-finding stage. The letter raised a number of issues with the procedure and information supplied to date and noted that he disputed “most of the factual content of the allegations”. An offer of mediation was made for a second time.
26 April 2018: Strongly worded letter from Alec’s legal team to Evans indicating discontent with her approach and seeking clarification of a number of issues that need to be resolved before Alex participates any further.
27 April 2018: MacKinnon wrote to Ms B. A letter was received last night (26 April from Alex Salmond, via his solicitor). A reply will be issued next week after further consideration. The letter included specific responses to some of the incidents raised but not all of them. A number of individuals have been identified as witnesses for interview – not currently employed by the Scottish Government. There is also a suggestion that the names of current civil servants could be provided as witnesses, but assurance around confidentiality is sought. Overall, the position is that most of the factual content of the causes for concern is disputed. He denies that he ever harassed any civil servant. The fairness of the procedure is also disputed.
Alec Salmond’s solicitors have repeated their offer of mediation. Mediation is an informal way in which to try to resolve a dispute between parties. It would be helpful to know if this is something you would be prepared to engage with, at any stage. I can’t provide much more information on what might be involved or what a successful outcome might look like as we don’t have any detail of this. It is proposed that it might involve Alex Salmond, a mediator and you talking in an informal session about the complaint. Mediation would not replace the formal process, but any outcome could be referred to by the Permanent Secretary in her final decisions. Whatever your decision, we would provide the appropriate support for you. If you could consider, perhaps over the weekend, and let me know early next week – that would be helpful. The reply will set out intended timelines for the next stage, which I will share with you once they have been confirmed. In the meantime take care. Best wishes Judith “
30 April 2018: Evans secretary, wrote to Alex noting that the offer of mediation had been put to the complainers and that they had declined it. The letter further stated that Alex’s substantive response of 26 April 2018 would be passed to MacKinnon for her consideration. Evans defended the retrospective nature of the procedure.
30 April 2018: Alec’s legal team exchanged correspondence with Evans explaining the unfairness of the procedure which failed to provide the accused with full details of the charges together with witness statements The process credibility was further challenged with the unacceptable protocol allowing the Investigating Officer total authority over who should be called as a witness then deciding what questions would be asked of them.
02 May 2018: MacKinnon updated Richards as to the progress of the investigation.
08 May 2018: Alex wrote to Evans raising issues around the procedural unfairness and incompetency of the procedure. The letter listed information which had not been made available to him including statements from the complainers and witnesses and Ministerial diary entries.
10 May 2018: Mackinnon as Investigating Officer, contacted witnesses provided by Alex.
15 May 2018: Evans office contacted MacKinnon for an update on the investigation. The response stated that statements from witnesses proposed by Alex should be complete by 25 May 2018.
30 May 2018: MacKinnon sent an email update to Evans office and to Richards stating that two witness statements had been taken. MacKinnon had set a final deadline of 6 June 2018 for another witness to make a statement and said that if a statement could not be taken by then she would proceed without his evidence.
31 May 2018: It was becoming clear that the substantial arguments Alex’s legal team were making in correspondence against the legality of the procedure were not having any impact with Evans.
The team advised Alex that it was impossible to defend himself 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 unlawfully. Alex was extremely reluctant to sue the Government he once led and he wanted to avoid the damage both to the Scottish Government and the SNP which would inevitably result. To avoid such a drastic step, he resolved to let Sturgeon view the draft petition for Judicial Review. As a lawyer, and as First Minister, he assumed that she would see the legal jeopardy into which the government was drifting. He also sought a further meeting.
31 May 2018: 11:24: Alex to Sturgeon: “In Glasgow tomorrow – could we meet?”
31 May 2018: 11:39: “Sturgeon to Alex: “Tomorrow’s very difficult – is it urgent?”
31 May 2018: 11:45: “Alex to Sturgeon: “Next few days. I could do tomorrow evening or Monday from lunchtime onwards.”
31 May 2018: 11:46: ” Sturgeon to Alex: “The only time I could possibly do tomorrow is around 4. Is it about what we spoke about before?”
31 May 2018: 11:56: Alex to Sturgeon: “Yes”
31 May 2018: 11:56: Alex to Sturgeon: “4 is fine – same place?”
31 May 2018: 17:07: Sturgeon to Alex: ” Tomorrow is actually proving tricky given other stuff I’ve got on. I’m trying to juggle a couple of things – will confirm later/in morning if 4pm possible and if not suggest alternative.”
31 May 2018: 19:23: Alex to Sturgeon: “I suggest just two of us – I can leave you with some material to digest over weekend Meeting itself need not take long but tomorrow would be best if poss.”
01 June 2018: 07:51: Sturgeon to Alex: “Sorry but I just can’t do today – I don’t have time to get home given other stuff. Happy to speak on phone over weekend and see what else is possible.”
01 June 2018: 09:36: Alex to Sturgeon: “Phone not appropriate – there is material you need to see and assess privately. Can I come to you Sunday or very first thing Monday?”
01 June 2018: 13:37: Sturgeon to Alex: “I’m not at home at weekend and in Aberdeen on Monday. In any event, I’d prefer a quick chat first to understand the purpose of giving me material. We’ve already spoken about why I think me intervening is not right thing to do. Happy to talk on what’s app at some point over weekend.”
03 June 2018: 10:15: Alex to Sturgeon: “My recollection of our Monday 2 April 2018 meeting is rather different. You wanted to assist but then decided against an intervention to help resolve the position amicably. Now is different. I was intending to give you sight of the petition for JR drafted by senior counsel. You are a lawyer and can judge for yourself the prospects of success which I am advised are excellent. This will follow ANY adverse finding against me by the PS in a process which is unlawful. You are perfectly entitled to intervene if it is brought to your attention that there is a risk of your Government acting unlawfully in a process of which you had no knowledge. Indeed it could be argued that is your obligation under the Scotland Act is to ensure that all government actions are consistent with Convention undertakings The JR will be rough for me since the hearing will almost certainly be made public but at least I will have the opportunity to clear my name and good prospects of doing so – but for the Government? One further thing to consider. Thus far we have been able to confine evidence offered to the general (and mostly ridiculous) matters. This has had the benefit of keeping everything well clear of current administration. When we go to Court we will have to produce evidence to demonstrate prior process (which incidentally Evans has admitted!). If you want to discuss privately then I can come to you in the North East on Monday.”
Sturgeon’s recollection: In her statement to the Hoyrood Inquiry she said: Alex sent me a further message on 3 June 2018. Both the tone and content of this message led me to conclude that legal action by Alex against the Scottish Government was a serious prospect. I decided that I should make Evans aware of this, and I wrote to her on 06 June 2018.
At this juncture, it may be helpful to briefly set out for the Committee why I had not previously informed Leslie Evans of my contact with Alex Salmond or my knowledge of the investigation. The relevant sections of the Ministerial Code (4.22 and 4.23) seek to guard against undisclosed outside influence on decisions that Ministers are involved in. It seemed to me that this was the opposite situation. This was a decision I was excluded from and it seemed to me that the risk of inadvertently and unintentionally influencing it would arise if those undertaking the investigation were aware of my knowledge of it. The risk even if theoretical and subconscious would be that considerations of what I might think would influence the decisions taken. Further, according to my reading of these sections of the Code, my contact with Alex Salmond once notified would have had to be made public. This could have compromised the confidentiality of the process. My judgment, therefore, was that the best way to protect the process was not to make my knowledge of it known. This judgment changed when I had reason to believe that legal action against the government was being considered.
05 June 2018: Alex wrote to Evans, to “consolidate objections to the proceedings as a whole”. The letter was passed to MacKinnon on 11 June 2018.
05 June 2018: 14:02: Sturgeon to Alex: “Hi – I have been considering your message and what I need to do in light of it. If you still want to meet, I can do tomorrow evening in Edinburgh and update you then.”
05 June 2018: 19:24: Alex to Sturgeon: “Happy to meet – soonest I can get to Edinburgh is around 8.30. I take it this is totally informal, one to one.”
05 June 2018 19:40: “Sturgeon to Alex: “Ok – happy for it to be one to one – will have to be either parliament or Bute, whatever you prefer. The alternative if its easier is Aberdeen on Thursday night – I’ll be there from around 8, staying in hotel somewhere near beach ballroom I think.”
05 June 2018: 20:08: Alex to Sturgeon: “Yes Thursday much better, thanks. I’ll be there for 8.30 to give you time to settle in.”
05 June 2018: 20:12: Sturgeon to Alex: “Ok. It’s the Hilton hotel at the beach.”
05 June 2018: 20:17: Alex to Sturgeon: “Grand”
07 June 2018: 19:00: Sturgeon to Alex: ” You should go to the Platinum reception at the back of hotel later. There’s a private room arranged there for us to meet in.”
07 June 2018: 19:07: Alex to Sturgeon: “OK thanks. Traffic was bad but now well on the way. Should arrive c 8.40 and will give 5 minute warning on approach.”
07 June 2018: 19:09: Sturgeon to Alex: “I’m running late too – but should be there just
before you.”
07 June 2018: 19:14: Alex to Sturgeon: “OK shall we make it 8.50 so we are not rushing”
07 June 2018: 19:25: Sturgeon to Alex: “I’m ok for as soon as you get there.”
07 June 2018: 19:36: Alex to Sturgeon: “Grand”
07 June 2018: 20:46: Sturgeon to Alex: “Now in Aberdeen 5 minutes or so.”
13 June 2018: Alex wrote to Evans seeking assurances of confidentiality, stating specifically that sharing details with Sturgeon would be a breach of confidentiality. The letter also restated his position that Evans, had “no jurisdiction to apply the 2017 procedure.”
18 June 2018: The Scottish Government received a FOI request specifically asking if there had been complaints about Alex’s conduct. The deadline for response to the FOI request was noted as 16 July 2018. See reply dated 20 September 2018
19 June 2018: Alex offered lawyer-to-lawyer discussions by email to Evans office. This was rejected. The offer was made again on 21 June 2018 and was rejected with a note that “since a formal process is underway it is best if you continue to make representations direct to Evans”.
20 June 2018: MacKinnon drafted a summary of “Where we are now…” The document contained notes in relation to the FOI which had been received.
21 June 2018: Evans wrote to Alex (responding to his letters of 5 and 13 June 2018). The letter stated that the she remained satisfied that the procedure is “fair and legally competent”. The letter also noted that the Scottish Government “continues to take all reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation” but noted that “an absolute guarantee of confidentiality” could not be given because of the Government’s statutory obligations “including those in relation to Parliament and Freedom of Information legislation.”
26 June 2018: Alex wrote to Evans offering arbitration as a means to address the dispute on the issue of “competency and illegality” of the procedure. Clarification was also asked around what was meant by statutory duties in relation to not giving a guarantee of confidentiality. An exemption in FOI legislation was highlighted.
04 July 2018: Evans responded to Alex stating that she remained satisfied that the procedure is “fair and competent” and rejected the offer of arbitration. Alex was also advised of the receipt of a FOI request.
05 July 2018: 21:18: Alex to Sturgeon: “Nicola. I have slept on the content of the latest letter from Evans rejecting arbitration. Two points. I want to make to you privately. Firstly, the explanation given in the letter is that arbitration is rejected because the SG is confident in the legality of the process. With respect, that entirely misses the point. The SG may well believe it is lawful. My Senior Counsel believes it is unlawful. That’s the whole point of the arbitration. The legality will have to be resolved either in private (in a confidential and binding arbitration) or in public at the Court of Session.
The SG, and you, have everything to gain from arbitration. If my legal advice is wrong, I will accept that and the current process proceeds. If the SG legal advice is wrong, you discover that without losing in a public court. Adopting an arbitration process also guarantees confidentiality for the complainers, regardless of what happens. Secondly, Evans has now intimated that an FOI has been submitted. The SG response to that request is of the utmost importance. Confirmation of even the existence of a specific complaint will be sufficient to start a process which leads to the near certainty of these matters becoming public.
My legal advice is that a “neither confirm or deny” response which avoids acknowledging the existence of any documents can be issued under section 18 of the FOI Act which covers S38 (1) (b) {personal information}. It is critical
that this happens. There remains a way to resolve this but it requires the PS to be encouraged to accept that confidential arbitration offers the best solution and to ensure that the FOI is carefully handled. I hope you will do so but time is now very short.”
09 July 2018: Alex wrote to Evans seeking confirmation that an exemption would be applied under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and that material would not be released. The letter also renewed the offer of arbitration.
11 July 2018: Alex wrote to Evans covering the offer of arbitration as well as raising a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 2018, for access to diaries relating to his period in office.
12 July 2018: Evans responded to Alex’s letters of 09 and 11 July 2018 rejecting the offer of arbitration stating that the Scottish Government was not in a position to confirm how it would deal with the FOI request. The letter also noted that Mackinnon “is concluding her investigation and is likely to submit her final report Evans by close of business on Monday
13 July 2018: Alex wrote to Evans on the matter of arbitration stating that it was not intended to cover “the substance of the causes of concern” but the dispute on “competency and illegality.’
13 July 2018: 11:01: Alex to Sturgeon: “Grateful for your message via ??. Happy to meet privately. Understand you are away from Monday so given developments presumably this weekend best? I have material which it is important for you to see. I will happily come to you.”
13 July 2018: 11:22: Sturgeon to Alex: “I’m supposedly on leave from Monday but not going away – I’ll be at home so could do next week if that’s easier (except Thursday/Friday). Weekend is a bit busy with one thing and another – late tomorrow
afternoon probably only time that works. Let me know what you prefer.”
13 July 2018: 14:03: Alex to Sturgeon: “Great – can we make it tomorrow late afternoon then – I am just rearranging something and will confirm asap.”
13 July 2018: 15:13: Alex to Sturgeon: “Tomorrow confirmed for late afternoon. – give me your best time and place. Thanks.”
13 July 2018: 15:56: Sturgeon to Alex: “It’ll have to be my house – I should be home by 4 so that’s best time. Just so you know, I have to go out again around 6.”
13 July 2018: 15:58: Alex to Sturgeon: “4 it is then.”
13 July 2018: 15:59: Sturgeon to Alex: “Ok”
14 July 2018: 15:45: Alex to Sturgeon: “Ten minutes away.”
14 Jul 2018: Alex met with Sturgeon at her home in Glasgow. There was no one else at this meeting. Sturgeon’s recollection of the meeting: The next contact between Mr Salmond and I was on 13 July 2018, which led to our third and final meeting being arranged for 14 July 2018 at my home. By this time, I was again 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. It was clear at the meeting that he was still seeking a process of arbitration around his concerns about the procedure. He had formed a belief that it was me who was blocking arbitration. I told him that was not the case and I was not involved in the decision. I also suggested to him that given their seriousness, he should engage on the substance of the complaints and not just focus on procedure
15 July 2018: 22:42: Alex to Sturgeon: “Many thanks for making the time yesterday. I am grateful that you will correct the impression being given that you are against arbitration or that it is somehow against your interests. I know that you need to reflect further on how to progress things beyond that and am not blind to the difficulty of legal advice being suspicious of arbitration. I am genuinely at a loss as to what the downside is for anyone, complainers, SG or me or you. The reasons given to date have been meaningless or more recently just a misrepresentation of your position. If there are good legal reasons then surely they can be set out for you/us. I will wait to hear how you are able to proceed. I am also giving much thought to your advice and thinking deeply about how arbitration on process might open up the space and opportunity to
address and resolve the underlying matters, as far as is possible, to everyone’s satisfaction.”
16 July 2018.” Letter from Evans to Alex providing him with information requested under a subject access request on 11 July 2018.
16 July 2018: 14:57: Alex to Sturgeon: “Message content redacted by the Parliament on basis of legal professional privilege of Alex Salmond.
16 July 2018: Sturgeon told the Holyrood Inquiry that she had told Evans of her 14 July 2018 meeting with Alex and the subsequent messages. She also made her aware of Alex’s belief that she was blocking arbitration. Given the risk of legal action, she did not want any suggestion that an opinion attributed to me (which I hadn’t expressed) was influencing decisions I had no part in. She reiterated to Evans that she must reach whatever decisions she considered appropriate.
18 July 2018: Evans wrote to Mr Callum Anderson Levy and McRae
“Thank you for your recent letters, in which you have raised your concern about the fairness of the Scottish Government Procedure. I want, first of all, to assure your client that I am approaching these important issues with the greatest of care and with an open mind. It remains the view of the Scottish Government that our Procedure is fair and legally sound. We have ensured from the outset that your client had every opportunity to provide a statement of his recollection of the events described in the “causes for concern” set out in my letter of 7 March 2018.
We granted a number of extensions to the initial deadline for such a statement to be provided. Your client was also offered the opportunity to speak to the Investigating Officer directly but he declined to do so. Your client has chosen not to provide a substantive response to the complaints made by Ms A and Ms B (causes for concern A – I) although he has made clear his denial that any harassment took place.
Your letter of 26 April 2018 included quotations “in short none of the allegations are admitted” and “I categorically deny that I have ever harassed any civil servant”. Although you continue to express concern about the overall fairness and legality of the Procedure your letter of 26 April 2018 did include a substantive response to causes for concern J – K.
That letter also identified 5 witnesses to be interviewed – limited to those causes for concern only. Contact information for those witnesses was provided by you on 8 May 2018. Witnesses were interviewed by the Investigating Officer and their statements were finally agreed by all parties by 28 June 2018 after a number of postponements and delays.
You have proposed arbitration in relation to the Procedure and explained why you consider it to be appropriate. The Scottish Government has explained in previous letters and in exchanges between legal representatives why we do not agree. However, for completeness and to ensure our position is understood we make the following points. First, we consider that we have given your client a fair opportunity to address the complaints, and that the procedure which we have followed is a fair one.
We do not consider that arbitration would be appropriate to the circumstances. This is an investigation of serious complaints made by civil servants involving a former Minister. Submitting the process to an external decision maker would not be appropriate. As the decision maker, I have to balance a range of interests, and to ensure a Procedure which is fair both to your client and to the complainers.
Arbitration of the SG process would not involve the complainers. As decision maker I have a duty to bring the investigation to a conclusion as efficiently and timeously as possible.
Arbitration would cause unavoidable further delay. However tightly a remit were drawn, it seems unlikely that it would be possible to separate the procedural points which you have raised from issues of substance or content in a way which would allow those procedural concerns to be addressed.
Your client has provided a substantive response to causes for concern J – K. However, it remains my view that his interests and those of the investigation as a whole would best be served by him providing a substantive response to each of the causes for concern – and it is a matter of regret that he has chosen not to do so.
Consequently I am offering your client, even at this late stage, a final opportunity to provide any further representations about the complaints made by Ms A and Ms B. Given the time that has elapsed since first notifying your client of the investigation you must confirm if your client wishes to take up this opportunity no later than 11 am on 19
July 2018.
Any further representations must be received by 3 pm on Friday, 20 July 2018 if they are to form part of my consideration. Should your client choose not to take up this final opportunity I shall proceed to consider the report on the basis of the information he has already provided and will write to you again to inform you of the outcome.
18 July 2018: 20:52: Alex to Sturgeon: “As you see the time allowed is tomorrow at 1100 hours.
18 July 2018: 1305: Sturgeon telephoned Alex at 13.05 hours to say that arbitration had been rejected and suggested that this was on the advice of the Law Officers. She urged him to submit a substantive rebuttal of the specific complaints against him and suggested that the general complaints already answered were of little consequence and would be dismissed, and then assured him that his submission would be judged fairly. She told him he would receive a letter from Evans offering him 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 MacKinnon in the course of a single day and she had already submitted her final report to the Permanent Secretary. Alex’s view was that it was believed that his submission of a rebuttal would weaken the case for Judicial Review (his involvement in rebutting the substance of the complaints being seen to cure the procedural unfairness) and that Sturgeon’s phone call of 18th July 2018 and Evans letter of the same date suggesting that it was in his ‘interests’ to submit a substantive response was designed to achieve just that. Nasty and unbecoming of senior officers of Government.
19 July 2018: Alex responded to Evans letter of 18 July 2018 stating that he would make further representations about the complaints by 1500 hours on 20 July 2018.
18 July 2018: MacKinnon advised Ms A that the final report was with Evans for decision. Note: The report comprised 212 pages, and the annex 8 pages.
20 July 2018: 22:37: Alex to Sturgeon: ” A full rebuttal of all complaints went in by the deadline today. Let us see how it is judged.”
20 July 2018: Alex wrote again to Evans making observations on the Scottish Government’s position on arbitration and on the unfairness of the process to date. A statement on concerns A to I was also attached.
22 July 2018: MacKinnon submitted her final report to Evans. Reduced to: 49 pages
23 July 2018: Ms A and Ms B were contacted to seek their response to Alex’s statement attached to his letter of 20 July 2018.
The full story, as I have it at 22 April 2023 can be found here:
caltonjock 
Leave a comment