Category: Uncategorized

 

 

Scottish Civil Service Justice

“DeeAnn Kirkpatrick, a civil servant employed in Marine Scotland, made allegations of sexual harassment, racism, bullying, and assault against some of her male colleagues.

An Employment Tribunal decided that her allegations were time spent after three years and aided and supported by senior civil servants of the Human Resources team of the Scottish Government, dismissed the allegations.

DeeAnn’s sister Cherry, issued a statement through the Daily Record saying: “My sister has been left absolutely devastated and feeling betrayed.

How can this be justice? It’s a disgrace. She can hardly bear to look at the photograph of herself gagged and taped to a chair.

It suits Marine Scotland to say DeeAnn made it all up. She has been broken by this. My sister used to be strong, brave, and outgoing. Now she is a recluse who is afraid of her own shadow.”

 

The “Chair” incident

Nicola Sturgeon issued a statement saying that she was appalled at the revelations and pictorial evidence published in the Daily Record and ordered Leslie Evans, to personally investigate the incident involving the chair and to report back to her.

Leslie Evans reported: “A comprehensive internal review has now concluded that the Scottish Government has robust disciplinary procedures to address behaviour that falls below expected standards and I am satisfied that these have been followed thoroughly and objectively in relation to this incident.

A broad set of actions are underway in Marine Scotland to ensure a working environment that meets both the Civil Service Code and Scottish Government Standards of Behaviour. I do not normally comment publicly on staffing matters but I am issuing this short statement to update the public record given the previous parliamentary and wider interest in this issue. My unwavering commitment to ensuring a positive workplace for all employees in the Scottish Government remains.”

 

Another one bites the dust

Mar 2019: The internal investigation revealed that the fake victimhood photo DeeAnn Fizpatrick virilised through the BBC and social media was actually taken a year earlier than she claimed, in 2009, not 2010 and was simply an office prank that bored staff in the Fisheries Office played and DeeAnn is said to have been a willing participant.

One of their former colleagues described their office as having been like kindergarten sometimes, with DeeAnn fully complicit in the childishness.

It seems DeeAnn Fitzpatrick saw the “MeToo” movement as an opportunity to succeed through the victimhood industry and she became the poster child for the much hyped issue of workplace harassment, misogyny, and patriarchy.

Oct 2019: DeeAnn was ordered to appear before a disciplinary hearing to face allegations that she gave dishonest accounts of events, made false representations, concealed material facts and submitted documents which she knew to be fake.

She was also accused of using “deception with the intention of obtaining personal gain and causing loss to others.” including “false statements”.

She was unable to attend because her father had only recently died and her doctor had said she was not fit to travel. The hearing was conducted in her absence and she was dismissed.

The notice of dismissal procedure served on her was bizarre since it was carried out by two civil servants who despite travel restrictions being in place because of Covid-19 journeyed by car on a 16-hour return trip from Edinburgh to her home in Caithness to hand-deliver her dismissal letter.

Lawyers acting on LeeAnn’s behalf confirmed she would sue the Scottish government for wrongful dismissal, based on a defence of workplace stress and damage to her mental health and wellbeing.

 

Comment:

Deeann’s dismissal was barely enough to compensate the male colleagues whose names she wilfully maligned, nor society who eagerly accepted her misleading statements as truth.

Her false victimhood began with what became popularly referred to as “the chair incident” in which she was widely portrayed as being punished by her male colleagues for speaking out against male bullies and misogyny, and perhaps as planned it became a “MeToo” sensation which morphed into the damaging Scottish civil service “chairgate” scandal.

One fake photo was all it took to create an atmosphere of hysteria within the Scottish Government. The damage cannot be undone and yet DeeAnn, showing no remorse still claims to be the victim.

Still to be dealt with by senior management in the Scottish Government is the matter of the false allegations of sexual harassment made by a number of civil servants and Spads against Alex Salmond.

Matters arising and resolved in his favour should be dealt with are they were in the case of Deeann. They bore false witness against a colleague and should be dismissed from employment. Society has gone mad!! We need to restore sanity.

 

Westminster Cabinet Secretary tells Sturgeon not to proceed with the introduction of a “Look-back” Harassment policy for former Ministers

17 Nov 1048: A Cabinet Office official responded on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary saying: “This feels very uncomfortable to be highlighting a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers. It would best suit all UK Governments if you could defer introduction of a new policy until ourselves and others have conducted our own reviews. If your proposals for the entirely new policy for previous ministers is more than is in place for former civil servants you would be best advised to speak to Nicky and get her take on the matter before making any changes.”

17 Nov: Hynd was clearly concerned about the response from the Cabinet Office in London and immediately copied it to a private secretary in the Scottish Cabinet Office who replied by return: “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but the First Minister and Leslie Evans are keen to resolve things quickly and discuss on Tuesday. I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants. But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct, which includes a recent SG Minister?”.

Comment: The foregoing paraphrased exchanges but warnings issued from London were ignored generating the need for Nicola Sturgeon to write to leslie Evans with explicit instructions to proceed with the compilation and introduction of the new policy. The policy was clearly targeted at former SNP ministers since no warning of the new policy was ever sent (a legal requirement) to the many former ministers who might be affected by it in the future.

 

Back to the Future

The reason for caution on the part of the Cabinet Office in London can be attributed to the ominous probability of inviting a landslide of complaints against former ministers dating back many years. And there are still no “lookback” procedures in place in London , Wales or Northern Ireland.

An example of difficulties thrown up by a retrospective lookback

John Reid (later Lord John) was a persistent Sex Predator who in 1994, when he was Shadow Defence Secretary, was witnessed by several people sexually harassing a fellow MP, Dawn Primarolo.

One person said: “John came lurching up and said to Dawn, “I want to have sex with you, I want to f*** you, you want it as well.”

Dawn’s friend and neighbouring Bristol Labour MP Jean Corston, intervened and, according to a source, said to Reid “You are a disgusting creature. Get away from her,” adding, “That’s it, I’m going to report you.”

Corston, now a Baroness, told colleagues she raised the matter with the late John Smith, commenting, “It won’t be happening again.”

A Labour insider said: “Dawn was on the verge of tears. She said Reid had been harassing her over a period of years and had propositioned her in the bar. It was very painful for her.”

Reid was asked to explain his actions by the Labour Party leader, the late John Smith. On concluding the interview Reid handed Smith a sealed envelope containing his resignation and told him that if he misbehaved again, Smith should open it. (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-454473/The-day-leadership-rival-John-Reid-propositioned-young-Brown-ally-Dawn-Primarolo–drank-again.html)

Note: That was the end of the incident. No further action.

Sep 2014: John Reid had the audacity to accuse Scotsmen who fought for independence of being offensive and misogynist

The Scottish independence referendum: Speaking at a rally in Glasgow the former Labour Cabinet minister John Reid, accused the Yes side of employing the “language of abuse” at women who spoke up for the maintenance of the 300-year Union. He criticised Alex Salmond’s supporters of organising mass rallies and “street mobs” to intimidate No campaigners, saying: “The Nationalists are running an offensive misogynistic campaign against female unionists. The language that I worry about is the language of abuse towards women in particular, J K Rowling and Michelle Mone, the opponents of separatism. I think we should conduct our arguments in a robust fashion but be careful in the language we use.”

Note: And he didn’t blush once!!!

 

 

 

 

22 Aug: Evans informed Alex Salmond that there was no scope within the procedure for mediation and arbitration and that she was “considering the public interest” before publishing the results of the investigation.

23 Aug 1700: Alex Salmond launched proceedings seeking imposition of an interim interdict on the Scottish Government preventing the release of any information pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment against him so that he would be able to request a judicial review of the decision process which he said was “unjust” and “unlawful”. In a short follow-up he said that the allegatons had been gathered with malice afore-thought in order to defeat his pleas for an implementation of available procedures, namely: “conciliation, mediation and legal arbitration”.

 

Within three hours of the Government being served notice of the interim interdict application, details of the charges of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond were illegally released to journalist David Clegg, a writer for the Daily Record, by a Government source. Clegg immediately posted all of the information to his Twitter account. A “spoiler” designed to pre-empt the imminent issue of the interim interdict thus preventing any disclosure of any matter pertaining to the investigation.

Clegg said later “The dam broke on this when I put some of the allegations to Salmond at 2000 hours and informed him we were planning to publish in the Daily Record the next day. He responded at 2130 hours with his statement on the legal action and advised he had copied other newspapers preventing publication of the information.”

But Clegg moved anyway going to print, with the Daily Record at 2200 hours. Alex Salmond’s name was luridly smeared and he was monstered by false allegations for many months before he could prove his innocence. The interests of the newspapers, the criminal who leaked the information and the Scottish Government had been well served by Clegg and his informant.

The source of the illegal leaking of information was identified with confidence to be one of the following: Nicola Sturgeon, Leslie Evans, Judith MacKinnon, Barbara Allison or Liz Lloyd who was fulfilling the role of “gopher” between Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein. Lloyd would be the primary suspect since she was a person who enjoyed a current close relationship with Clegg. dding to the credence of culpability was a free (cost the US Government £8000 each person invited) fact finding holiday to the US attended by Liz Lloyd, David Clegg and a small group of MSP’s. See: (https://wingsoverscotland.com/all-the-jolly-boys-and-girls).

Alex Salmond’s lawyer wrote to Evans demanding a full and independent inquiry into how details of the complaint against him were illegally leaked to the media and on 25 Mar 2020, after many months of investigation!! a civi service led team from the “Information Commissioner’s Office” (ICO) reported that they had found no evidence of civil servants breaching rules around the former SNP leader’s personal data. But there was no mention of the most likely source of the leak, the Spads employed in the office of the First Minister. The timing of the release of the report on the leak was crucial since the material given to the Holyrood inquiry indicated that Alex Salmond’s lawyers had repeatedly told the Scottish Government that the investigations into the allegations was unlawful and that the matter should instead be dealt with privately by arbitration and/or mediation.

The Scottish Government flatly refuted any suggestions of wrong-doing and insisted on going to court where the allegations would become public. A position it maintained, right up to the eve of the hearing, at which time it suddenly conceded, at a cost to the Scottish taxpayer of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. And it stubbornly resisted disclosing to the Inquiry, legal advice it was provided with by its highly paid legal team.

Comment

Alex Salmond’s legal team wrote to the Permanent Secretary early in March 2021  reminding her that the actions of the Government official who released information were criminal  and should be referred by her to the police so that a criminal enquiry could be completed. Confirmation of receipt of the reminder and tasking of a police investigation team are outstanding at 05 March 2021.

 

The Harassment Inquiry

Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance before the Inquiry lasted just short of eight hours and at it’s end the knowledge and understanding of events that gave title to the debacle that cost the Scottish taxpayer in excess of £1.5m had not been added to one bit.

Sturgeon showboated with a vengeance seizing the narrative and delivering a carefully choreographed display of ostentatious behaviour designed to divert the attention of the Inquiry and television viewers away from the abject performance of herself, her Spad’s and senior civil servants.

Her cavalier “devil may care” attitude most certainly attracted attention but any admiration for her faded in consequence of her persistent blatant, inaccurate and unwarranted attacks on the character of Alex Salmond. A tactic not employed by Alex Salmond at the time he gave evidence to the Inquiry.

Her stubborn defence of the indefensible was breath-taking in its insolence in her dismissal of a senior judge’s opinion that the hastily compiled ill judged and badly botched “lookback” disciplinary procedures were “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and “tainted with apparent bias”.

Conversely her “Shirley Temple” act was excruciatingly bad. Her quivering bottom lip as she described the many benefits, professional and personal, her close working relationship with her “Bestie” friend had brought her.

Only in the next breath to castigate Alex for his detestable behaviour towards women. A wholly unfair judgement by herself and people with “axes to grind” against Alex. And one which led to him being hounded by accusers bearing false witness against him.

 

Alex Salmond’s Day in Court

Salmond took the stand and told the court “there was no policy” which would stop women from working with him alone, as suggested to the court earlier in the trial.

He went on to say that his private office was like a family environment but subject to “extreme political pressure” and there was no “9-5” working pattern.

Asked about an alleged assault a complainer had brought to the court he said: “over the passage of time I think the incident is misremembered…it was a joke. Hi jinks, a piece of fun.”

Asked about an alleged knee touch in the first minister’s private car, he told the court he would have had to have stretched over a seat and a wide armrest which would have been seen by others in the car. Adding, “It would be impossible not to have been seen”.

On another charge he said he would gently tug the hair of one of the complainers from time to time “but there was no sexual element to it.”

Asked if he stroked the face of another complainer, in a car during a foreign visit, Salmond said, “yes I did. She had fallen asleep and rather than shake her I stroked her cheek to wake her up. Asked if it was “sexual”, he told the court “absolutely not I stroked her face with the sole intention of waking her up.”

Asked about an alleged touching in a restaurant against a woman, he said, “I gave the woman a gentle shove to get her moving when her group kept pausing for no good reason” he gave a woman a “gentle shove” to “get her moving” when their group had paused while moving.

Salmond told the court he did not kiss a woman on the lips, as alleged, because of the “public” nature of where the alleged incident occurred, (prize giving at a gala) it would have been “insane” for him to have acted as alleged.

He told the court he had received as a gift, a few bottles of Maotai, a potent Chinese “rice” drink. At the end of a long evening, in Bute House, after dealing with “Chinese business” he suggested to one of the complainers that they share a few glasses and she agreed. They overindulged, underestimated the potency of the alcohol and ended up quite drunk. They both dozed off on a bed enjoying a “sleepy cuddle”.

Asked why they behaved so he said. “I don’t know. It should not have happened. It was only a cuddle. My left arm was around her shoulder. But we were both fully dressed. I woke up with a start and stood up. She got to her feet and collected a folder. I kissed her on the cheek. She left to go downstairs. That was the end of the encounter. I had no intention whatsoever of having non-consensual sex,”

The court was shown entries from Salmond’s diary from 2014, in relation to an allegation made against him by Woman H. He launched an alibi of not being in the location at the time of the alleged offence. His QC suggested to him that: “Your position is that the allegation is a lie.” He replied: “That’s correct”

Asked repeatedly if he gave any consideration to an accuser’s feelings when he took hold of her hands and said “let’s recreate this Christmas card?” he repeatedly told the court it was a “joke”, “hijinks” and added: “I assumed she would find the circumstances as funny as I did.” His QC, suggested to him that “innocent events” had been turned “into sexual offences” and Salmond agreed.

Salmond admitted to the court that there had been a “blurring of boundaries” between staff in his private office and civil servants but “nothing sexual” and went on to say that he wished he had been more careful about people’s personal space but the accusations against him were “fabrications.”

 

The entire case was created with malice aforethought

In his closing speech Gordon Jackson QC, said one alleged victim, a senior official in the Scottish government, had not told anyone that Alex Salmond groped her until the elapse of many years after the alleged incident. “This stinks, absolutely stinks,” And the accusations showed a distinct pattern whereby incidents that nobody had, at the time or since, until now, considered reporting to the police were now being aired in the High Court.

“There is something that doesn’t smell right about the whole thing,” he said. Addressing an allegation that Alex Salmond had assaulted, with intent to rape, a civil servant, as an example of the pattern, the QC said that the woman had sought and received an apology from the former First Minister over the incident which was then considered closed. And at the time “there was no thought of any kind of the police being involved”.

Gordon Jackson QC, went on to say “every single complainer who’s been brought to this trial worked in Alex Salmond’s high pressure political bubble And these accusations emanated from it without any independent confirmation of support of any kind.”

Senior prosecutor Alex Prentice QC told the court that the evidence against Alex Salmond added up to a “cohesive, compelling and convincing course of conduct” that showed him to be a sexual predator of “escalating gravity”.

Gordon Jackson QC, said that despite Mr Prentice’s use of “emotive language” like “abuse” and “predator”, the evidence showed a very different picture of minor incidents that had “grown arms and legs”. “There’s a pattern all right, but it’s not that suggested by the prosecution”.

He went on to say that one charge of sexual assault making claim that Alex Salmond “touched” a much younger female civil servant had “without doubt” been introduced by the prosecution to add weight to the two more serious allegations of attempted rape and assault with intent to rape that “in themselves were rubbish”.

Gordon Jackson acknowledged that Alex Salmond had acted inappropriately on occasion, but allegations of sexual assault with intent to rape, against a total of nine women against him stemmed from the “political bubble” he operated in and some of the cases against him were “absolute stinkers”. Adding, “the issues before this court is not whether he should have been a better man, because he certainly could have been.

We are dealing with whether or not it has been established that he is guilty of serious, sometimes very serious, criminal charges. This has gone far enough, gone on long enough, too long maybe, it is time, I say to you quite bluntly, to bring this travesty to an end.”

 

The verdict of the jury

Alex Salmond was found not guilty of 12 charges and not proven on a single charge.

 

Another “Hi-Jinks” working environment

The culmination of a decade-long campaign against racist and misogynistic culture in the Caithness office of Marine Scotland occurred in 2010 when DeeAnn Fitzpatrick complained for the umpteenth time about harassment.

She said she had been taped to a chair and gagged by colleagues and had a photograph to substantiate her allegation of bullying. An internal investigation by Marine Scotland managers found the men had “no case to answer” and dismissed the incidences as forming part of a “high jinks” culture.

During the inquiry, staff claimed that one of a number of pranks involved wrapping colleagues in sticky tape if they fell asleep during night or late shifts. Ms Fitzpatrick denied she had been a willing participant, but soon found herself under investigation for alleged gross misconduct. She was dismissed from the service.

Comment:

The “hi-jinks” working environment was common-place in many divisions and offices throughout the Civil Service in Scotland up to the time of the 2017 “Me2” campaign which encouraged management to get serious about equal rights in the workplace and move away from the male dominated culture so prevalent within the Service. Change has been achieved resulting in much improved harmonious workplaces.

Wise heads ruled at the top of the Civil Service and remedial measures have been agreed and implemented without the imposition of any divisive and unlawful “lookback” procedures.

Well done the Civil Service senior management. But the badly flawed and unlawful “lookback” procedure developed for former Government Minsters remains in place, but unused, at the insistence of Nicola Sturgeon who appears determined to save face.

 

 

The SNP Membership and Disciplinary Procedures

Peter Murrell, the Chief Executive of the SNP is married to Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of the Scottish Government. An arrangement unique and deprecated in Western democracies since it blurs the division of responsibility and in consequence can lead to a form of Government detrimental to the health and well being of the electorate.

In January 2021, in a statement to the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry, Peter Murrell categorically stated that Party policy dictated the policing of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality”, and at no time in the Autumn of 2017 did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government.

 

Except when she who must be obeyed says otherwise

02 Nov 2017: Mark Macdonald, MSP and Government Minister, was invited to attend a meeting with Deputy First Minister, John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.

03 Nov 2017: The rules of conduct pertaining to Special Advisers created a conflict of interest when Liz Lloyd, Special Advisor and Chief of Staff to the First Minister convened a second meeting with Mark at which she briefed him about a sexual harassment complaint that had been lodged against him by a Party member. She went on to advise his position as a minister of the government was no longer tolerable and he would need to resign. The conduct of Liz Lloyd breeched the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors and should have resulted in her immediate dismissal.

 

It also begged the questions?

Why was the complaint not dealt with by Peter Murrell, since it had been lodged by a Party member to a Party official and was therefore a Party matter?

Who authorised her actions?

Where did she get her information from?

The questions remain unanswered at the beginning of March 2021.

04 November 2017: Nicola Sturgeon phoned Mark in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign from the Government that evening, which he did.

16 Nov 2017: Mark was suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him. Both events were investigated and decided on by the SNP without reference to the Scottish Government.

Comments: Why is Liz Lloyd still in post? The sequence of events provided a template that should have been applied to complaints against Alex Salmond by Ms A and MS B.

 

Nicola Sturgeon’s commitments in Office

In relation to ensuring that there is a clear distinction between my role as First Minister and my role in the SNP, I have regard to the terms of both the MSP and Ministerial Codes of Conduct. My Special Advisers abide by the terms of the Special Advisers’ Code of Conduct and the Civil Service Code. In relation to the question about Scottish Government communication and records, this is covered by Scottish Government procedures on the recording and retention of information. The SNP communicates with its post holders in the normal ways – including meetings, emails and phone calls. The safeguard to ensure this is distinct from government communications are the relevant Codes that MSPs, Ministers and Special Advisers are bound by. To be clear, members of the public often email my SNP or MSP accounts about government business and I forward these to my ministerial private office. On any other occasions when I email my ministerial private office or special advisers from my personal email – eg with diary queries or information requests – these will be to a Scottish Government email account and retained in line with standard procedures. And all government business, no matter the platform/medium it is conducted
on/through, is subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

 

 

The gathering storm

The Westminster Government’s underhand decision to further emasculate the government of Scotland through the establishment of a UK Government in Scotland, right in the heart of Edinburgh, presents new challenges for Scottish supporters of the devolved Scottish Government and its already limited powers.

Powers greatly reduced from January 2021 after Brexit are in breach of the “Vow” signed by Prime Minister David Cameron, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband, which was published only two days before the 2014 referendum warping the outcome, leading to a “no” vote, the creation of the Smith Commission and devolution of significant new powers to Scotland.

The Westminster government’s betrayal of the principles of the “Vow” might yet be the catalyst that drives Scots to pursue through the UN a unilateral withdrawal from the 1707 Treaty of Union and full independence or at the very least another referendum and Scots must learn from the mistakes of the past before that time.

There needs to be an acceptance by the Scottish Government and the electorate that there is an in-built majority of voters who favour remaining with the Union, a situation created through the immigration of people who favour retaining the status quo and the emigration of Scots  disadvantaged by living in Scotland.

Around 550,000 foreigners have chosen to live and raise their families in Scotland, but their political and personal ties remain with their country of origin as was evidenced in the 2014 referendum when a very significant majority of the group voted to remain with the Union, thwarting the will of Scots born nationals.

A future independence referendum would be similarly handicapped and action needs to be taken to nullify the adverse influence of the foreign born voting bloc.

Measures might include voting qualification to be dependent upon: Being a Scottish income taxpayer and permanently resident (not a second or holiday home) in Scotland for a minimum of 2 years.

Many Scots have been forced to move away from their homes by the punitive living conditions created through the imposition of never ending austerity policies by criminally incompetent Westminster Governments.

It is estimated that there  are approximately 750,000 Scottish born people living in England and many others worldwide.

It would be to the betterment of the cause of independence if they would be included in any future referendum a change that could be inexpensively and speedily facilitated through the creation and maintenance of an expatriate (ex-pat) register.

“Will ye no come back again” seems to be a fitting slogan for a new referendum conducted with the foregoing changes in place.

 

 

Two matters of concern (not complaints) involving Alex Salmond surface

08 Nov 2017: The first draft of a new harassment policy “Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints Against Former Ministers”, written by top official James Hynd was circulated, It stated that if a complaint was lodged against a minster or former minister and he/she was a member of the party in power, the First Minister should be informed immediately.

Afternote: At an inquiry meeting in January 2021 Hynd was questioned about his awareness of the “Meto” campaign at the time he wrote the “new” procedure and rumours about Alex Salmond’s previous behaviour. He guardedly answered: “yes, things were said”.

At the same meeting the inquiry heard from Nicola Richards, the Scottish Government, Director of People, that the “new” draft harassment policy had been provided to a woman who had gone on to lodge a complaint of sexual harassment against Mr Salmond. She said the draft policy was shared with the woman in part so she could make an “informed decision” about whether to make a formal complaint against Alex Salmond.

10 Nov 2017: Leslie Evans appointed Gillian Russell, Scottish Government, Director of Safer Communities as the “confidential sounding board” for complainers.

08–10 Nov 2017: Ms A told Gillian Russell of an incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. With the consent of Ms A, Russell updated Richards, who in turn alerted Evans and through her Mackinnon.

On the same day Ms B, advised Allison of a incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. Richards and Evans were notified.

Ms A and Ms B were determined that they were not interested in making a formal complaint about Alex Salmond, They expressed in the strongest terms that they wished only to be allowed a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. On both counts the civil service failed them and they paid the price of failure.

This is what the “new” procedure offered. Handling of Harassment Complaints Involving Current or Former Ministers:

“A civil servant may choose to raise an issue involving a current or former Minister. It is important to support the officer to achieve the outcome they seek. If may be their intention is to simply ask that their concern be acknowledged and in recognition of their experience and to assist the service, so that similar circumstances can be prevented from occurring, without proceeding to a formal complaint.”

13-15 Nov 2017: In an exchange of emails with senior civil servants, Mr Hynd reminded them that: “officials will also need to alert the First Minister if a complaint is lodged against a minister because she’d “want to know straight away”.

Afternote: It beggars belief that just about every senior civil servant in the Scottish government knew of the concerns (but not yet complaints) registered by Ms A and Ms B and their express wish to be allowed a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. And ignoring two separate warnings from Mr Hynd the day before and the one after, that Nicola Sturgeon would need to be advised promptly of any negative issue involving a minister, not one of the senior civil servants informed her. That there is no record of any disciplinary action against any of the senior managers is indicative that Nicola Sturgeon was fully advised of the wishes of Ms A and Ms B and the actions of her senior managers thereafter.

What is fact and not conjecture is that two women who never intended to make allegations against Alex Salmond were denied access to Nicola Sturgeon and instead subjected to intense pressure from senior civil service managers and other senior political and legal persons to register complaints with the assurance that they would be resolved to their satisfaction through use of the “new” all-encompassing procedures, which they had a hand in compiling. In this regard they placed their trust in and were used by the Scottish government as sacrificial lambs in a political vendetta against Alex Salmond.

 

 

 

 

 

 17 December 2018:  Joint Note by , Roddy Dunlop & Christine O’Neill, senior and Junior Counsel  for the Respondents in the Petition of Alex Salmond, Petitioner, for Judicial Review

We have drafted this note for the eyes of the Lord Advocate and Paul Cackette only.

It has been prepared in response to a series of events in the week of 10 December 2018 which led us to consider very seriously whether we were bound to withdraw from acting for the respondents in this matter.

Having given the question anxious consideration we concluded that we would be entitled to so withdraw but at this stage are not bound to do so. We introduce matters in this way to convey the seriousness of matters from our perspective. It is a matter for the recipients of this note to decide on its wider circulation but our own preference is that the note itself is not circulated more widely.

We would wish to avoid damaging working relations with the wider SGLD and Scottish Government team involved in instructing us. We also do not wish to add to any perception there may be that we are not committed to the case. We have prepared a separate note dealing with practical matters that need to be attended to and have no difficulty with that being circulated more widely.

Disclosure of documents

On Tuesday 11 December we met with counsel for the petitioner to discuss their specification of documents with a view to narrowing the scope of any order to be sought. In the course of that meeting, counsel for the petitioner were told that the redactions made to documents already disclosed had been made on the instruction of junior counsel for the respondents. We understood that to be the case.

On Wednesday 12 December, in the course of preparation for the hearing fixed for 14 December, junior counsel identified a redaction that had not been instructed by her.

The document redacted was an email chain involving Nicky Richards, [Redacted] and Gillian Russell. Two emails in the chain had been copied to a [Redacted]. We understand that the inclusion of [Redacted] in the email chain was an error arising out of a predictive email address function: [Redacted] intended to copy in Nicky Richards but [Redacted] was copied instead. [Redacted] is a former colleague of [Redacted]. Instead of the unredacted email being supplied to the petitioner’s agents and an explanation
provided for the error, the email was redacted.

The petitioner’s agents subsequently sought an explanation for the redaction and they were told that the email had been sent to a recipient in error. The issue had not been specifically flagged with counsel at the time of original disclosure or subsequently (albeit junior counsel had been copied into a draft of an email to the petitioner’s agents that answered a long list of queries about redacted documents and which made reference to an email having been wrongly addressed).

When this issue was identified on Wednesday 12 December an immediate and clear direction was given that the unredacted email should be disclosed to, the petitioner’s agents in advance of the hearing on Friday 14 December. It was intended that the disclosure should be made at the same time as a small number of additional documents, identified in the course of further searches and including an email that we had not previously seen from Ms A to the Permanent Secretary of 3 November 2018 indicating support for the Permanent Secretary’s. announcement of the review of harassment policies and expressing views on the content of that review; were also to be disclosed.

Disclosure was thought to be essential not only on grounds of candour but to try to defuse what we eared would be the reaction of the petitioner to the unredacted email. It is an email chain in which Gillian Russell asks questions of Judith Mackinnon about the circumstances in which complaints of harassment should be reported to the Police and is in the context of wider exchanges about the developing policy for handling complaints against ministers and former ministers.

We were (and remain) concerned that it will add fuel to the fire of the petitioner’s ‘conspiracy theory’.

We were both committed to other matters on Thursday 13 December (junior counsel being engaged in a debate in another matter for Scottish Government).

On the evening of 13 December, having reviewed emails that had been sent in the course of the day, junior counsel asked for confirmation that (as it appeared) the unredacted email had not been disclosed.

That confirmation was given together with an explanation that there was a concern about the GDPR implications of releasing an email with an addressee outside of the Scottish Government.

No advice had been sought from us about this issue and we had not been told proactively about the non-disclosure. After considerable discussion on Friday morning, we reached the view that we could not properly advise the Court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candour. We sought and received instructions that the motion for commission and diligence should be conceded.

In advance of the hearing, and in an effort to minimise any damaging comment that might be made by counsel for the petitioner, we disclosed the unredacted email to counsel for the petitioners, tendered the explanation that had been given to us about the error and agreed to ‘lead’ in the hearing.

In the event senior counsel for the petitioner did not make reference in open court to the further disclosure. However, in relation to the motion more generally, senior counsel for the respondents felt bound to make the early concession that the petitioner was justifiably able to say that he was not satisfied that searches are exhausted.

Lord Pentland asked senior counsel for the petitioner
whether the petitioner’s concern that essentially for whatever reason the Scottish Government may not have carried out an entirely comprehensive search of any possible place where documents may be held.

Senior counsel for the petitioner, of course, concurred. It is envisaged that there will be an open commission in the course of the week of 17 December. We trust it will be obvious why this matter has given rise to such concern on our part about our ability to continue to act. Assurances had been given on a counsel to counsel basis about the reasons for redaction of documents. Counsel for the petitioner withdrew their application to have the commissioner consider redactions that had been made on grounds of legal professional privilege because they were prepared to accept the assurances given that such redactions had been made on the instruction of junior counsel.

Having identified that the assurances that had been given required qualification, we expected that our direction as to disclosure of the unredacted email would have been acted upon timeously. That it was not so disclosed left us in an extremely difficult position professionally. The way in which this has been dealt with has also been damaging to the respondents’ interests.

It is clear that the Lord Ordinary is unimpressed at being faced with a situation in which it appears that the Scottish Government has not acted with full candour and in which a commissioner has had to be appointed.

It seems inevitable that parties will now be put to expense and inconvenience of a commission. It is not yet clear whether the petitioner will accept the presence at that commission of a senior civil servant such as [Redacted] rather than, for example, the Permanent Secretary herself (as was adverted to by senior counsel for the petitioner as a possibility).

All of this is extremely frustrating because it seems to us it was entirely avoidable. Had the email been disclosed in full at the outset any questions about the circumstances in which the error was made could have been addressed at that time.

 

 

The Permanent Secretary

As was discussed at the consultation on Monday 10 November, the petitioner’s most recent adjustments have introduced a case of apparent bias against the Permanent Secretary based on her knowledge in November and December 2017 of the complaints being made by Ms A and Ms B and her knowledge of the involvement of Judith Mackinnon in the management of those complaints.

We had understood from the consultation that a full statement was to be taken from the Permanent
Secretary to allow those adjustments to be answered. After the consultation junior counsel indicated to those instructing us that the Permanent Secretary should, in particular, be taken through the documents that had been disclosed and that indicated knowledge on her part. Junior counsel asked for that statement to be available by the morning of Thursday 13 December at the latest to enable adjustments to be prepared and intimated in the course of Thursday.

By email around noon on Thursday we received a note concerning the Permanent Secretary’s position. It was not a precognition: it comprises 4 short paragraphs and it is not clear to us that it is in the Permanent Secretary’s own words.

Junior counsel prepared very limited adjustments for intimation. They do not in our view answer fully the issue of apparent bias put by the petitioner in his pleadings.

The respondents’ position on record is weaker than it might be. It is not clear to us why a full precognition has not been taken.

We have the ‘advantage’ that the Court has allowed further adjustment of the petition and answers until the week before the substantive hearing and so further adjustment is possible.

However it ought to be possible for us to put the Permanent Secretary’s position fully and clearly in early course.

We would wish to have the precognition previously discussed. As with the disclosure of documents, the approach to this aspect of matters is making it unnecessarily) difficult for us to put the respondents’ best foot forward.

Resources

We hesitate to raise matters that are not properly our province. We are concerned, however, that the difficulties that have arisen particularly (but not exclusively) in the last week have been contributed to by limitations on the resources available for management of the case at solicitor level.

We would emphasise that this is not intended as a criticism of any individual (and hence our desire to limit the circulation of this note). We are conscious that there is one principal solicitor with responsibility for management of the case. [Redacted] was previously supported by a second solicitor [Redacted] but we understand that solicitor is [Redacted]. It seems clear to us that the further preparations that will be needed particularly in the organisation of documents requires additional resource dedicated to this case.

 

17 Dec 2018: Scottish government advised by legal counsel that action against Alex Salmond is indefensible

The Legal Advisors to the Scottish government, Roddy Dunlop QC and Christine O’Neill, Solicitor Advocate, wrote a joint letter outlining Alex Salmond’s approach to the hearing, saying:

It has become increasingly clear that the approach of Alex Salmond in this matter is one which may appropriately be described as a “scorched earth” one. It is clear that there is no concern on his part as to who might be criticised, or harmed, as a result of these proceedings and we understand that this is well understood by those, in the crosshairs most obviously the Permanent Secretary and the First Minister. If instructions are to proceed notwithstanding then so be it.

We are not yet in a position where we are professionally unable to mount a defence. We are, however, perilously close to such a situation and are firmly of the view that at least one of the challenges mounted by Alex Salmond will be successful.

We have been told that other legal opinion (the Lord Advocate) available to the government advises that there are other aspects to the case which justify the running of a defence and that, accordingly, there is no prospect of the petition being conceded. That decision is not for us to take and as long as informed consent is given the decision to proceed is one which we must obey.

Afternote: So Ms A and Ms B, the complainers were never more than vehicles to which Sturgeon and her government hitched their campaign. They were expendable. Sad but true!!

We are, however, entirely unconvinced as to what benefit that might arise from the hearing in January that might outweigh the potentially disastrous repercussions thereof.

Leaving aside the large expenses bill that would inevitably arise, the personal and political fallout of an adverse decision especially if, as may be the case, it is attended by judicial criticism seems to us to be something which eclipses by some way the possibility of helpful judicial comments.

A way out would be to accept (as is our genuine advice as a matter of law) that the appointment of Julia McKinnon as Investigating Officer was, whilst made in bona fide, on reflection indefensible. That would render nugatory all of the other, potentially more harmful, aspects to the challenge.

Accepting that a technical error was made could not sensibly be criticised and would protect those that might otherwise be harmed by the vigorous nature of the challenge that is to be mounted and it might help to stem the substantial expenses bill that we have no doubt is presently being incurred. Given that we genuinely cannot see the defence prevailing in any event, that seems to us to be the only sensible approach.

We are acutely aware that much of the foregoing advice has already been given by us and discounted and the decision to proceed has been taken by very experienced legal and political minds, who are entitled to proceed as they wish.

However, we are independently but also mutually unable to see that the benefits in proceeding come close to meeting the potential detriments in so doing.

Given the potential for harm we simply wish all concerned and we include the First Minister in this to be absolutely certain that they wish us to plough on regardless notwithstanding the concerns which we have outlined.

 

Panic button activated for a second time by legal counsel

19 December 2018: Joint note by Roddy Dunlop QC and Christine O’Neill (senior and Junior counsel) for the Respondents in the Petition of Alex Salmond, Petitioner, for Judicial Review

We write further to recent events. With regret, our dismay at this case deepens yet further. We will not rehearse the regrettable way in which document disclosure has unfolded. Suffice to say that we have each experienced extreme professional embarrassment as a result of assurances which we have given, both to our opponents and to the court, which assurances have been given on instructions, turning out to be false as a result of the revelation of further
documents, highly relevant yet undisclosed.

We, of course, required to consult at 9.15pm last night to discuss the ramifications thereof. This morning, the first part of the commission began. The inevitable result of the last minute disclosure of the additional documents was that the commission required to be adjourned.

The havers now cited for Friday can expect a torrid time in the witness box given the late disclosures. That comment applies in particular to Julia MacKinnon, for the reasons which follow. All of that is bad enough. However, it pales beside the revelation in the course of this morning of two further documents from Julia MacKinnon. These give rise to concerns we discussed in the last night’s consultation about the late nature of the revelation and the content.

As to the late nature of the revelation, this is unexplained, and frankly inexplicable. Given the nature of the searches described by as having been undertaken, we regret that we simply cannot understand why these documents have been made available only now. Julia MacKinnon should be warned that she will be pressed on why these documents, and indeed the OneNote extracts provided yesterday, were not both discovered and disclosed long before now.

As to their content, the two documents now made available cause us both real concern. The first is a letter from Julia MacKinnon to Ms A. It is dated 17 January 2018. It begins as follows:

“Ms A. Following this meeting you submitted a  letter dated 17 January 2018 at 2pm.”

This letter gives rise to various concerns, which we set out on an escalating basis as follows:

“The letter is dated the same day as the meeting, this must have been sent by email. Where is the email?”

This letter suggests that there must have been other communications with Ms A in advance of the meeting of 16 January 2018 or how would the meeting have been arranged? No documents in this regard have been forthcoming.

It will be recalled that at 12.19pm, Julia MacKinnon was appointed as such by email of the same date at 12.45pm. The email reads as follows:

“Julia would you be able to review this and get the investigation underway? ”

There is little doubt that it will be contended that the email is disingenuous.  The revelation causes acute difficulties regarding the way in which we have, again on instructions, pled this case.

Looking to the Record as it stands:

Ms A emailed Julia MacKinnon on 19 December 2017 informing her that she was minded to pursue a formal complaint against the petitioner. The complainer requested a meeting to discuss the practicalities of this. The respondents are called upon to aver whether and if so when that meeting took place and if it did what was discussed and/or agreed.

The respondents are called upon to aver the full extent of the instructions, we have answered those averments as follows:

“Emailed Ms A on 19 December 2017 in response to queries raised by her about the implications of making a complaint That email is produced.”

There was no further meeting with Ms A prior to 16 January 2018 when she made her formal complaint.

We cannot suggest that the highlighted averment in the answers discloses a meeting on 16 January, before the complaint was submitted. That is not what the averment says. Rather, in order to address the complaint of prior involvement, we have averred that there was no further meeting with Ms A before she made her complaint. That is, it would now appear, plainly and demonstrably SP untrue.

We have been given two draft affidavits from Julia MacKinnon. Mercifully, neither has yet been lodged.

The first (13 December 2019) contains the following:

“On 16 January 2018 Ms Richards emailed to inform me that she had received an official complaint from Ms A, with the written complaint attached. In the email she stated that she was appointing me Investigating Officer (IO). She informed me that she had told Ms A that I had been appointed and that I would be in touch. I contacted Ms A to arrange the next steps.”

The lack of any mention of the meeting of 16 January 2018 in what is meant to be a sworn affidavit for use in Court is, frankly, alarming.  The letter indicates that Julia MacKinnnon met with Ms A immediately before the complaint was submitted, and that immediately thereafter she was appointed to  investigate the complaint when she had met with Ms A only 30 minutes before to discuss it. We trust that we do not need to say any more about how that appears.

The second document now disclosed is an email chain, some of which has been seen before.

An email of 24 January 2018 at 1:56pm, from complainer Ms B to Julia MacKinnon, making her complaint. Thus far, we have seen these emails. What is yet more alarming, however, is what follows in the email chain.

By response of the same date at 2.23pm i.e. less than half an hour later Julia McKinnon responds saying that she has and will be meeting her the following day. Allowing for a need for haste, questions will inevitably arise from this.

Plainly there must have been further undocumented contact in which Julia MacKinnon agreed to meet Ms B. It is unclear whether this preceded or post dated the making of the complaint. The complaint had only just been made. No one had appointed an IO for this complaint. Julia MacKinnon effectively appointed herself in that regard.

All of this gives rise to two concerns:

1. We are now in a position where we think that maintaining a defence of the appointment of Julia MacKinnon may be unstatable (undefendable). Given the timescales we are reluctant to take a final view on this, but there is a real risk that we so conclude.

2. We are each in a position which is, so far as dealings with the other side and the court are concerned, close to untenable. Again, given the timescales we are reluctant to take a final view on this, but there is a real risk that we so conclude.

We are to meet with the Lord Advocate at 4pm and this note has been prepared in haste to allow him to consider same in advance thereof. We will leave further comment to that meeting.

 

8 January 2019: Sturgeon reluctantly accepted legal counsel advice, conceded the case and the Scottish taxpayer paid the penalty

The Scottish government admitted acting unlawfully while investigating sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond. The government admitted it breached its own guidelines by appointing an investigating officer who had “prior involvement” in the case. As a result, it conceded defeat in its legal fight. Judge Lord Pentland subsequently said that the government’s actions had been “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and had been “tainted with apparent bias”.

Afternote: So there it is. Sturgeon was well aware that her much vaunted “new” procedure was full of holes and had the potential to do great harm to the government and a number of senior officers in it and at the very last minute just before the start of the judicial review  she belatedly took the advice of counsel and conceded the case on one of the least damaging of the many failings highlighted to her by legal counsel. She threw Julia MacKinnon under a bus. What was particularly unedifying was the conduct of Sturgeon and Evans after losing the case when they publicly announced that Alex Salmond had got lucky, winning the case on a minor technicality, well knowing the “new” procedure had been created with the single purpose of destroying Alex Salmond was riddled with many serious errors

 

Alex Salmond

Speaking outside the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Alex Salmond said the case had resulted in “abject humiliation” for the Scottish government. Adding: “The last time I was in that court was to be sworn in as first minister of Scotland. I never thought it possible that at any point I would be taking the Scottish government to court.

Therefore while I am glad about the victory which has been achieved today, I am sad that it was necessary to take this action. This case will cost the Scottish Government in excess of £500,000 and the Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary should consider her position”

 

Roddy Dunlop QC

The Lawyer for the Scottish government, Roddy Dunlop QC, told the court:

“The investigating officer is a dedicated HR professional who acted in good faith, but she did have some contact with the complainers before being appointed to the case and this has led the government to accept there has been a failure in one aspect of the investigation, which could give the impression that they were not acting impartially. The government does not accept claims that the investigating officer assisted the complainers and provide encouragement to them to make the complaints.

 

Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola Sturgeon, arranged an early appearance on BBC television and said:

“Only in one particular aspect of the application of the procedure did the Scottish government get it wrong. There was no suggestion of any partiality in the process. and it is not my view that the Scottish government’s permanent secretary, should resign. I asked Ms Evans to draw up the new procedures for handling sexual harassment claims, which I signed off shortly before the complaints against Alex Salmond were made in January of last year.

It is deeply regrettable that we are in the situation we are in today, not least for the two complainers who had a right to expect that the process would be in every respect robust. I think the permanent secretary was absolutely right when these complaints came forward to subject them to an investigation and not to sweep them under the carpet because of the identity of the person complained about. I had no role in the process and I did not seek to intervene in it at any stage, nor indeed did I feel under any pressure to do so.

 

Leslie Evans

In a statement released immediately after the case folded, she said:

“I want to apologise to all involved for the failure in the proper application of this one particular part of the procedure, and in particular the two complainers. There is nothing to suggest that the investigating officers did not conduct their duties in an impartial way.

Unfortunately, the interactions with the complainers in advance of the complaints being made meant that the process was flawed, however impartially and fairly the investigating officer conducted the investigation.

It was right and proper that these complaints were investigated and the one procedural flaw in the investigation does not have implications, one way or the other, for the substance of the complaints or the credibility of the complainers.

It remains open to the Scottish government to re-investigate the complaints and subject to the views of the complainers it would be our intention to consider this. But only be once ongoing police inquiries have concluded”.

 

 

 

Nicola Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct

In relation to ensuring that there is a clear distinction between my role as First Minister and my role in the SNP, I have regard to the terms of both the MSP and Ministerial Codes of Conduct.

My Special Advisers abide by the terms of the Special Advisers’ Code of Conduct and the Civil Service Code.

In relation to the question about Scottish Government communication and records, this is covered by Scottish Government procedures on the recording and retention of information.

The SNP communicates with its post holders in the normal ways including meetings, emails and phone calls.

The safeguard to ensure this is distinct from government communications are the relevant Codes that MSPs, Ministers and Special Advisers are bound by.

To be clear, members of the public often email my SNP or MSP accounts about government business and I forward these to my ministerial private office.

On any other occasions when I email my ministerial private office or special advisers from my personal email eg with diary queries or information requests these will be to a Scottish Government email account and retained in line with standard procedures.

And all government business, no matter the platform/medium it is conducted on/through, is subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

 

Status and conduct of Special Advisers as temporary civil servants

Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995.

They are exempt from the general requirement that civil servants should be appointed on merit and behave with impartiality and objectivity. But they are otherwise required to conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code.

As set out in the Ministerial Code, all appointments of special advisers require the prior written approval of the First Minister, and no commitments to make such appointments should be entered into in the absence of such approval.

Their appointment ends at the end of the Administration which appointed them or when the appointing Minister leaves the Government or moves to another appointment.

The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment. It is, of course, also open to the First Minister to terminate employment by withdrawing his consent to an individual appointment.

Special advisers should conduct themselves with integrity and honesty. They should not deceive or knowingly mislead Parliament or the public.

They should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or the private interests of others.

They should not receive benefits of any kind which others might reasonably see as compromising their personal judgement or integrity.

They should not without authority disclose official information which has been communicated in confidence in Government or received in confidence from others.

The principles of public life set down by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, at Annex B, provide a framework for all public servants.

Special advisers should not use official resources for party political activity. They are employed to serve the objectives of the Government and the Department in which they work. It is this which justifies their being paid from public funds and being able to use public resources, and explains why their participation in party politics is carefully limited.

They should act in a way which upholds the political impartiality of civil servants and does not conflict with the Civil Service Code.

They should avoid anything which might reasonably lead to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes.

The highest standards of conduct are expected of special advisers and, specifically, the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life.

Any special adviser ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing Minister.

 

Extracts from the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers

As set out in the Ministerial Code, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.

Special advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work of Government and the work of the Government Party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved. They are an additional resource for the Minister providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the permanent Civil Service.

 

Duties and responsibilities of Special Advisers

The sorts of work a special adviser may be called upon to do if their Minister wishes it comprise:

Reviewing papers, drawing attention to any aspect which they think has party political implications and ensuring that sensitive political points are handled properly.

Giving assistance on all aspects of departmental business, providing advice when matters arising are party political in nature.

Checking facts and research findings from a party political viewpoint.

Preparing speculative policy papers reflecting the political viewpoint of the Party.

Contributing to policy planning including ideas which extend the existing range of options available with a political viewpoint in mind.

Liaising with Party officials ensuring that policy reviews and analysis take full advantage of ideas from the Party.

Encouraging presentational activities from the Party which contribute to the Government’s and Department’s objectives.

Helping to brief Party MPs and officials on issues of Government policy.

Liaising with outside interest groups including groups with a political allegiance assisting their contribution.

Speechwriting and related research, including adding party political content to material prepared by permanent civil servants.

Representing the views of the First Minister to the media from a Party viewpoint, where they have been authorised by the Minister to do so.

Providing expert advice as a specialist in the political field.

Attending Party functions (although they may not speak publicly at the Party Conference) maintaining contact with Party members.

Taking part in policy reviews organised by the Party, or officially in conjunction with it, for the purpose of ensuring that those undertaking the review are fully aware of the Government’s views and the First Minister’s thinking and policy.

 

SNP disciplinary procedures complaints handling and the cynical dismissal of government minister Mark Macdonald

The Chief Executive of the SNP, Peter Murrell, is married to Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of the Scottish Government. An arrangement unique and universally deprecated in Western democracies since it blurs the division of responsibilities and in consequence can lead to a form of Government detrimental to the well being of the electorate.

In January 2021, in a statement to the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry, Peter Murrell categorically stated that Party policy dictated the policing of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality”, and at no time in the Autumn of 2017 did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government.

02 Nov 2017: Mark Macdonald, MSP and Government Minister, was invited to attend a meeting with Deputy First Minister, John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.

03 Nov 2017: The rules of conduct pertaining to Special Advisers created a conflict of interest when Liz Lloyd, Special Advisor and Chief of Staff to the First Minister convened a second meeting with Mark at which she briefed him about a sexual harassment complaint that had been lodged against him by a Party member. She went on to advise him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tolerable and he would need to resign. The conduct of Liz Lloyd breeched the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors and should have resulted in her immediate dismissal.

It also begged the questions? Why was the complaint not dealt with by Peter Murrell, since it had been lodged by a Party member to a Party official and was therefore a Party matter? Who authorised her actions? and Where did she get her information from? The questions remain unanswered in March 2021.

04 Nov: Nicola Sturgeon phoned Mark in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign from the Government that evening, which he did.

16 Nov 2017: Mark was suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him. The entire event was investigated and concluded by the SNP without reference to the Scottish Government.

Comments: Why is Liz Lloyd still in post? The sequence of events provided a template that should have been applied to complaints against Alex Salmond but didn’t. Why?

 

Hayley Valentine

Hayley Jane Valentine – A few Personal Details

Family: Part of the Valentine’s Book Binding family of Falkirk. Born in Glenrothes in 1971 the youngest of three children.

Schooling: Attended Auchtermuchty High School and Edinburgh University – Degree in Journalism

Career: Started her career in Journalism working in Dundee then transferred her skills to commercial radio in Edinburgh.

Progressed to producing television programming with Scottish Television then moved on to work for BBC Scotland.

She was soon on the move again transferring to BBC London taking up a post editing Breakfast TV.

She then set her sights at working on radio and was rewarded with the appointment to the post of Head of News for BBC Radio 5 Live.

Public service employment must be catching since other Valentines also work(ed) for the BBC in various capacities.

Family: Married Andrew Christopher Masters (works in finance) in 2003.

They have 2 children, (both at private school) and live in Edinburgh.

Mentorn Television Production Surfaces in Scotland in 2002

Not long after Scottish devolution, following a sustained storm of protest from Scottish viewers and politicians the BBC agreed to transfer a significant amount of television programming to Scotland vastly increasing Scottish content satisfying complaints.

Implementation of the change was to be achieved without disrupting staffing and or operational routine in London and the BBC contracted the Tinopolis Group, an international media producer and distributor to produce television programmes in Scotland.

A subsidiary company, Mentorn set up its Glasgow office in 2002.

From that time the production and development base in Scotland has produced hundreds of hour’s original Scottish content. Namely:

Robot Wars.
Question Time.
Traffic Cops.
The Big Questions.
Cowboy Trap.
Hotel of Mum and Dad.
Watermen.
A Dirty Business.

So the BBC is buying in programming not producing it, Scottish content is not to be seen. What a con.

10 Mar 2011: Question Time On the Move

More rank stupidity at the BBC is emerging from the decision to  move Question Time to Glasgow.

The salary of the new editor, Nicolai Gentchev, now in the employment of Mentorn Glasgow, is to be paid through a transfer of funds from BBC News in London to BBC Scotland, Glasgow. Then on to Menthorn.

Profits on the contract will be transferred back to Mentorn, London, then onto the parent company Tinopolis in Wales.

Hayley Valentine, promoted to the new post of Executive editor will monitor the performance of Nicolai for the BBC a role previously undertaken by London-based Gavin Allen, who, will probably retain his current role at BBC Millbank, as “Head of Political News”.

Hayley is therefore filling a totally new highly paid Executive additional unfunded post which will not present a problem for Atholl Duncan, Head of News and Current Affairs in Scotland. The whole thing is a bloody nonsense.

11 Mar 2011: BBC Question Time Changes Are Under Attack

Nicolai Gentchev, who is to take the helm of BBC One’s flagship political programme in the summer when the production team makes its controversial move from Westminster to Glasgow, has written for International Socialism Journal and Socialist Review.

Gentchev wrote an article in the International Socialism Journal in 1995 entitled “The Myth of Welfare Dependency”. writing: “Even capitalism’s supporters do not see an end to mass unemployment and low wages… all they offer is to make living on welfare so unbearable that even more people are forced off benefits and into conditions which were common… before the creation of the welfare state. While we fight to make sure such plans never become reality, we have to get rid of the system which has brought us to this point.”

The website of the International Socialism Journal says that it is associated with the Socialist Workers’ Party. The website continues: “The International Socialist Tendency unites revolutionary organisations around the world on the basis of workers’ power [and] revolution not reform.”

Gentchev wrote for Socialist Review as late as 2003, when he reviewed the book Labour Party Plc by David Osler.

Philip Davies MP, a Conservative member of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said: “This probably comes as little surprise, but it is a further indication of left-wing bias at the BBC. We can expect more of the same from Question Time – audiences that are hostile to the government, left-wing panels and a left-wing agenda being pushed.”

Gentchev joined the BBC in 2006, and became a senior producer on Radio 4’s Today programme in 2008.

During his time on Today, Gentchev produced a special series from Russia with Bridget Kendall looking at how the country had changed under Putin and in November 2009 travelled with reporter Andrew Hosken to Pakistan to produce a series of reports during the South Waziristan offensive.

He currently lives in Glasgow, where he is on secondment as the editor of Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme.

Question Time’s move to Glasgow has been openly criticised by its presenter, David Dimbleby, who has insisted that weekly editorial meetings continue to take place in London.

The programme has seen the resignation of its current editor, Ed Havard, over the move, despite Mr Havard being very highly regarded by Mr Dimbleby.

The BBC also announced that Hayley Valentine, who was head of news at Radio 5 Live until last summer, will be Question Time’s new executive editor.

A BBC insider said: “No disrespect to Nicolai, who was very well regarded on the Today programme, but this is a big promotion for him. It would be interesting to know whether other candidates on higher pay grades turned the job down because it would involve moving to Scotland.”

A BBC spokesman said: “Nicolai joined the BBC in 2006 long after these pieces were published and it is nonsense to suggest they have any bearing on his impartiality.”

BBC Director of News Helen Boaden said: “Question Time has an outstanding new team to lead it. Nicolai and Hayley have a great depth of experience in the political institutions across the UK. They will ensure that one of the BBC’s most important programmes goes from strength to strength.” (The Telegraph)

17 May 2012: Mentorn Media retains Question Time contract

Question Time producer Mentorn Media has controversially  retained the contract to make flagship BBC1 current affairs programme for another three years.

London-based independent producer Mentorn, a subsidiary of Tinopolis, has made Question Time since 1998.

David Dimbleby will continue to host the show from venues around the country when the new production contract begins in September.

Question Time last year switched production from London to Glasgow, with Mentorn Scotland picking up the contract.

Nicolai Gentchev will continue as Question Time editor, with Hayley Valentine as executive editor for BBC Scotland.

14th June 2013: Question time More Pantomime Than Serious Debate

Balanced and informative media is vital for a good democracy.

The BBC’s decision to invite controversial politicians to participate in a Question Time panel in Edinburgh overlooking two of Scotland’s elected parties was greeted with astonishment across social media yesterday.

The Electoral Reform Society Scotland (ERSS) was particularly concerned that the decision badly failed the invited audience of 16 and 17 year olds.

How the media behave in the run up to the independence referendum in 2014 will be paramount in informing the debate and making that clear now will, we hope, ensure fair and thorough media coverage as we approach the poll.

Message to the BBC:

From: Electoral Reform Society Scotland

To: Hayley Valentine, Exec Editor Question Time

Subject: Re: complaint to the BBC Question Time

Date: 13 June 2013

Dear Ms Valentine

The Electoral Reform Society in Scotland seeks to inform and improve Scotland’s democracy. With that in mind, we have being undertaking an inquiry into what a good Scottish democracy looks like.

A major theme that has emerged from this year long, citizen led inquiry, is the importance of the media to instruct, publicise and inform the debate.

There has been support for a publicly funded media provider, but a strong sense that that body should be impartial and should seek to provide balanced and informed coverage of politics.

Clearly this is of particular concern in the run up to the 2014 referendum.

We were concerned therefore to see the line-up for the BBC Question Time programme to be held in Edinburgh this evening (Thursday 13th June).

Not only does the selection of panellists fail to represent the make-up of Scottish politics, but it also seems to be aimed more at pantomime than serious debate.

That this should be the case when the audience is, very pleasingly, to be made up of 16 and 17 year old’s in recognition of the extension of the franchise to that group for the referendum is worrying.

It seems to show a lack of respect for these young audience members – implying that they do not deserve serious political debate.

It also fails to allow them to hear from their elected representatives in this public debate forum which receives the widest of political attention.

Two of the parties which will be competing for their vote in 2014 are unrepresented and the Yes and Better Together campaigns are needlessly unequally represented.

Were this not bad enough, available spaces on the platform are taken instead by George Galloway MP and Nigel Farage MEP, two individuals and parties who are not represented in Scotland.

We welcome the decision to involve 16 and 17 year old’s in a public debate about the referendum, but the chosen panellists do those 16 and 17 year old’s a disservice as they will not be able to hear from the parties who represent them and who will be seeking their vote in 2014.

We would ask the BBC to urgently reconsider the panel, and at the very least to re-schedule a repeat of this edition of Question Time, but with a panel representative of Scottish politics that respects the BBC’s role to be impartial and equal. (Willie Sullivan)

Scottish Greens Co-convener Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“Tonight’s Question Time line up is particularly bizarre, and following a telephone discussion with the editor it is clear to me that this programme has been contrived to deliver sensationalist confrontation, rather than serious debate.

The lack of balance is staggering and I know from comments we’ve received it’s not just Green supporters who are alarmed.

“This situation is particularly unacceptable a week before the Scottish Parliamentary by-election in Aberdeen Donside, which should require particular attention to political balance.

The BBC has shown serious misjudgement in allowing tonight’s programme to go ahead and we look forward to meeting senior managers to discuss how they intend to rectify a situation that will have harmed the broadcaster’s reputation for fairness.”

The complaint from the Scottish Green Party to the BBC’s Executive Editor Hayley Valentine and Phil Abrams of the Editorial Policy Unit is as follows…

Dear Ms Valentine,

We wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the choice of panellists for BBC Question Time tonight (13 June).

This follows our consistent raising of concern over a number of years about the Scottish Greens’ lack of representation on the programme; in 14 years of continuous Parliamentary representation, we have been invited to participate on 1 single occasion. That occasion was nearly two and a half years ago.

Tonight’s programme will be coming from Edinburgh, with an audience of 16 & 17 year old’s, debating independence – this is specifically billed on the BBC website.

The panel chosen is extremely skewed on the independence question; with only one panellist explicitly committed to independence as a preferred constitutional option, the programme is showing no balance whatsoever on this crucial question.

Green MSP Patrick Harvie is a member of the Yes Scotland advisory board and could have provided the required balance; he is also a member of Referendum Bill Committee in Parliament, which has been handling the legislation to reduce the voting age to 16.

Given that this decision is being made by the Scottish Parliament, we can see no basis for the decision to include only one MSP on the panel, and specifically one who is opposed to the reduction in the voting age.

George Galloway is an MP for an English constituency representing a political party, Respect, which literally does not exist in Scotland, and contests no elections.

On the one occasion when they did, Mr Galloway stood for election in Glasgow and even in a PR election was only able to secure 3.3% of the vote.

Nigel Farage has also been added to the panel at the last minute.

UKIP has no elected representation in Scotland at any level, as against SGP’s 2 MSPs and 14 local councillors. In the last Scottish Parliament election they secured 0.91% of regional votes across Scotland.

This panel is taking place during the Aberdeen Donside by-election, and the BBC has a duty to demonstrate balance at such a time.

Donside is part of the North East Scotland region, where UKIP achieved 0.9% of the vote in the 2011 election.

The rationale for this selection may include UKIP’s recent success in the English local elections.

UKIP now have approximately the same number of local councillors as GPEW, despite blanket media coverage.

But this is NOT an English local election, it’s a debate with a Scottish independence focus, taking place during a Scottish Parliamentary by-election.

This failure even to attempt balance in party political terms, or in terms of the referendum debate is surely a breach of the BBC’s duty to impartiality.

Patrick Harvie discussed these various points with Nicolai Gentchev this morning, and our head of media Jason Rose raised them with Phil Abrams of the BBC policy unit.

Mr Gentchev defended the decision to include Mr Farage on the programme citing his recent encounter with protesters in Edinburgh; we are deeply disturbed if the BBC’s flagship political debate programme gives greater attention to political stunts than to fair balance.

We seek an urgent meeting to discuss how you intend to redress this situation, not only in the short term but in the run-up to the referendum in 2014. (Martha Wardrop and Patrick Harvie, Co-conveners of the Scottish Green Party).

28 November 2013: Mentorn Media Confirms Hayley Valentine as its new director of current affairs.

Valentine is joining Mentorn from BBC Scotland where she has been executive editor at Question Time.

Based in Glasgow, she will continue to oversee the programme for Mentorn as well as BBC One’s The Big Questions and continuing the growth of Mentorn’s current affairs output across all broadcasters.

Chief executive of Mentorn Media, John Willis, said: “Hayley is the perfect person to head up Mentorn’s current affairs programming.

She has extensive knowledge and experience and we are delighted she will be responsible for developing even more programming from our ever-expanding Glasgow office.”

Valentine said: “I’ve been on the receiving end of the impressive editorial work that Mentorn has produced and I look forward to maintaining that level of commitment to BBC programming as well as developing new and engaging formats across all broadcasters.”

The boss of BBC Scotland’s new hour long news programme is to be the former editor of Question Time.

November 2017: Hayley Valentine to be appointed boss of BBC Scotland’s proposed news hour

Valentine, executive editor of the BBC’s much criticised flagship political debate show, is to be editor of the news programme which is to be a key part of the new BBC Scotland digital channel.

The corporation has said that the “integrated news hour” will be a key part of the BBC Scotland channel, subject to it receiving regulatory approval from Ofcom.

The new bulletin will include national and international news and be broadcast between 9pm and 10pm on the new channel.

Presently director of current affairs at Mentorn Scotland, the company which makes the programme for the BBC she said: “to be given the opportunity to launch a brand new programme at the heart of the proposed new BBC Scotland Channel is a real privilege and a rare treat. “I am looking forward to creating a really distinctive programme with a broad Scottish, UK-wide and international news agenda which has the priorities of a Scottish audience at the centre of everything we do.”

Gary Smith, head of news and current affairs at BBC Scotland, said: “Hayley has an outstanding track record and I’m delighted she is joining us. “I’m confident that under her leadership we will produce an exciting, distinctive, and brilliant new programme for our audiences. She will also join my management team, and play a key role in the running of the department and the recruitment of the 80 new jobs which are being created through the BBC’s major investment in journalism in Scotland.’

Plans are that the new channel will broadcast from 7pm to midnight every day, as well as being available online and on iPlayer.

With an initial budget of around £30m it will feature acquired programmes and programmes from partners in the creative sector and from other countries and a selection of content sourced from other BBC services.

It is expected that that Ofcom’s decision on the new channel will be made in March, 2018.