Days of Infamy – Parts 1 to 5 – Sturgeon and her Stonewall obsessed Civil Servants had the hots for Getting Rid of Alec Salmond From Politics, Regardless of the £2.6 Million Cost to the Taxpayer

31 October 2017: The Cabinet of the Scottish Government provided its civil servants with a “commission” – a formal instruction – which was recorded in the Cabinet minutes under the heading of “Sexual Harassment” as follows:

“While there is no suggestion that the current arrangements were ineffective, the First Minister asked the Permanent Secretary to undertake a review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes to ensure they are fit for purpose.”

Comment: Sturgeon concluded that the “procedures” in place were effective. Why ask for them to be reviewed? In any event the “procedures” apply to all UK civil servants and as such changes are not remitted to the Scottish Government.

If the Permanent Secretary concluded that policies and procedures were unfit for purpose it was incumbent on her to inform the Cabinet Secretary in London and advise the First Minister of any proposals for procedural changes.

Hynd, who complied the first and subsequent drafts of a “new” and unique procedure did consult with the “Cabinet Office” and was told not to proceed with the matter which required a UK approach and as such it was being addressed in London. But he was apparently instructed to bash on regardless.

There was no mention of retrospective investigations of former ministers, perhaps because there was no legal precedence that would allow it. The recourse open to an aggrieved person wishing to pursue allegations of sexual harassment against a former employee of the Government or a minister was through the police.

The First Minster stated she was guided in her actions by the Ministerial Code, which states:

“It is for the First Minister to judge the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers and by implication ex-Ministers. It is for the First Minister to decide whether there has been a breach of standards. Where the First Minister decides that there has been such a breach, it is for the First Minister to decide what the consequences for the Minister (ex) are to be.

Very explicit!!! No need for any new retrospective procedure Investigations of alleged misconduct against Ministers are to be reported to the First Minister who decides the course of action to be taken.”

The Opening Skirmishes

31 October 2017: Ann Harvey, principal assistant to the chief whip at the SNP’s Westminster Group received 16 text messages, throughout the day, some from SNP HQ, to her private number, fishing for information which could be damaging if used against Alex Salmond.

Many specifically asked for confirmation that Sue Ruddick (a personal friend and ex colleague of Ann) had been physically assaulted by Alex while they were campaigning together during the 2008 General Election campaign. Ann’s answer was a categorical rebuttal, Alec had never physically assaulted Sue Riddick. What’s up? Someone was after getting to Alex even before the Civil Service got involved in drafting procedures providing the means to pursue long extinct and unsubstantiated allegations.

Note: In August 2018 (10 years after the alleged incident). Ruddick reported a common assault by Alex, against her to the police. The police investigated but said there was insufficient corroborative evidence to charge Alec. But details of the long dead unsupported allegations were added to a report to the Crown Office and Procurator fiscal. But they all count!!!! when the time is right!!!!!!!!“

31 October 2017: That day the First Minister instructed the Permanent Secretary to “review” procedures. This was clearly a significant and an integral part of the early skirmishing attacks on the character of Alec Salmond.

31 October 2017: In the course of the day David Clegg constantly pestered his contacts in Holyrood seeking to ascertain, without success if any complaints about harassment had been made about Alex Salmond during his tenure as First Minister. Clegg had been alerted, probably by someone in the group pestering Ann Harvey in Westminster that Alec was being accused of assaulting Sue Ruddick.

A leap forward – At the beginning of August 2020 Swinney contracted James Hamilton to independently investigate past events to determine if Sturgeon had breached the Ministerial Code at any time. The remit for the investigation was decided by Swinney.

The remit for the referral is to:

Review any relevant documentation relating to the meetings and discussions listed. Interview any Minister or official of the Scottish Government, including Special Advisers, who may have any knowledge of the facts and content of the meetings and discussions, to assess whether the Ministerial Code is engaged and, if so, whether the terms of the Code have been complied with.

Interview any relevant person out with the Scottish Government, including the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, who may have information relating to the facts and content of the meetings and discussions.

Determine if there is any evidence that the First Minister attempted to use information discussed during those meetings and discussions to influence the conduct of the investigation being undertaken by the Permanent Secretary into allegations made against Mr Salmond under the Procedure.

Note: Alec Salmond’s legal team lodged complaints that the remit was unnecessarily constricted and designed to limit the activities of the independent investigator. Hamilton responded saying he would fully investigate matters without regard to the Swinney remit but events proved disproved this. He adhered to the Swinney remit!!!!

James Hamilton Observations

The remit for the self-referral to me by the First Minister under the Scottish Ministerial Code was set out by the Deputy First Minister, Mr John Swinney, in a reply to a parliamentary question in the Scottish Parliament.

“It has been alleged that the First Minister breached the Scottish Ministerial Code in that she failed to feed back the basic facts of meetings and discussions she and her Chief of Staff held with Alex Salmond, as required by sections 4.22 and 4.23 of the Code. The meetings and discussions in question took place on:

29 March 2018 – A meeting in Holyrood between Ms Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein, former Chief of Staff to Mr Salmond, Scottish Parliament.

2 April 2018 – A meeting with Alec Salmond on the evening of 2 April 2018 at the First Minister’s home. Mr Aberdein and Ms Lloyd were present as well as Mr Duncan Hamilton who was acting as a legal adviser to Mr Salmond.

23 April 2018 – A telephone conversation between the First
Minister and Mr Salmond.

23 April 2018- A second telephone conversation between the
First Minister and Mr Salmond.

7 June 2018 – A meeting between the First Minister and Mr Salmond during the Scottish National Party Conference which took place in Aberdeen.

14 July 2018 – A third meeting between the First Minister and
Mr Salmond which took place at the First Minister’s home.

18 July 2018 – A final telephone conversation between the First Minister and Mr Salmond.

It is has been (sic) further suggested that, in light of those meetings, the First Minister may have attempted to influence the conduct of the investigation then being undertaken by the Permanent Secretary into allegations made against Mr Salmond under the Procedure for Handling of Harassment Complaints involving Current or Former Ministers (“the Procedure”).

The Scottish Ministerial Code- The key relevant extracts from the Code are:

1.6. Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Ministerial Code and for justifying their actions to Parliament and the public. The First Minister is, however, the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and of the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. Although the First Minister will not expect to comment on every matter which could conceivably be brought to his or her attention, Ministers can only remain in office for so long as they retain the First Minister’s confidence.

1.7. Where he or she deems it appropriate, the First Minister may refer matters to independent advisers on the Ministerial Code to provide him or her with advice on which to base his or her judgement about any action required in respect of Ministerial conduct. The findings of the independent advisers will be published.

Note: Sturgeon studiously avoided a course of action which was available to her. No need for a new untested and illegal procedure. The conduct of Ministers is for their fellow Ministers to decide on. There is no provision in the Ministerial Code that would permit the involvement of civil servants in any investigations concerning Ministers.

Provide the Deputy First Minister with a report setting out the findings and conclusions with regard to:

i. whether the Ministerial Code is engaged regarding the meetings and discussions;

ii. whether there has been any breach of the Code and the nature of any such breach; and

iii. if a breach has occurred, advice on the appropriate remedy or sanction.

The Independent Adviser is further invited to consider and offer views on whether the Ministerial Code might need revision to reflect the terms of the Procedure and the strict limitations it places on the involvement of the First Minister in cases which fall to be considered under the Procedure.

Timing

The Independent Adviser is invited to commence the investigation and submit a report as soon as possible.”

In accordance with the remit I sought and received written observations from persons who included the following:

The First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon; the former First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond; the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, Ms Leslie Evans; Ms Liz Lloyd, Chief of Staff to the First Minister; Mr Geoffrey Aberdein, formerly Chief of Staff to the former First Minister;
Mr Duncan Hamilton, Mr Kevin Pringle, Mr David Clegg, Mr Stuart Nicolson, Ms Lorraine Kay and Mr Peter Murrell.

All of these witnesses gave me full cooperation and answered follow-up questions where necessary although I had no power to compel any person to cooperate with the investigation. I carried out follow-up interviews with a number of the witnesses where I considered clarifications were required.

A briefing statement was issued by the Scottish Government to Mr Hamilton providing an explanation of the circumstances that the First Minister considered necessitated a procedure providing opportunity to retrospectively investigate allegations of misconduct by Ministers no longer in the employ of the Government.

It stated that not long after a cabinet meeting on 31 October 2017 a response document had been compiled by civil servant’s for the attention of the First Minister.

It included reasoning of the motive behind the First Minister’s instruction for the policy review, stating that:- “The Scottish Government is a diverse and inclusive organisation and tackling bullying and harassment, sits at the heart of its organisational strategy.”

A 2016 staff questionnaire indicated that a minority of staff (10%) said they had experienced bullying or harassment, the very low number of formal complaints suggested a possible lack of awareness of or confidence in existing processes and procedures. Surely a rebuttable assumption.

This led to the appointment in spring 2017 of a Director to champion at work with a remit to tackle bullying and harassment within the organisation.

The outcome was to gain an understanding of and address cultures which allowed bullying and harassment to occur and to raise awareness about the drivers for positive and inclusive cultures across the organisation.

At around this time a wider societal focus on sexual harassment and sexual abuse had been increasing, and in early October 2017 reactions to sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein brought widespread exposure of the Government to the #Me Too movement, which was seeking to tackle sexual harassment and abuse by making the scale of the problem clear.

A number of allegations of sexual harassment and assault were also reported in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament during October and November 2017. These were a matter of considerable concern across both Governments and Parliaments, as well as among individual MSPs, and the public at large.

The review process also identified a gap in the then existing procedure for dealing with historic sexual harassment claims against against former Ministers. A gap described in the response document as follows:-

Following the identification of a gap in the overall framework, work was put in hand to determine the most effective way to fill it. As a result, Scottish Government officials began work on the development of a new procedure that could be applied in respect of former Ministers.

The first version of the procedure was created on 7 November 2017. This was the beginning of an iterative and collaborative drafting process.

In the course of the drafting of that procedure it was decided to broaden its scope to include serving Ministers so that there would be a single procedure that could be applied in respect of harassment complaints involving Ministers, whether current or former. This was also consistent with existing plans to review the existing well tested “Fairness at Work” policy that had been in place for a number of years.

Later, following a view from the First Minister and Permanent Secretary, the procedure was amended to cover all forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment.

4 November 2017, during the review process, a Scottish Government
Minister resigned his Ministerial post, following allegations made from outside the Scottish Government about his personal conduct.

This example reinforced for the Scottish Government the importance of making sure that it had policies and procedures in place which were capable of responding appropriately to such allegations should they arise within the Scottish Government.

Following the perception of a gap in the overall framework, work was put in hand to determine the most effective way to fill it. Scottish Government officials began work on the development of a new procedure that could be applied in respect of former Ministers.

The first version of the procedure, created on 7 November, was the beginning of an iterative and collaborative drafting process. In the course of which it was decided to broaden its scope to include serving Ministers7 so that there would be a single procedure that could be applied in respect of harassment complaints involving Ministers, whether current or former.

This approach was also consistent with existing plans to review the successful “Fairness at Work” policy. Later, following the personal intervention of the First Minister and Permanent Secretary, the procedure was amended to cover all forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment.

Note: A long winded explanatory briefing concocted with the purpose of justifying the unjustifiable. The “Ministerial Code” provides the remedies available to the First Minister for dealing with Minister’s that fail in their post for any reason. Simply twaddle designed to confuse the public.

Indeed Sturgeon defended the Minister who resigned his post stating his resignation had been hasty and unnecessary before changing her mind later on. But her first comments proved to be succinct since it emerged later that he had been the victim of a campaign of disinformation perpetrated by a colleague. I exposed details of the incident in another article.

The Introduction and Implementation of the Retrospective Procedure

It appears that its drafters did not consider that there might be any legal obstacle to applying the Procedure, designed and described as an internal Scottish Government procedure, to former Ministers who were no longer in a contractual or statutory relationship with Scottish Government and in respect of whom the previously existing harassment complaints procedure had already expired at the time of their retirement.

I have not seen any legal advice which may have been provided to Scottish Government at the time but we do know that according to the Response Document the Scottish Government’s lawyers were consulted as part of the approval process of the Procedure. The Procedure did not cover historic claims against former civil servants.

However, when complaints were laid against the former First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond, he disputed the right of Scottish Government to apply the Procedure to him and ultimately sought a judicial review against it.

Among the objections which he raised to the Procedure was the claim that he could not, as a former office-holder, legitimately have been made amenable to a disciplinary procedure which had been introduced as an administrative act without any statutory or other legal basis.

He challenged the retrospective effect of the Procedure and alleged procedural unfairness in the operation of the Procedure.

These issues are further addressed when I discuss Mr Salmond’s claim that the manner in which Scottish Government defended the case which he brought amounted to a breach of the Ministerial Code on the part of the First Minister.

It is not necessary for the purposes of my remit for me to express a view on the merits of any of Mr Salmond’s claims. These were matters of Scottish law which ultimately only the Scottish courts could have decided and to an extent did decide.

So far as concerns the future of the complaints procedure in respect of former Ministers and any amendments that may be required or thought desirable in the light of the failed disciplinary proceedings against Mr Salmond a separate enquiry led by Ms Laura Dunlop QC has prepared a report which was published on 16 March 2021.

Any questions concerning any political responsibility for the events which occurred in relation to the adoption of the Procedure are matters for the Scottish Parliament and I do not express any opinion on these.

Hamilton Outlines his Brief

My brief is to enquire into whether the First Minister was in breach of the Ministerial Code. It has been made clear that in this I am not confined to questions of whether specific paragraphs of the Code was breached but am expected to enquire whether any breach of the Code has been committed by the First Minister regarding her meetings and discussions with Mr Salmond between 29 March 2018 and 18 July 2018.

I am not aware of anything in the conduct of the First Minister in respect of the introduction of or her observance of the Procedure which could be considered to be a breach of the Code.

The Response Document has set out the reasons for the introduction of the Procedure. In my opinion those reasons demonstrated a proper concern for the objective of strengthening the procedures for dealing with cases of harassment and bullying, especially sexual harassment, and it was perfectly proper and appropriate for the First Minister to lead this process and to give it every support possible.

The process was supported by advice from the most senior Scottish Government officials, including the legal directorate, as well as experts in the area of human resources and the handling of complaints.

In my opinion the First Minister was entitled to rely on the advice she received. If there was any error in that advice- and I offer no opinion on that question- she cannot be regarded as personally in breach of the Ministerial Code because she relied on advice which was not correct.

I accept the First Minister’s evidence that at the time the Procedure was adopted she was not aware of any complaints or impending complaints against Mr Salmond.

It is not part of my remit to examine the administrative arrangements for the introduction of the Procedure and I make no comment about these.

A key principle in the Procedure is to avoid any risk of political interference in complaints and in particular to exclude the First Minister from any involvement in a complaint against a former Minister. In my opinion this is a legitimate and a proportionate objective of the Procedure.

As a result of this provision the First Minister excluded herself from being informed of or involved in dealing with any complaints against former Ministers as a result of which she was not informed of the two complaints against Mr Salmond.

In my opinion she was justified and acted properly in so excluding herself. Apart altogether from the provisions of the Procedure her long political association and personal friendship with Mr Salmond would have placed her in an invidious position and left herself open to accusations of bias and partiality had she allowed herself to become involved.

As already referred to Mr Salmond has made a number of very serious allegations about the manner in which the complaints were investigated
and dealt with including accusations of serious impropriety.

I make no findings about the truth of any of these allegations which are the subject of enquiries by the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints of the Scottish Parliament.

I accept the evidence of the First Minister that she had no involvement in these matters.

I do not consider that at present the First Minister has any responsibility under the Ministerial Code for any shortcomings or wrongdoing in the behaviour of other persons, if there were any such shortcomings or wrongdoing, in relation to matters from which she has properly excluded herself from any involvement.

Later in this report I raise the question whether Ministers should bear responsibility for the activities of their special advisers.

Comment: Incredulous. Hamilton’s acceptance from Sturgeon that she knew nothing about anything beggars belief since her assertions are at odds with the evidence she gave to the Holyrood Inquiry and to occurrences’ officially recording the input and associated activities of a number of senior civil servants and Sturgeon’s “Special Advisor”

A wee snippet supporting the criticism:

13 November 2017: The person tasked with compiling the procedure was Cabinet Secretary, James Hynd who wrote to senior civil servants about sexual harassment allegations against current Ministers:

“We would need to alert Sturgeon to the fact that a complaint had been received against one of her Ministers and to take her mind about how she wished it to be handled.”

15 November 2017: Hynd wrote a second email, this time to Evans private office, commenting on their suggestion that complaints against Ministers might be resolved by informal means without the need for Sturgeon to be involved:

“I am not at all sure that this … will be acceptable to Sturgeon either generally or in the specific context of sexual harassment. Especially for the latter I think she will want to know straightaway if a complaint against a Minister has been received and will want to decide how it should be treated.”

There is, then, no ambiguity cancelling out the slightest plausible argument that Evans or any of her fellow civil servants could possibly have thought that it was acceptable for them to keep Sturgeon in the dark about any allegation of sexual harassment against any of her current Ministers. Why then would any of them think it would be acceptable not to inform Sturgeon of allegations against her mentor and closest friend of thirty years? Just doesn’t add up !!!!

27 November 2017: Hynd to Richards, (after compiling 8 draft procedures in a few days, burning the clock at midnight rushing to meet a deadline finishing the procedure.) Have looksee at the next draft procedure. All hands to the deck!!! Why so much urgency over one man??

What man is Hynd referring to? His admission that the much amended procedure taking in former Ministers had been rapidly compiled to get Alec Salmond.

Full details of events are to be found at:

Comprehensive report covering the attempted political assassination of Alex Salmond – Scotland’s finest statesman-It is a very long read!!!!

Adding insult injury is the recent revelation that John Swinney, tasked the architect of the botched, unfair policy James Hynd, to lead a team of civil servants aiding Hamilton’s investigations.

And Hynd is being investigated by police for allegedly lying under oath to the Alex Salmond inquiry,

Leslie Evans interviewed by Hamilton

I enquired of the Permanent Secretary, Ms Leslie Evans, concerning her actions and involvement in the matters covered by my remit. Her reply includes the following statements:-

You asked for a statement of my actions and involvement in the matters covered by your remit. In providing such a statement, I should make clear from the outset that, as a civil servant, all my actions – including those taken in relation to this matter – are undertaken on behalf of Ministers and in keeping with the Civil Service Code.

I was not aware at the time – nor have I been made aware since – of any attempt by the First Minister to bring any influence to bear on the Scottish Government’s investigation of complaints against Mr Salmond under the Procedure for Handling Harassment Complaints against Current or Former Ministers.

At all times, my engagement with the First Minister was in keeping with the respective roles set out for the First Minister and Permanent Secretary in the Procedure.

Accordingly, I did not inform the First Minister that formal complaints had been made about Mr Salmond when they were received in January 2018.

In line with the Procedure, I did inform the First Minister of the outcome of the investigation at a meeting on 22 August 2018 in her capacity as both First Minister and as Leader of the Party which the former Minister in question, Mr Salmond, had represented.

As I have set out in my response to your specific questions below, the First Minister wrote to me on 6 June 2018, following a discussion on 5 June 2018, informing me of contact that she had had with Mr Salmond. I replied to the First Minister on 7 June 2018 to acknowledge receipt of her letter and to note the information it contained.

In addition, I also wrote to the First Minister towards the end of the investigation on 17 August 2018 to inform her I was seeking legal advice on next steps.

In addition to these exchanges, the only other communication I recall with the First Minister on this matter was a telephone call sometime in mid-July in which she told me that she had met with Mr Salmond on 14 July 2018 and that he had raised the issue of arbitration with her. She made it clear to me again that she had no role in this matter and that I must reach whatever decision I thought appropriate.

Accordingly, my communication with the First Minister on this issue was very limited during the period in which the investigation was in progress. In line with the Procedure, Mr Salmond had a number of opportunities to contribute to the investigation.I address this further in my answers to your specific questions below.

The intentions that lay behind my actions at all times throughout this period were the need to follow the process set out in the Scottish Government’s Procedure for Handling Harassment Complaints against Current or Former Ministers, in line with the Civil Service values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

This was especially true in carrying out the responsibilities as Deciding Officer assigned to the Permanent Secretary under the Procedure.

At no time did I experience any attempt whatsoever by the First Minister – or anyone acting on behalf of the First Minister – to influence how I undertook that role, or the decisions I came to, either in terms of the process followed or the substance of the matter. Indeed, this point is made explicit in the First Minister’s letter to me of 6 June 2018.

 An Empirical Examination of the Myths spun by Leslie Evans

Evans asserted she had been formally notified of complaints of harassment against Alec Salmond, involving 2 members of staff in January 2018 but she did not notify Sturgeon since to have done so would have breached recently published procedures, conveniently put in place only days prior to the receipt of the complaints.

But a review of events betrays the lie in Evans statement since they highlight the concentrated efforts of a team of senior officials of the Scottish Governmment, compiling, discussing and amending 8 draft procedures, in the early hours of each morning, over a few days prior to the hasty introduction of a novel unauthorised harassment procedure purposed to bring down one man.

A review of events leading to the introduction of the procedure allowing the investigation of retrospective allegations against forer ministers

04 November 2017: Lloyd’s statement to the Holyrood Inquiry:

I was made aware on the evening of Saturday 4th November 2017 by a member of staff in an SNP parliamentary media office that they had received a query in relation to Mr Salmond and Edinburgh airport.

They called to alert me to the possibility of such a story running, in case any ministers were on Sunday morning media. I informed the First Minister of the query and that I understood that Mr Salmond would not be responding that evening.

Monday 06 November 2017: I was approached by several civil servants within the Scottish Government who raised concerns that Mr Salmond and representatives of Mr Salmond were reportedly contacting other civil servants directly to ask that they provide supportive statements in relation to the matters raised by Sky News to his legal representatives.

The civil servants indicated that those being approached were finding this contact unwelcome.

I was asked if I or other Special Advisers could ask Mr Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct, however I was informed shortly after receiving this request that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by staff and were taking their request forward, so made no approach to Mr Salmond.

05 and 06 November 2017: The media released news of the Alex Salmond Show to be broadcast weekly on “Russia Today” (RT) starting 10 November 2017.

This was how Alex announced his return to political journalism after losing his Buchan seat at Westminster in June 2017, following an enforced 6 month sabbatical brought about by his “blackballing” by the unionist controlled media who denied him a the opportunity to carve out a new career in political journalism away from frontline politics.

Sturgeon herself surprisingly joined Unionist politicians in the public criticism of Alex choice of broadcaster but neglected to acknowledge that every other option for employment had been denied him.

Sky News joined the attacks on Alex and launched a “Get Salmond” operation utilizing its over used methodology of immersing its journalists and those to be abused in gutter politics.

05 November 2017: Sturgeon took the bait when at 08.50 hours, she messaged Alex saying: “Hi – when you free to speak this morning?” They spoke. Sturgeon briefed Alex about the query from Sky News “about allegations of sexual misconduct at Edinburgh Airport on the part of Alex Salmond”. He denied the allegations. Sky news did not run a story.

06 November 2017: Evans informed Sturgeon of telephone contact between Alex and unnamed Scottish Government members of staff. She said he wanted to talk to them about an incident at Edinburgh Airport incident that Sky News were investigating, She had been told by two different sources, that they had received this contact and they were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it. She didn’t know what was said, she didn’t ask, she didn’t think it was appropriate to know.”

09 November 2017: Sturgeon contacted Alex to comment on his decision to host a weekly political discussion programme on RT. The content of her message was heavily redacted.

In a previous submission to the inquiry, Ms Sturgeon said the Sky News episode had given her a “lingering concern” that allegations about Mr Salmond could surface.

The query from Sky News was raised previously during an MSPs’ investigation of the Scottish Government’s botched handling of harassment claims made against Mr Salmond.

07 November 2017: Hynd, Richards and MacKinnon exchanged opinions on how to deal with harassment complaints against former Ministers. McKinnon tabled a “routemap” of a policy which suggested application to former Ministers. Hynd not happy advised the need to seek legal opinion. The team were clearly in the early stages of introducing procedures against former Ministers.

08 November 2017: Hynd delivered a first draft procedure applying only to Former Ministers. Referring to his work and that of MacKinnon he said that “neither of the pathways involving Ministers look right”.

07 November 2017: Allison received a telephone call in the course of which Ms B, made allegations against Alex. She said she was responding to a 2 November 2017 email headed, “Sexual harassment – message from the Permanent Secretary” which had been distributed to all Scottish Government staff. At the end of the conversation Allison telephoned Evans office and arranged a telephone conference so that she could personally advise Evans of the details of Ms B’s allegations. That the first contact was made to Allison remains a mystery given she was the Director of Communications, Ministerial Support and Facilities having given up her position in human resources some time before.

09 November 2017: Allison briefed Evans. They judged that whilst the information provided by Ms B was of concern no further action was needed since a formal complaint had not yet been made.

09 November 2017: Evans failure to brief Sturgeon breached the “Ministerial Code”.

09 November 2017: Evans later convened another meeting with and discussed the allegations again with Allison and then met separately to brief Richards. An email from Evans private secretary was circulated that evening appraising recipients of the content and outcomes of the earlier meeting and the actions that were to follow from it. One action was: “Evans would like to have conversation’s tomorrow with: Allison, Russell and Richards.”

In her evidence to the inquiry, Allison summarised how, after that initial phone call, she continued to be involved with Ms B and her concerns. “I had early contact with Ms B. The contact was a series of texts. I also had, I think, three telephone calls with her, but no meetings. No written record was ever taken of any of her concerns.”

All but one of the contacts were in the period 08 November to 29 November 2017.

In this period Allison was Director of Communications for the Scottish Government, in addition to whatever responsibilities she had for Ministerial Support and Facilities, and given that a plethora of much more qualified support was already in place for someone in Ms B’s position, with even more about to be added, one might legitimately wonder how she became involved.

10 November 2017: Evans called Russell and Allison separately and assigned appointments, roles and responsibilities to each of them and advised Richards of the details.

Russell’s revised role was:

“To provide a further choice for staff as a confidante and sounding board (in addition to established mechanisms such as HR / TUs / EAP etc) to help them consider options.”

Staff wishing to take things forward should be passed to Mackinnon. But the boundaries were unambiguous. To keep this manageable the focus is on those who have had experiences of sexual harassment. And the line of communication of “issues” through HR to Evans was clearly defined:

“It would be helpful if you could give regular updates to Richards/ MacKinnon if issues are raised with – anonymised if that is the person’s wish. They will then provide Evans with updates as required.”

Afternote: There was a flurry of email exchanges around these dates. Well worth a read:

Barbara Allison’s new role? At 12.40 hours: Evans private secretary updated the earlier Richards note which related to what was being asked of Allison with a warning added in blue highlight. “Bear in mind this may become public.”

Evans evidently thought “pastoral care.” aptly described her duties”.

Allison later told the Holyrood Inquiry that pastoral care was in place in case anyone wanted to say, “I am concerned that things are coming out. This feels tough, so where can I go for support?’ Trade unions, the welfare officer and the employee assistance programme and so on might be advised.”

But Allison’s real role was to cocoon Ms B and her “concerns” about Alex until hastily prepared unique procedures for investigating and deciding on historical harassment complaints was in place. She admitted to this when she told the Inquiry that: “I felt at times I was trying to hold a space open for her.”

The pastoral care of Ms B:

13 November 2017: Evans sent a message to all staff headed: “Sexual harassment at work Permanent Secretary update” intimating the important new roles of Russell and Allison. A comparison is instructive.

The Russell reference was clear providing her contact details and a description of her role as a “confidential sounding board for those who have experienced sexual harassment.” but with an added rider “current or in the past”.

The Allison reference was starved of description saying: “I am aware that some staff have been contacted by the media. It is standard practice to redirect journalists to submit requests through the news desk. If you have concerns please contact Barbara Allison”. That’s it!!!! No mention of “pastoral care”.

And Russell was just as much in the dark on the matter. She told the Holyrood Inquiry: “To be honest, at the time, in November 2017 as the documentation will demonstrate, I was not aware of Allison having that role of pastoral care. I was only aware of the role that the permanent secretary asked me to do.”

And she was not alone in that respect given that Russell, in common with almost all of her Scottish Government colleagues, had no idea of the top secret role Allison was performing for Evans:

13 November 2017: Allison copied Evans office staff a message she had sent to Ms B containing Russell’s contact details and her role. She then told Russell that someone might be in touch with her, but provided no details.

Russell’s evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry is enlightening. She advised: “After I took on the role on 13 November 2017 there was an engagement with Barbara Allison, in which she advised me that somebody might want to come and speak to me.

I advised Barbara that the text number for that purpose had been made available to staff and that, if anyone wanted to contact me, I would obviously be happy to see what I could do to support them, as had been set out in the note…. She said that she had been approached by somebody who wanted to speak. That was all I knew.”

Russell was not contacted by Ms B. The entire process from “concerns” to formal complaint to ultimate decision, was handled exclusively by Evans through Allison, Richards and Mackinnon.

Indeed, even as late at the time she gave evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry Russell she still assumed “wrongly” that the “somebody” Allison had been referring to on 13 November 2017 was Ms A.

A revelation that prompted a need for the Inquiry to ask Allison to write to them on 9 December 2020 to correct the misunderstanding, and point out that the “somebody” was actually Ms B.

About Allison: Her appearance before the Holyrood Inquiry was a masterclass in the art of subterfuge. Uninformed observers were underwhelmed with the evidence of the well presented elderly lady who was clearly nearing the end of a long and distinguished career. Her contribution to events was minor and ended soon after she passed Ms B on to MacKinnon. But the truth is that Allison possessed presentation skills finely honed over many years. and she was able to disguise the level and influence of her input. She was in fact the lead officer of the Scottish Civil Service LBGTQ movement charged with the rapid implementation of the policies of the now discredited Stonewall organisation. See:

“https://caltonjock.com/2022/11/04/the-insidious-input-of-uk-government-officials-in-the-conspiracy-to-destroy-alex-salmond-part-4-lgbti-stonewall-evans-allison-sturgeon”

13 November 2017: Cabinet Secretary James Hynd wrote to senior civil servants about sexual harassment allegations against current Ministers:

“We would need to alert Sturgeon to the fact that a complaint had been received against one of her Ministers and to take her mind about how she wished it to be handled.”

15 November 2017: Hynd wrote a second email, this time to Evans private secretaries, commenting on a suggestion that complaints against Ministers might be resolved by informal means without the need for Sturgeon to be involved:

“I am not at all sure that this … will be acceptable to Sturgeon either generally or in the specific context of sexual harassment. Especially for the latter I think she will want to know straightaway if a complaint against a Minister has been received and will want to decide how it should be treated.”

There is, then, no ambiguity cancelling out the slightest plausible argument that Evans or any of her fellow civil servants could possibly have thought that it was acceptable for them to keep Sturgeon in the dark about any allegation of sexual harassment against any of her current Ministers.

Why then would any of them think it would be acceptable not to inform Sturgeon of allegations against her mentor and closest friend of thirty years? Just doesn’t add up !!!!

Pen Picture of Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans

The Permanent Secretary is the most senior civil servant in Scotland and head of the civil service supporting the Scottish Government and the principal policy adviser to the First Minister and Secretary to the Scottish Cabinet.

Not a lot of experience in procedural development or personnel management. Input limited to the approval of final documentation for the signature of the First Minster, acting on the guidance of senior managers in Human Resources.

A feminist with a fascination for gender politics. Dating back to a study of Queen Elizabeth of England and her speech at Tilbury, “I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.

Work experience shaped her politics and values, and views about diversity, equality and inclusion. Enthusiastic supporter of the now discredited aims and aspirations of the “Stonewall” organisation.

The estimated £2million cost of the sordid debacle will be charged to the taxpayer an adding insult to injury Sturgeon promoted Evans increasing her final salary lump sum and pension by around 10%. Evans disappeared on gardening leave for a few months and retired.

Evans final act was to disrespect a Holyrood Committee chaired by an SNP MSP.

10 March 2022: Former Permanent Secretary Evans disrespected a parliamentary committee and ghosted into retirement with a massive lump sum gratuity and huge pension.

Evans was a key figure in the Alex Salmond affair, overseeing the disastrous internal probe into sexual misconduct claims against the former First Minister.

Her decisions contributed to Alex being able to overturn the findings in a judicial review case that saw him awarded £512,000 in costs. Sturgeon stood by Evans throughout and refused to sack her.

As part of its work into the running of the Scottish Government, Holyrood’s finance and public administration committee approached Evans in October 2021 about her sharing with the committee her reflections and insights into her role.

She was repeatedly reassured that the committee did not want to re-run the Salmond affair or revisit events examined by a previous Holyrood inquiry into it. Instead, the focus would be on “how government functions, the capacity and capability of the civil service, culture, and how policies are developed and implemented”.

The Office of the Permanent Secretary belatedly replied to the committee on Evans behalf refusing the invitation.

The letter stated: “Evans is on leave and she is effectively no longer a post-holder within the Scottish Government and is not able to speak on behalf of or represent the views of Scottish Ministers”.

In his reply the committee convener Kenny Gibson MSP wrote to Evans making clear the committee’s displeasure, and releasing the correspondence to the public.

He wrote: “We are extremely disappointed at the discourtesy shown to the Parliament by your failure to engage directly with the Committee at any stage regarding our invitation, despite our best efforts. When we finally received a response, it was not from you, but from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, stating that, as you are now on a period of leave (dating from 31 December 2021 until you retire from the UK Civil Service on 31 March 2022), you are not able to speak on behalf, or represent the views, of Scottish Ministers. At no point have we asked you to do so. We have been absolutely clear at all times that our interest lay in your own reflections, not those of Ministers, to support the Committee in developing a clearer understanding of the workings of government in our new public administration role.

Very few people have the opportunity to gain your level of experience in government, which we considered would have been beneficial in informing our future scrutiny.

We are firmly of the view that it is in the public interest for the Committee to hear from civil servants as part of our public administration remit.

You remain in the employment of the Scottish Government and we do not accept that your period of leave exempts you from giving evidence to a parliamentary committee, in the way suggested, adding given the time that has elapsed since our original approach to you and the response of 7 March 2022, we do not however intend to waste any more of our time pursuing this matter.”

An independent political observer commented: “This is the latest example of secrecy from a tired and out-of-touch government. The committee deserved to hear from the Permanent Secretary, but she has turned her back on the committee and on proper scrutiny as a result. This sets a very dangerous precedent as civil servants are obliged to appear before our parliament’s committees. This is a disappointing postscript to the former permanent secretary’s public service. It is clear that the culture of this government is to hold the parliament and the people that it represents in contempt.”