In the Autumn of 2017, Nicola Sturgeon instructed Leslie Evans to complete a review of the harassment policy of the Government and to bring forward proposals for change drafting revised procedures in line with the Scottish Government’s transparency in government drive. The review was completed and the consensus was that they required very little updating but for no identifiable reason a decision was taken to write up new procedures which when in place would render the long standing and successful ” fairness at Work” policy redundant. James Hynd compiled the first and second drafts of the new procedures thereafter fully involving Nicola Richards and Judith MacKinnon and others in the process resolving issues refining the policy.
It was this work that brought about the perverse introduction of an untried, unauthorised by the UK Government, and illegal procedure in law for receiving and resolving complaints of harassment against former Minsters.
Ignoring all warnings the new procedures were signed off by Nicola Sturgeon in late December 2017. Less than 2 weeks later, in January 2018, two complainants came forward with allegations of harassment against Alex Salmond under the new rules.
To the uninformed observer it appeared there had been “malice aforethought” and the complainants had been waiting for the new rules to come into force since no effort was made to register the allegations in the previous 4 years. The complainants alleged incidents they said occurred in 2013 (four years before).
Mackinnon, who had no direct management authority over the complainants spoke to both of them at length on a number of occasions whilst she was still involved in the process of developing the new policy opening herself to accusations that she had acted in a manner bordering on encouraging the complainants to proceed with formal complaints against Alex Salmond. When legally challenged on the matter in the high court the Government legal team accepted there had been a “significant amount of inappropriate direct personal contact” between Mackinnon and the complainants.
Evans, who appointed Mackinnon to formally investigate the allegations said she had acted on the advice of a senior colleague in Human Resources (Richards). But also had discussions with the complainants and in doing so compromised the procedures she and Mackinnon had only recently put in place.
Noteworthy events
07 November 2017: Hynd, Richards and MacKinnon exchange 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 seek legal opinion. The team are 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 lo
23 November 2017: Richards sent an e-mail to Evans, copied to Mackinnon “we would need to consult with the individual before disclosing to another party or the Police because of the risk of the matter getting into the press and the individuals being identified. We have a duty of care for our staff which means we shouldn’t do something that puts them at risk, so if they don’t want us to share information or go to the police, it would be very difficult to justify (sic) doing so (without putting them at risk of being identified and wider impacts).
23 – 28 November 2017: Cluster of emails between Richards, MacKinnon, Allison and Russell discussing their approach to the 2 complainants included meeting with and sharing the content of the draft policy procedures.
23 November 2017: Gillian Russell. The soundboard officer getting a wee bit hot under the collar. Instructions unclear. This was subsequently changed on 9th January 2018 to read “SG as employer will not refer specific cases to police without the knowledge/consent of the employee.”
24 November 2017: The input of Lloyd to the process was understated by Evans. They couldn’t fart without her permission!!!!
29 November 2017: Russell wrote to Ms A “as agreed, I sent your narrative on in confidence to Nicky (Richards) and Judith (Mackinnon). I have now been asked by Nicky and Judith if you would be prepared to speak to them following receipt of your narrative. As part of this discussion Nicky would like to share with you the developing policy for handling complaints against former and current ministers. This would give you an opportunity to test whether this would have helped at the time and also to consider next steps.” Later that day Ms A agreed to do so but reiterated her wish to speak first personally with Sturgeon.
29 November 2017: Richards, met with Evans, who then went on to have a “summit meeting with Sturgeon, “to discuss the development and next move” of a new harassment procedure against former ministers.
01 December 2017: Hynd sent the “eighth” harassment policy draft to Richards. Note the not so subtle change in the procedure to fit the Ms B complaint against Alex.
04/05 December 2017: Richards, redrafted parts of the “eighth” draft procedure completing her work 2334 hours on the evening of 5 Dec. She then forwarded it as the “Ninth” draft, under cover of an email, to Evans, Hynd, MacKinnon, and an unnamed lawyer. The email stated: “As discussed earlier today, I’ve made some revisions to the process.”
Comment: There was evidently some urgency in moving the matter forward to a conclusion, confirmed in yet another email in which Richards wrote: “I’ve updated the timeline – and this is the final version of the policy I’ve sent to Evans.” The “air” of finality clearly suggested that the Civil Servant team, supported by legal opinion were confident it would be signed off and introduced as policy.
05 December 2017: Procedure recast yet again. In all eight previous drafts of the complaints procedure up to 05 December 2017, the First Minister had a central role. She was to be informed as soon as a formal complaint against a former Minister was made. She was to take any steps necessary to ensure the former Minister cooperated with the investigation. She was to be informed when the investigation of the complaint was completed, and any further action on the complaint was hers to consider and take.
In the ninth draft, sent out by Richards at close to midnight on 05 December 2017, all of this was suddenly gone. The First Minister now had no role at all. The Permanent Secretary would now decide whether a complaint against a former Minister was well-founded, and the Permanent Secretary would determine what further action was to be taken on it.
06 December 2017: At 0528 hours Evans emailed Richards, Hynd, and a third person writing, “Spoke with John S (Swinney?) last night. We agreed you would send up tweaked codes in draft without any letters just now. and as discussed, info on the steps and touchpoints involved in the process also useful. Keep me posted back in the office tomorrow but happy to talk. John (Swinney?) also I’m sure.”
06 December 2017, Richards sent a “Ninth” draft to Evans, already calling it the “final version” of the procedure. She was right. This version was essentially what was approved by the First Minister on 20 December 2017, and was the procedure used against Alex Salmond.
06 December 2017: Richards, met with Ms B and shared with her the content of the “Ninth” draft procedure.
Afternote: In her statement to the Holyrood Inquiry Richards said she shared the “Ninth” draft policy with Ms B in part so she could make an “informed decision” about whether to make a formal complaint. She went on to say ” the reasons why we shared that, we were trying to establish, in terms of our learning as an organisation, whether this would have made any difference to them at the time, would it have made it more possible to raise issues about a first minister or former first minister?
It was done so that if they decided to proceed to formal complaint, they had an awareness of the policy likely to be applied.” She followed up by saying “As well as sending Ms B the draft policy I had a hard copy of it when I spoke to another woman but she did not come forward with a complaint”.
Answering a question about an email she sent to another possible complainer, (copied to the investigating officer, MacKinnon) in which she suggested to her that she should wait until the New Year before making a complaint she said: “I think I was going on holiday the next day”. But she lied: The woman sent the hard copy procedure was being fished to register a complaint and she subsequently did.
06 December 2017: Mackinnon, met with Ms A and after sharing the draft procedures gained from her confirmation that had the new procedures been in place at the time she was sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.
06 December 2017: In written evidence submitted to the Holyrood Inquiry, Deputy Chief Constable Fiona Taylor said that Police Scotland had been consulted on legal content and procedures appropriate for inclusion at the time a new complaints policy that included current and former ministers was in the process of being finalised. The Police advised that: “where criminality was suspected, individuals should be directed to support and advocacy services, to enable them to make informed decisions about whether or not to report matters to the police”. Police Scotland advised the Scottish Government not to launch investigations into potentially criminal allegations of harassment, warning civil service staff were not trained to investigate or “engage with victims”. The Government persisted with their enquires between December 2017 and August 2018 raising: “a number of hypothetical questions” about its harassment policy that appeared to be about a “specific set of circumstances”. The hypothetical questions suggested more than one victim of potential criminality and as such, it was stressed that without knowledge of the detail any risk that a suspect might present could not be properly assessed or mitigated.
Early January 2018: There was an exchange of emails instigated by Mackinnon between herself and the police. MacKinnon: “Wonder if you can help – hypothetically speaking of course. “If, after an internal investigation, the Scottish Government becomes aware that a member of staff has been the subject of a potential criminal act, can you advise if there is a difference depending on whether the employee reports the issue to the police themselves or the Scottish Government reports it on behalf of the employee…”
Police response: “It makes no difference who reports it to police. The employee would be the victim and the Scottish Government would be the witness. I hope this helps but slightly concerned regarding the level of discussion which is clearly ongoing at your end but I guess that will be for Scottish Government to manage and navigate.”
MacKinnon replied: “Can I check one more thing with you? Who makes the decision to press charges? If the complainers, victims, didn’t want to could the Scottish Government decide they wanted to press charges? Or is it down to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal ?”
Police response: “I would be able to attend and provide advice directly to the victims regarding the full process, should they decide to report, however, I can’t give the victims hypothetical advice.”
McKinnon sent another flurry of emails to police the next day saying she had questions on behalf of the potential victims.
The police replied: “Providing an email response to any queries the victim(s) have is not how I would conduct this.”
MacKinnon replied: “I realise I am being very cloak and dagger about this, but we feel that, for the moment, if we can provide some written responses that would be most helpful at this stage. Your offer of face to face contact I am sure, if we go down the route of reporting, will be welcomed, but at the moment the final outcome of the investigation has not been found and the decision for next steps also cannot be made.”
The email correspondence indicates the police officer sought advice from a superior officer over concerns a face-to-face meeting with victims was being blocked. The officer replied: “I have sought advice from Detective Sergeant (redacted) as this is not how Police Scotland would ordinarily interact with victims and warned her over “the levels of discussions taking place”
The email flurry ended with MacKinnon informing the police she was going on annual leave and they should contact Richards, her boss. The email exchanges were not provided to the Holyrood Inquiry who carried out an investigation into the governments handling of the case. But the Inquiry heard evidence from both civil servants who said police involvement had not been the “intention” of the complainants initially.
Murdo Fraser MSP, who was on the inquiry, commented: “This information reveals another glaring flaw in the government’s disastrous handling of sexual harassment complaints against Alex Salmond. Despite all the grave mistakes made during the whole sordid affair, not one person has been sacked. Nobody has accepted responsibility. Nobody has been held accountable.”
Sources close to Alex Salmond said: “These are extraordinary revelations about a cloak and dagger operation being mounted by the Scottish Government. The emails add to the already huge ammunition in Alex Salmond’s legal case against the Scottish Government. since they indicate there was a secret operation suggesting extreme prejudice against Alex Salmond and substantial malice on behalf of Scottish Government officials.”
Aternote:
In her evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry Evans said: “We took advice from Police Scotland because we wanted to ensure that the procedure was appropriate and sympathetic, and that it was effective in terms of encouraging people to use it. The police’s view, which we adhered to and which is reflected in the procedure, is that the process must be led by the victim – by the people who are bringing concerns or complaints. If they wish to go to the police, they are at liberty to do so at every stage in the operation. However, as our investigation… reached its conclusion, the Scottish Government (Evans) informed by legal advice (that would be her unreported meeting with the Lord Advocate, on 22 August 2018) decided that three of the complaints would not be passed on to appropriate support services as a first option, but would be be referred to Police Scotland without informing the complainants.” Evans should have told the Inquiry: “I ignored the advice from police and presided over a monumental cock-up which cost the Scottish taxpayer nearly £2million.”
About Judith MacKinnon
In the summer of 2017 Leslie Evans who had no personnel management qualifications needed to strengthen her team. She recruited Judith Mackinnon, an experienced human resources manager, to a newly created, (very well remunerated) position. This is the same person that was previously Head of Human Resource Governance at Police Scotland. Hardly a recommendation for employment in the Scottish Government given the many scandals in the force in the years she was in post. See her record here:
The full version of events is here. It is very long and I am adding information to it as it comes to hand. Best to have a cup of coffee and a biscuit before/ during the read.
Keir Starmer Aided by The John Smith Foundation To Launch Their Assault on Scotland
The Leader of the Labour party, Sir Keir Starmer intends to launch a new devolution deal for Holyrood as part of an attempt to revive Labour’s fortunes in Scotland. Pressure has been building within the Labour movement pushing it towards a “devo-max” proposal that would see the Scottish Parliament take control of more powers and would also include the reform of the House of Lords to give greater representation to the UK’s nations and regions at Westminster.
The John Smith Foundation and its supporters will muster all guns in support of Starmer and the 5th columnists and 77 Brigade will be active.
Judged by the Company they Keep
Effective political strategy nullifies opposition and is usually revealed after the event But the SNP are confident they have absolute control and that any challenges to their political agenda can be first contained and eliminated aided by a group of vociferous individuals who only joined the Party within the last eight years and whose political affiliations are questionable.
Fifth Columnists and the Havoc They Generate
The Westminster, London based Zionist financial cartel loosely titled the Government of the people is well versed in the art of deception as its response to the scare of the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum proved.
Remedial action was necessary to maintain unionist control and this required that the SNP should first be neutered then merged with the Labour Party branch in Scotland.
The mission would be achieved over a period not exceeding ten years through the use of fifth Columnists who would join the SNP and operate from within bringing about fundamental changes to the pursuit of Scottish independence.
What follows is conjecture but is based on my near 60 years of political activism in Scotland.
If only 20% of what I offer up is true then the SNP government will be forever dammed by its actions and betrayal of the founding principle of the Party, namely full independence for Scotland and divorce from the Westminster Zionist elite that control it.
Westminster Strategy
Glasgow University, a safe haven for Unionists for over 300 years has been selected by Westminster to be the operational control centre.
Baroness Smith, the master spy and widow of Principal Bilderberger, the Late John Smith, set up the John Smith Centre to operate from there.
A growing number of SNP activists and officias are linked to the discredited charity which is a front for the Fife-based Integrity Initiative and 77 Brigade Spying organisations controlled and funded by the Foreign Office in Westminster.
The SNP spokesperson for Defence & Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Stewart McDonald MP, Douglas Chapman MP, Chris law MP and SNP frontbench adviser Neal Stewart, enjoyed a fully-funded trip to Ukraine in 2018. The funding source has never been revealed. But in Westminster on their return they regularly took up parliamentary time criticizing Russia. But contributed not a jot about Scottish Independence.
Members of the group and its leader Alyn Smith MP also featured in the November 2020 paper from the SNP Westminster group submitted to the UK Government, an “integrated review of foreign policy and defence.”
Amid the verbiage, there is a clear shift towards multilateralism, a disingenuous softening of the party’s commitment to unilaterally ratifying the UN Treaty on Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons, and a call for Lossiemouth to be the hub for combined Scottish, UK and US P-8 maritime bombers.
A number of SNP MSP’s succumbed to the temptation of the American dollar and followed trails previously trod by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the 1990s when they left the UK as staunch supporters of unilateral disarmament only to return two weeks later as confirmed multilateralist’s in line with the policies of the USA.
In Jul 2016, Labour Party Leader Kezia Dugdale MSP, Jenny Gilruth MSP, Nicola Sturgeon’s Civil Service chief of staff (the Executioner) Elizabeth Lloyd and Daily Record Journalist David Clegg enjoyed a two-week working holiday in the USA.
The invitation to attend the all-expenses-paid jaunt had been extended by the organisers of the USA Government-funded International Visitor Leadership Programme.
The inclusion of a pseudo civil servant and a tabloid journalist surprised some.
Clegg would go on to later exclusively reveal intimate details of charges of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond. The government official that leaked the information to him has never been revealed.
Gerrymandering the Membership of the NEC By the NEC
The 2020 election process for the NEC introduced a fundamental change to the governance of the party with the NEC deciding its future direction. Independence was placed on the back burner in favour of Devo-Max.
To facilitate their plans the Party leadership imposed restrictive rules on branch management ensuring that NEC would be enabled to veto and force changes to candidate shortlists so that a marked prevalence of WOKE activists would be listed. The process was duly adopted early in the late summer of 2020 and the NEC has been castrated and is now contolled by WOKE activists.
And What About Independence?
The question is best answered by looking back to the 2014 referendum when only 2 days before the vote the Unionists played their final card and offered Devo max, an option just short of total independence in exchange for a “no” vote.
Scots fell for the ploy which was publically supported by the entire Unionist community and the Queen herself.
Gordon Brown issued a solemn promise stating “There will be no backtracking on the promise, my iron fists will prevent it.”
Gentle John Sweeney, led the Nationalist team in the subsequent negotiations and was completely outflanked by the Unionists who reneged on many of their “Devo max” pledges.
Nothing further was heard from Gordon Brown or any of the other Unionist leaders.
Scottish voters were furious at the betrayal but unable to reverse the outcome of the referendum they bided their time until the next election only 6 months on and decimated the Unionist party’s in Scotland returning a nearly full house of SNP MPs to Westminster with a clear mandate to declare independence. But Sturgeon failed the nation by refusing to open negotiations. So Scots were left at the alter by Quisling politicians once again. But there remains in place this binding statement
“Reflecting the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, as expressed in the referendum on 18 September 2014, and in the context of Scotland remaining within the UK, an enhanced devolution settlement for Scotland will be durable, responsive and democratic. And it is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
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:
The Alex Salmond Stitch-Up – Events on 06 June 2018:
In her statement to the Holyrood Inquiry Sturgeon said: Alex Salmond sent me a message on 03 June 2018. Both the tone and content of this message led me to conclude that legal action by Alex Salmond against the Scottish Government was a serious prospect and I decided that I should make Leslie Evans aware of this and wrote to her on 06 June 2018.
At this date Sturgeon had deliberately withheld from Leslie Evans, any knowledge of Geoff Aberdein’s three March 2018 meetings with Liz Lloyd, or his two further meetings with herself on 29 March 2018 and 02 April 2018 or her meeting with Alex Salmond at her home on 2 April 2018 or her firm promise to Alex Salmond (witnessed) to close the Inquiry, when faced with the reality that the Procedure was illegal and the threat of legal action.
Sturgeon in withholding the information committed a blatant breech of and compromised the Procedure and the Ministerial Code sections (4.22 and 4.23), (Guard against the release of previously undisclosed or confidential information which might compromise decisions in matters that Ministers are involved in) as were her unauthorised meetings with Geoff Aberdein and Alex Salmond.
Another incident confirming Alec Salmond was unfairly targeted by Sturgeon
Police investigations – Conduct obstructing or calculating to prejudice the due administration of justice.
21 August 2018:Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, and a Detective Chief Superintendent colleague met with Crown Agent Harvie at his request. He told them that the government had referred the complaints about Alex to the Crown Office “for Police investigation of potential criminality” and proposed to give them a copy of the findings of the Government’s internal investigation. The offer was rejected. The police did not view the document. Harvie then advised that the Scottish Government might be making a public statement in relation to the outcome of their investigation and referral of information to Police Scotland. The Chief Constable and his colleague voiced their concerns about a statement being made and said it would compromise any Police investigation. Their advice, which was accepted was that a proactive approach should be adopted in the course of which the force would interview the two complainants and contact other people who held similar roles to the women who had already come forward and identify if there were any other potential complainers.It was agreed that the Police would take matters forward with the rider that there would be no public announcements or any further involvement of any of the Scottish Government team of investigators. The matter was now an active Police investigation.
22 August 2018: Alex, Ms A and Ms B, and Sturgeon were each provided with a copy of Evans, decision report. Alex ‘s legal team wrote very strongly worded letters each to Evans and Sturgeon telling both that the actions they had taken was illegal, contrary to good staff relations and breached every statute of employment Law
23 August 2018: Early afternoon: Evans informed Alex, Ms A and Ms B, and Sturgeon by email that she had forwarded all case documentation to the Lord Advocate’s office for the Police to investigate and would be making a public statement at 1700 hours on the Scottish Government decision report and the police referral. Alex’s Counsel objected strongly stating that Evans actions were unsafe and a breach of protocol and Alex would seek an Interim Interdict preventing the release of information to the public so that the confidentiality of all parties would be maintained.
Faced with an Inteim Interdict Evans decided not to make a public statement. But someone within or very near to her office was alerted to Evans decision not to go public at 1700 hours and at around 1500 hours, in an act determined to obstruct and prejudice the administration of justice, emailed the Editor of the Daily Record a copy of the public statement. The illegal release of the information was considered to be the act of a ” whistleblower” which was not the case and following days of sustained pressure from Alex’s legal team and a half-hearted internal unsuccessful investigation was conducted by the Scottish Government. This is where the Police failed Ms A, Ms B and Alex.
The act of the still unidentified government employee was an illegal “contempt of court” since all matters were the subject of an on-going Police investigation. The Editor of the Daily Record, who has the email which would identify the sender, refused to release it to the Scottish Government. But a police demand for the document would need to be adhered to. Why the Police have not pursued is a puzzle.
The First Minister’s ever expanding army of “Special Advisers”
“Special Advisers” are political appointments and are exempt from impartiality requirements normally expected of civil servants in order to provide them with the freedom to give political advice to Ministers. Although never elected by the public nor subject to the normal rules of employee recruitment and formal interview they are gifted, courtesy of the First Minister alone, with a huge amount of power.
The leader of the “Special Adviser Team, has the authority to issue instructions to any civil servant on behalf of the First Minister
The Devolution Act permitted recruitment of up to twelve “Special Advisers” to the First Minister.
A 2023 the Sturgeon led government employed nineteen, including a new adviser supporting the two new Green Party ministers in the Scottish Coalition Government.
The total annual approximate gross cost to the Scottish taxpayer of unaccoutnable Special Advisers is around £2 Million
Over two-thirds of Special Advisers are friends with or are the partners of senior SNP figures or Party influencers.
The group can be confidently described as a self-perpetuating elite surreptitiously slipped into positions of power and influence, thriving on their patronage and using it to by-pass the democratic rights of the Scottish electorate.
Oh!! A reminder total responsibility for the recruitment, employment, management, conduct and discipline of “Special Advisers” rests with the First Minister.
An informed ex servant of the crown commented:
“The introduction of “Special Advisers” into the Scottish Government established an alternative civil service.
They are an ill-disciplined bunch whose conduct is reported on through a “rebuttal unit” who feed distortions of the truth to the electorate, all with the purpose of ensuring the public are denied the truth of any given matter where the “image” of the Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP might be at risk.
In their efforts to establish and maintain their superiority they routinely pass negative value judgements on the ability of long term, full-time established civil servants.
They are immune to embarrassment and strangers to the appropriate and legal use of taxpayers monies.
They and their newly partnered green acolytes are enamoured with power and can be likened to a sick cancer bleeding off the efforts of hard working Scots.
12 December 2017: Sturgeon’s “Get Salmond” team of civil servants was provided with guidance documentation from the UK Cabinet Secretary’s office so that they would be assured their new procedure for investigating retrospective allegations of harassment against former Ministers would incorporate best practice and be legally sound. They ignored all of it believing they knew better. The consequences of their actions nearly destroyed the career of Scotland’s finest politician.
This information was gleaned from Evans statement to the Holyrood Inquiry on 18 August 2020
Evans said she had been commissioned to review harassment procedures by Scottish ministers, as well as the UK Government Cabinet Secretary and Head of the UK Civil Service. Having considered the relevant policies she concluded that there was no published process for handling complaints about current or former Ministers in the UK Government and she decided that her civil servants would develop a complaints procedure covering former and current Ministers. The process of developing the procedure would be guided by professional drafting processes informed by legal advice and HR best practice.This would ensure the Scottish Government would be ahead of many other institutions in the design and implementation of a novel new procedure which would openly and transparently address historical allegations of sexual misconduct.
Comment: The Scottish Government emphasised to the Holyrood Inquiry the significance of professional guidance produced by the UK Government Civil Service Employee Policy team (CSEP), a high-powered unit located in the UK Cabinet Office whose specific job it is to provide authoritative HR advice to the whole of the UK civil service.
Civil service officials tasked with the duty of compiling the novel new procedures received a draft copy of “Guidance on Handling of Historic Allegations of Harassment” developed by the UK Government Civil Service Policy team (CSEP) on 17 November 2017 and a later copy with Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) added on 12 December 2017, before the new procedure had been fully developed.
The advice contained in the guidance documentation was comprehensive in its coverage and stressed that the management of: “complex and sensitive cases of historical allegations, in every case, should be handled by an impartial investigator who had no prior knowledge of the complainer or any details of the case.”
It also stated that an investigator should be formally trained and experienced in the handling of complaints and cases involving very senior managers should be referred to an independent external body for investigation.
The “FAQ” supplement was provided to Richards as an email attachment on 12 December 2017 and sent on by her to Mackinnon and others that same day under subject heading “Guidance on handling allegation of harassment FAQ”.
That they read the document thoroughly is witnessed by the significance it is given in the Scottish Government’s statement to the inquiry.
So in the context of the procedure for handling harassment complaints which Evans, Richards and Mackinnon were at the very heart of developing at exactly the time the guidance was received it is simply inconceivable that they did not read and understand the most important sentence in FAQ, Answer 23: “no prior knowledge of the complainer or any details of the case”.
That Evans, MacKinnon and Richards ignored the (CSEP) advice cost the Scottish taxpayer £500,000. Evans should have been sacked for gross incompetence and her colleagues should have been demoted and given a first and final written warning.
20 December 2017: Draft letter compiled, from the First Minister to all former Scottish Government Minsters advising that a new retrospective examination of allegations of harassment would be applied from the opening of Holyrood. There was no indication of any intention by the Government to conduct a “lookback” trawl of previously investigated and settled claims. But any allegations not previously reported would be considered and investigated.
DRAFT LETTER TO FORMER FIRST MINISTERS
I am sure you will share my deep concern about the recent reports concerning allegations of sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct by those in public life. I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish political leaders have spokenwith one voice to condemn such behaviour,wherever it occurs.
We each have a duty, in our own areas of responsibility, to take whatever action we can to demonstrate zero tolerance of inappropriate behaviours of this sort. To that end,I recently asked the Permanent Secretary to carry out a full review of the Scottish Government’s internal policies and procedures to ensure that they are effective and offer assurance to SG staff that they can expect to be treated with respect and dignity. It is also of great importance that staff can be confident that any concerns they have about their treatment will be fully investigated.
In parallel,I have also been reflecting on how we might further underpin the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers. As you know,if a question arises about the conduct of a Minister it is, under the Scottish Ministerial Code, the responsibility of the incumbent First Minister to instruct an investigation into the matter and, in light of the investigation,to decide if the Minister in question should remain in post.
To provide further reassurance to Scottish Government staff, I have decided that in future any formal complaint from a staff member relating to sexual harassment against a serving Minister will be investigated automatically by the Permanent Secretary without my intervention. I intend to bring forward a change to the Ministerial Code to make clear that current Ministers will be required to cooperate fully in any such investigation. It will remain the case that, as now,the final decision will rest with me on whether or not a Minister’s behaviour has fallen below acceptable standards.
We also need to consider the position of former Ministers in relation to any formal complaints against them from staff that relate to the period in which the former Minister was in office. In the event of such a complaint, I believe that,again, it would appropriate for the Permanent Secretary to take the matter up directly with the former Minister so that they have the opportunity to respond. As the provisions of the Ministerial Code do not apply to former Ministers, the report of the investigation would be provided to both the former Minister and the current leader of their political party (if any) to consider. I would therefore only be involved in complaints about a former SNP Minister. I would have no involvement in complaints against a former Minister of another party.
Given your position as a former First Minister,I wanted you to be aware of this approach. I hope you will agree that it should help provide additional assurance to staff that any complaints they raise will be fully investigated, no matter when the alleged concerns occurred.
I intend to write to all former Ministers who have served in my Administration to make them aware of these arrangements. Similarly, you may wish to consider making Ministers who served in your Administration aware of them too. If you,or they,would find it helpful,the Permanent Secretary will be happy to discuss how these new approaches would work in practice.
Late December 2017: A police team met with Scottish Government officials to discuss proposed amendments to the existing harassment and misconduct policies for Government officials currently in employment and to give advice on the proposed “retrospective” follow up of allegations of former Ministers. The draft letter was withdrawn following the meeting on the advice of the police. Alex Salmond was never provided with a copy of the letter and he was the only former Minister (from a very large group of former Ministers) ever subjected to an illegal Civil Service investigation of his conduct whilst in office. And there is supporting evidence that there were a great many unresolved allegations in the pipeline if the draft letter had been sent. The task would have been impossible for Evans and her team to undertake and the fact that Sturgeon went ahead with an investigation of Alex only provides confirmation they were out to get him!!!! And who were they?
12 April 2023: Humza Yousaf, Leader of the SNP appointed the well known Independence activist and campaigner for Amnesty International Julie Hepburn to a new role of “Head of Strategic Delivery”.
About Julie Hepburn
Julie is a long-standing SNP activist and member of the National Executive Committee. On her motivation for political activism,she said: “I’ve been a member of the SNP for almost two decades, and while political activism can be tough at times, for me it’s been an overwhelmingly positive and empowering experience. “Politics is the vehicle through which we achieve change, and I am determined to help change our communities and our country for the better. Securing independence for Scotland is the single most important change we can make to deliver a fairer society and better life for everyone who lives here. That’s why I’ve dedicated my adult life to campaigning for independence.”
“I vividly remember attending my first SNP Conference 20 years ago in Dundee. The whole conference was alive with debate, ideas and personalities, and there was some stooshie over housing policy. It was fantastic. Like a number of people, I was hesitant about joining a political party, but was immediately reassured by the vibrancy of debate and room to contribute to those positive discussions. I felt genuinely empowered as a new member, and excited about my involvement.”
“One of the many strengths of the SNP is our internal democracy and I was surprised to read the suggestion that the Party should take a “command and control” approach to the selection of our parliamentary candidates. The Party’s NEC needs to be more effective, transparent and accountable.
“We need tailored campaigns for different communities – whether this is a physical community or a community bound by a shared identity. It’s about how we communicate the arguments and benefits of independence to a diverse Scotland.”
“I’m running to be the SNP’s depute leader for a number of reasons. I’ve made this choice because I was asked by so many activists across the country. They’ve asked me to stand because of my proven track record of service to the party, my previous commitment to driving forward internal reforms, and my work in supporting others across the SNP. However, most significantly for me, I want to use the skills, experience and networks I’ve built up over almost two decades in the SNP to help prepare us for another independence referendum and indeed future elections.”
Comments On Julie’s 2020 Campaign for Deputy Leader of the SNP
I was impressed by Julie Hepburn’s campaigning efforts in her unsuccessful bid for the Deputy leadership post when at the outset she said in her view the 2014 Independence Referendum had failed because the “Yes” movement had conducted its campaign like a General Election and in doing so allowed itself to be dragged by “Better Together” activists into pointless debates about future policy matters resulting in little time being devoted to pushing hard on the principle of independence.
I was also pleasantly surprised with her proposal to separate the political and constitutional issues so that the wider independence “Movement” would be able to get on with the business of campaigning for independence free of interference in or undue influence over policy matters. The tactic would also strengthen the political Parties abilty to continue to engage with the public over political issues and provide good governance.
She was also a lady in a hurry a pragmatist clearly recognising the need to get on with the task of gaining independence, when she said: “Let’s not expend energy arguing over the finer points of policies that the future governments of an independent Scotland may or may not decide to pursue, and focus our arguments on the wider principles of self-government and the potential that gives us to transform our country.”
She raised her voice to impress upon Sturgeon and her cabal a need to make the “constitutional ceiling” the overarching issue of the SNP’s 2021 Holyrood election campaign with her message that: “Throughout our campaign, we need to demonstrate each point where the constitutional ceiling limits our ability to make life better for Scots. Let’s campaign on the defining issue facing our country: should we stick with the status quo and remain in the clutches of Westminster failure, or do we choose a better future and put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands?”
Julie’s sage advice fell on deaf ears, Sturgeon was not inclined to think outside the constraining though financially well remunerated box of Westminster devolution and rejected Julie in favour of the more acceptable Keith Brown.
Mindful of the power of the Zionist movement many Scots were concerned when Sturgeon ferociously criticised Israel. They feared that the special relationship between the Scottish Government and Israel was fractured when Sturgeon urged Tel Aviv to halt the violence after armed Israeli police stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. “Attacking a place of worship at any time is reprehensible, but attacking a mosque during Ramadan is utterly indefensible,” she said. “It is also a violation of international law. Israel should heed calls to halt the violence immediately.”
Many influential Jews went as far as saying her words were tantamount to the “desecration of a synagogue” and the relentless volley of anti-Semitism allegations against her was viewed in some political circles to be part of a concerted effort to destabilise the leadership of the SNP and Scotland’s independence movement. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, pointed out that similar measures were not taken against other states that have territorial disputes, such as Tibet, Kashmir or Cyprus but, “When the Jewish state is singled out then that is as much anti-Semitism as the desecration of a synagogue,” it insisted.
Despite meeting representatives of the Jewish community in an effort to calm some of their more outraged leaders, Sturgeon’s appeasement strategy failed. Co-founder of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Mick Napier, suggested she might be “lined up for the Corbyn treatment”. A reference to the ousting of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his replacement by self-proclaimed Zionist Sir Keir Starmer. According to Napier, “Whereas Scottish Jewry has courted the Scottish Government assiduously in recent years, they now claim that discouraging trade and investment in Israel’s illegal settlements expresses hostility to Scottish Jews. Not only hostility but Jew-hatred on a par with the desecration of Jewish houses of worship.
The very existence of Israel is reliant on the unconditional support of its allies on the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom, France and the US are its greatest friends. Known collectively as the P5, the other permanent members are China and Russia. Any one of them can veto a resolution, which often proves invaluable to the rogue Zionist state which has violated or ignored nearly 200 UN Resolutions since it was created in occupied Palestine in 1948 and the greatest threat to Israel is the stated intention of the SNP to have nuclear weapons removed from Scottish soil within three years of gaining independence which would result in the removal of England from the Security Council since it would no longer be a nuclear power.
Scottish Independence
At the beginning of 2022 Sturgeon kick-started yet another independence campaign with a view to making preparations for a vote on independence in October 2023. Not long after she announced her plans an attack was launched by the Union of Jewish Students president Nina Freedman who told The Times: “Jewish students in Scotland are a vital part of the Scottish Jewish community, and these actions by the SNP have a large impact on their Jewish life and wider university experience. We have seen across the UK that when BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] is implemented, campus becomes incredibly hostile for Jewish students.” The student group is an opponent of the Scottish government’s criticism of trade between Scotland and illegal settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
Within days of that statement Starmer visited Glasgow and in a shared platform with Anas Sarwar took a hard line towards the SNP vowing that Labour would never enter into deals with a Sturgeon led SNP even if it meant that the Party would need to go into a minority government following the next general election. They also forcefully stated that they would not grant another independence referendum.
Disarming the Labour threat
From around 2018 Sturgeon implemented an SNP recruitment strategy centred on attracting Scotlands Muslim voters of which there are approximately 100,000, a number expected to double in number over the next ten years. Muslim organisations receive more public funding for ‘equality’ than all other religious groups clubbed together. Almost 60% of the multi-million pound grant funds distributed by the Equality Unit go to Muslim groups.
The Glasgow-based, Ahl Al Bait Muslim charitable organisation “Love Life Waste Less” project has been awarded more than £220,000 through the Scottish Government’s Climate Challenge Fund. The project offers: free support to help the Middle Eastern Community of Glasgow to reduce carbon emissions in the areas of energy, waste and food. Project activities include home energy advice visits to help improve household energy efficiency and tackle fuel poverty. Other initiatives focus on repair and upcycling, food growing, food waste and sustainable cookery. The project also offers interactive climate change educational workshops and climate leadership training.
The weakness of Sturgeon’s strategy
Not content with roping in the Muslim vote with very generous financing of its communities she determined on the aggressive recruitment of teenagers and the young and in the process she forced Scottish society to embrace the invidious policies, eg; self indentification, of Stonewall and a myriad number of LGBTI organisatons and campaign groups. The latter completely negates the former so she shot herself in the foot.
caltonjock 