Strategic Vision – Credit Suisse: Credit Suisse is one of the world’s leading banks, with more than 45,000 employees, offices in 50 countries and expertise in nearly every facet of banking, investing and finance.
The Human Development Index: The Human Development Index is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income indices used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.
An Independent Scotland: A newly independent Scotland would have a better Human Development Index (HDI) than the rest of the UK, even without oil, a leading international finance company has said.
A report by Credit Suisse: “https://caltonjock.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/1187961194.pdf”
has concluded that on key areas of life expectancy, education, and income a newly independent Scotland would be ranked higher than the rest of the United Kingdom.
According to the report’s authors, an independent Scotland would be ranked four places higher than the rUK. The report stated: Scotland would rank 23rd if we include a geographical allocation to Scotland’s GNI [Gross National Income] related to the North Sea oil output, versus the current 27th place for the UK and the hypothetical 30th for rUK. Note: Even excluding any allocation of oil output, Scotland would still rank ahead of the UK.”
Comparing the success of small countries with that of larger nations the report said: Small countries are more homogeneous and homogeneity plays an important role in determining the success of a country. Cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity creates a ceiling to the potential size of a country. Small countries are more open to international trade and have embraced globalization to a higher extent than larger countries. Small countries are successful and in general much better off than bigger countries.
Public services in smaller countries benefit more from ‘pooling resources’ and the ‘economies of scale’ than larger countries.
Research shows that large countries tend to have higher tax rates for individuals (by 5%). So the cost of funding public services for the individual is higher in larger countries than in small countries. The Credit Suisse Research Institute also explained that small countries are one of the “leading geopolitical trends of the last fifty years“.
The report and comments were welcomed by an SNP Treasury spokesperson who said: “These comments are very welcome. Using academic data, the report sets out Scotland’s potential and how our development rating would outperform the UK- even without oil- following a Yes vote.
The report also found that smaller countries are better able to ‘effectively’ and ‘cheaply’ deliver public services, and most of the small countries mentioned do not have nearly as many of the resources we have here in Scotland.
This highlights once again that Scotland is perfectly positioned to flourish as an independent nation. We would be able to concentrate on our talents, grow our economy and build a better and fairer society following a Yes vote.”
The actions of the investigating officer, the Permanent Secretary, The Crown Agent and the police provides further evidence of a conspiracy to “get” Alec Salmond.
Your comment would be useful.
20 August 2018: MacKinnon spoke to both complainers and advised them that their complaints would probably be referred to the police.
20 August 2018: MacKinnon met with the Crown Agent (having also communicated with him, on 17 and 19 August 2018) and committed the transfer to his office of all documentation pertaining to the complaints and any decision.
Comment: What the hell!! before a decision is even made!!!!
20 August 2018: Evans decided on the complaints then sent all information pertaining to the investigation and her decision to Richards who forwarded the entire package to the Crown agent Harvie together with the request that he pass it on to the police for their action.
She also alerted Ms B to events and told her to expect a call from the police very soon.
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN45.pdf
21 August 2018: At a meeting convened by Harvie to discuss matters for investigation of criminality with CC Livingstone and DCS Boal, he told them that his line manager Leslie Evans had forwarded him her decision on complaints made by two civil servants against Alex for referral to the police, despite the complainers against Alex wanting to keep the police out of the matter.
He further advised that Evans had decided to make a public statement on Alex’s case including a notice that the matter had been passed to Police Scotland for investigation.
DCS Boal strongly advised against it and refused to accept a copy of the internal misconduct investigation report.
The terse exchange of views confirmed the urgent desire of the Scottish Government to get the information into the public domain.
Detective Chief Superintendent Lesley Boal told the Holyrood Inquiry: “Harvie passed on what he considered were relevant statements, although they were “more a series of listed questions and responses from anonymised individuals.
He told me two individuals had made formal complaints, but that there may be other potential complainers who had not engaged in the internal conduct investigation.
It was agreed that a proactive approach would be required whereby other persons who held similar roles may need to be approached.
Harvie offered me a copy of the Scottish Government’s internal conduct conclusion report, which contained detailed allegations.
I refused this offer and neither I, nor the Chief Constable, viewed the document.
I was also informed that Scottish Government may be making a public statement in relation to the outcome of their investigation and potentially to refer to information being provided to Police Scotland.
Both the Chief Constable and I both voiced our concerns at such a statement being provided.
As such, it was agreed that the main priority was to make contact with the two individuals who had made a complaint to the Scottish Government.”
Comment: An interesting aside was the comment from Alex when he was told about Crown Agent Harvie’s meeting with the Police. Referring to the leak, he said:
“Evans was asked about that in questioning, and she said that it had caused enormous distress to everyone concerned. I am absolutely sure that it did – to the complainants, to me, to everybody. The only question that I would have for Evans is this: Notwithstanding the leak, what did she think would have happened if she had gone ahead and put out the statement at 5 o’clock on that day? “I find it extraordinary.”
21 August 2018: Evans office contacted Alex to say that Evans was not in a position to write on the outcome of the investigation. Evans office was asked for an explanation of the delay by Alex.
Mackinnon contacted Ms A and Ms B to say that a police referral was likely to occur that day.
So they were advised of Evans decision 2 days before she told Alex.
22 August 2018: Ms A and Ms B, Alex and Sturgeon were each provided with a copy of Evans Decision Report. Ms A and Ms B spoke to Evans in private.
22 August 2018: Alex ‘s legal team wrote very strongly worded letters each to Evans and Sturgeon advising both of them that the actions they had instructed and decided upon was illegal, contrary to good staff relations and breached every statute of employment Law
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN46.pdf
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN44.pdf
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN43.pdf
23 August 2018: Evans further informed them that she had forwarded all case documentation to the Lord Advocate’s office. Alex’s counsel objected with an added observation that her actions were without foundation and a breach of protocol.
23 August 2018: Evans advised Sturgeon that a FOI request had been received in mid- June 2018. An answer was due mid-July and had been deferred but she had decided that the information requested would be released and a press statement would be released at 1700 hours (despite Alex objecting). See 18 June 2018 and 20 September 2018.
Comment: Evans surrendered the investigation of allegations against Alex to the Police 2 days before she advised him and the 2 complainants of her intent to press on with an unnecessary reply to an outstanding FOI request, when she knew the enquirer had left the employ of the newspaper and there was no further interest. Her threat to go public at 1700 hours was always an empty one since this would have been construed to be interfering in a Police investigation.
20 November 2017: Somers, Principal Private Secretary, to Sturgeon met with Ms A, at her request, in the First Minster’s office. She told him the purpose of a meeting with Sturgeon was to relate to her information that she thought would improve the organization. She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess with Sturgeon her options on how she could best share the information.
Ms A was denied access to Sturgeon by Somers and was instead subjected to intense pressure from senior civil service managers and other senior political and legal persons to register a complaint against Alex with an assurance that it would be resolved to her satisfaction through use of “newly drafted” all-encompassing procedures, which she would have a hand in compiling. In this regard she placed her trust in and was used by the Scottish government as a sacrificial lamb in a political vendetta against Alex.
Afternote: Somers (gatekeeper to Sturgeon) told the Holyrood Inquiry that he had not briefed Sturgeon about his meeting with Ms A or her request for a private meeting with the her upholding his commitment to her to keep the details of their conversation secret. He said: “I wouldn’t tell Sturgeon because it wasn’t my experience to share. That was my first priority. Secondly, had I done that, I would have put Sturgeon in a state of knowledge about something she couldn’t have taken action upon at that point.” Somers went on to state he was “overwhelmed” by Ms A’s disclosure and with her permission he advised his Line Manager Allison, and the Director of Safer Communities, Russell.
Comment: Somers escalated matters against the wishes of Ms A. In doing so he failed in his duties as gatekeeper to Sturgeon.
20 November 2017: 30 page pdf providing details of Evans November 2017, diary dates. Noteworthy: 20 minute weekly meeting with Liz Lloyd and day trip to London for a meeting with the UK Goverment Cabinet Secretary
Click to access foi-19-01156%2B-%2Bpdf.pdf
21 November 2017: 1730-1800: Lloyd, Somers and Cameron meet
21 November 2017: Somers and two unnamed officers met with Ms A and advised she would need to further discuss the matter with his line manager Allison, with a proviso that if she felt she was not being taken seriously or no one was listening to her, she should get back in touch with Somers who would set-up a personal meeting for her with Sturgeon.
Somers went on to say that he did not tell the First Minister that Ms A had confided in him because it wasn’t his experience to share and had he done so he would have put the First Minister in a state of knowledge about something she could not have taken action upon at that point?”
22 November 2017: Gillian Russell, a senior civil servant appointed by the Permanent Secretary to act as a “confidential sounding board” for staff raising harassment concerns told the Holyrood Inquiry that Ms A had raised “a series of very significant issues” with her.
Her judgement was that the allegations were potentially criminal and she passed on a telephone number so that the complainer could contact the police. She did not refer the conversation to any other person believing that there might be a police investigation and it would not be appropriate for her to be involved.
Afternote 1: Somers decision not to inform the First Minister denied Ms A the informal meeting she had asked for and escalated events from informal to formal. His reasoning was flawed since it was based on a rebuttable assumption. His choice of words is also significant. “at that point” would be a reference to the draft policy which he was working on with Lloyd. He fine well knew what he was doing.
Daytime television commercial advertising is heavily biased in favour of charitable donations. Every 10 minutes an advert pops up on the screen imploring viewers to donate only £2 monthly to a charity advertising its need for urgent but regular financial support. This is usually accompanied by a heart wrenching video of a starving, abused child, or animal so weakened by overwork it no longer has the strength to rise from the ground despite horrendous beatings or animals secured in cages so small they cannot even turn. There are other examples too numerous to list.
But the £2 monthly donations soon add up and viewers are faced with unpleasant choices when available money runs short. So it is important that the maximum amounts of financial donations are used for the purpose that persuaded donors to contribute. But are they???
Major General Mackay, Greatly respected, Force Commander in Helmand, (in an interview in the Times), not long after he left the Army said;
“Labour’s “complacent” approach to the Afghan mission had proved “very costly”. The genesis of their approach is born of complacency, the thought that, ‘we can deal with it as and when it happens”. It resulted, I believe, in the upper echelons of the Labour government going into Helmand with their eyes shut and their fingers crossed.
“For those who fought and died or suffered injuries in that period, this proved a very costly means of conducting counter-insurgency. The issue is whether or not our politicians, diplomats, intelligence services, civil servants and senior military have done enough, adapted enough, been innovative enough or courageous enough to make tough, and more often than not, unpalatable choices.”
“My answer to that question is that they have not or have failed to do so too often. Muddling through seemed to be the default setting, along with the protection of individual and collective interests”.
Barack Obama, as US President in 2014, made significant public statements regarding the referendum. His intervention was seen as significant. The “No” campaign (Better Together) benefited from his endorsement, as it reinforced the argument for maintaining the status quo, with a US spokesperson noting, “There is no doubting the significance of President Barack Obama’s remarks which show the importance of the referendum on a global stage”. Conversely, Scottish nationalists criticized it as overstepping, arguing it undermined the referendum’s fairness.
Post-referendum, Obama welcomed the result, stating on September 19, 2014, “We welcome the result of yesterday’s referendum on Scottish independence and congratulate the people of Scotland for their full and energetic exercise of democracy”
Obama’s prominence as US President gave his words outsized weight, potentially influencing undecided voters, though quantifying the impact is challenging
An outbreak of CDIF occurred at the Vale of Leven Hospital in West Dunbartonshire. This was the most recent failure in service delivery at the hospital and the public are very unhappy about it.
Labour councillors turned on their local MSP demanding her resignation over local hospital services.
Jackie Baillie, the Dumbarton Labour MSP and former communities minister, was attacked by four Labour members of West Dunbartonshire Council, including former leader Andy White.
They sided with the Scottish National Party and independent councillors at a full council meeting which brought the ruling administration to the brink of collapse. Martin Rooney, who replaced Andy White after his forced resignation.
In December, only six of the 16 people elected as Labour councillors in 2003 attended. Several stayed away while four rebels voted against the Labour line and sought revenge on Ms Baillie for her public attacks on them.
Dec 2008: West Dunbartonshire Council in the news again.
Labour Grandees, MP John McFall and MSP Jackie Baillie accused by Councillor and former colleague, (in a letter to the Labour Party General Secretary) of overseeing a “thuggish” clique within the Labour Party in Scotland.
McFall is the chair of the powerful House of Commons Treasury select committee, while Baillie is a former minister and ex-chief of staff for Labour at Holyrood.
Marie McNair, who has served on West Dunbartonshire Council for five years, said the politicians, who ran her local party forced their will on party decisions quelling any opposition by intimidation. She also claimed to have suffered sexist abuse by a party member and that she was shouted down at meetings for challenging decisions.
The allegations were contained in a letter of resignation sent by McNair to Colin Smith, the Scottish Labour general secretary, which said:
“It fills me with despair that such thuggish and intimidatory behaviour has been tolerated and covered up by the Labour Party.”
The contents of McNair’s letter were read out in public at a meeting of the SNP-led council.
At 2025 Jackie Baillie the thuggish MSP continues to dominate the political agenda of the Labour Party in Scotland. Who is protecting her?
October 2017: The Cabinet of the Scottish Government provided its civil servants with a “commission” – a formal instruction – which was recorded in the Cabinet minutes under the heading of “Sexual Harassment” as follows: “While there is no suggestion that the current arrangements are ineffective, the First Minister has asked the Permanent Secretary to undertake a review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes to ensure they are fit for purpose.”
Comment: Sturgeon’s own observation concluded that the procedures in place were effective and they contained no mention of retrospective allegations against former ministers. Perhaps because there was no precedence in employment law that would allow it.
The only recourse open to an aggrieved person was to inform the police.
If after reviewing the documentation Evans honestly thought that the Scottish Government’s policies and procedures would be fit for purpose, only after a retrospective clause had been inserted it was incumbent on her to conform with the “Ministerial Code” and provide Sturgeon with the evidence of the need to do so.
The Ministerial Code states: It is for the First Minister to judge the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers.
It is for the First Minister to decide whether there has been a breach of such standards. And, where the First Minister decides that there has been such a breach, it is for the First Minister to decide what the consequences for the Minister are to be.
Very explicit!!! Any allegations of misconduct against Ministers should be reported to Sturgeon immediately.
31 October 2017: Ann Harvey, principal assistant to the chief whip at the SNP’s Westminster Group reported to the Inquiry that she had received 16 text messages, some from SNP HQ, to her private number, each one fishing for information which could be damaging if used against Alex Salmond.
A few persisted in asking for confirmation that Sue Ruddick ( a personal friend and ex colleague of Ann) had been physically assaulted by Alex while they were campaigning together during the 2008 General Election campaign.
Her answer to that enquiry was a categorical rebuttal there was no physical aggression at any time on the part of Alex.
What’s up? Someone was after getting to Alex before the Civil Service got involved in pursuing long dead unproven allegations.
Note: Ruddick went on to report a common assault against her by Alex, to the police in August 2018 (10 years after the alleged incident).
The police investigated but said there was insufficient corroborative evidence to charge, however, the circumstances were included in a later report to the Crown Office and Procurator fiscal.
But they all count!!!! when the time is right!!!!!!!!“
Comment: Murrell, in a statement to the Holyrood Inquiry said that Party policy dictated the handling 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 the Party had not informed the Scottish Government or any member of it of a any complaint from a Party member against a minister of the Government.
His assertion was at odds with the conduct of Lloyd who demanded from government Minister Mark Macdonald his immediate resignation after she and John Swinney concluded that he had sexually harassed a member of the Party. Her actions contravened the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors. Conduct that warranted her immediate dismissal.
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN10.pdf31 October
2017: David Clegg of the Daily Record telephoned Scottish Government contacts “acting on a tip-off” asking questions of Scottish Government contacts seeking to ascertain if any complaints about harassment had been made about Alex Salmond during his tenure as First Minister.
The responses were negative.
Comment: How could it be that David Clegg and the Daily Record were aware about complaints on 31 October 2017 when, the official briefing was that no-one in the Scottish Government, up to and including Nicola Sturgeon, had any idea about them at that time.
The sequence of events and comments outlined raise significant questions about the transparency, adherence to protocol, and motivations behind the handling of allegations against Mark Macdonald and then Alex Salmond in the context of the Scottish Government’s processes in 2017.
key points and analysis of and general principles of governance and accountability. The Cabinet Commission and Existing Procedures (October 2017)
The Scottish Government’s Cabinet minutes from October 2017 indicate that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon commissioned a review of the government’s policies and processes on sexual harassment, despite her own observation that the existing arrangements were effective. The absence of any mention of retrospective allegations against former ministers in these procedures confirms there was no precedent in employment law for such measures.
A critical point: If Permanent Secretary Evans believed a retrospective clause was necessary, the Ministerial Code required her to provide evidence to Sturgeon to justify change. In the absence of supporting evidence, the inclusion of retrospective provision confirms any new arrangements would be procedurally irregular and motivated by other factors.
The Ministerial Code is clear that allegations of misconduct against ministers must be reported to the First Minister immediately. It was for Sturgeon to judge standards of behavior and decide consequences. Bypassing the protocol indicated a breach of governance standards, undermining the integrity of the process.
2. Ann Harvey’s Report of Text Messages (31 October 2017)
Ann Harvey’s account of receiving 16 text messages, some from SNP HQ, seeking damaging information about Alex Salmond—specifically regarding an alleged assault on Sue Ruddick in 2008—is highly concerning. Her categorical denial of any physical aggression by Salmond suggests that these inquiries were speculative or agenda-driven.
The timing is also notable. The messages predate the formal involvement of the Civil Service in pursuing allegations against Salmond. implying that individuals or groups within or connected to the SNP were actively seeking to build a case against Salmond before any official process was underway.
The later reporting by Ruddick in August 2018, despite the police finding insufficient evidence, and its inclusion in a report to the Crown Office, further complicates the narrative.
Your comment that “they all count when the time is right” suggests a perception that allegations, even those lacking corroboration, were being strategically retained for future use. This raises questions about whether the process was being manipulated to target Salmond specifically.
3. Peter Murrell’s Statement and Lloyd’s Conduct
Peter Murrell’s assertion that the SNP’s policy was to handle complaints internally and only share details with external bodies in cases of “clear act of criminality” is significant.
If true, this would mean that no SNP complaints against Salmond should have been shared with Scottish Government civil servants or special advisors in Autumn 2017 unless they met this threshold.
However, you note that Special Advisor Liz Lloyd’s conduct allegedly contravened the Ministerial Code, which governs special advisors and requires adherence to strict standards of behaviour.
If Lloyd shared or acted on information improperly, this would constitute a breach of the Code, potentially warranting dismissal.
The failure to address such a breach could point to inconsistencies in how the Scottish Government enforced accountability.
4. David Clegg’s Inquiry (31 October 2017)
The fact that David Clegg of the Daily Record was inquiring about harassment complaints against Salmond on 31 October 2017, based on a “tip-off,” is striking, especially given the official stance that no one in the Scottish Government, including Sturgeon, was aware of such complaints at the time.
This discrepancy suggests either a leak of sensitive information or premature media involvement, both of which undermine the claim of ignorance within the government.
It also raises questions about who provided the tip-off and why, particularly if the government’s internal processes were still in the review stage and no formal complaints had been acknowledged.
Analysis and Implications:
The timeline and details, supported by the referenced document (SP_SGHHC_-_FN10.pdf), point to several potential issues:
Procedural Irregularities: The introduction of retrospective allegations unsupported by evidence, exposes the revised sharassment policy as a violation of the Ministerial Code and principles of fair governance.
The lack of precedent in employment law for such measures further questions their legitimacy.
Potential Political Motivations: The text messages reported by Ann Harvey and the media inquiry by David Clegg suggest that efforts to gather damaging information on Salmond were underway before any formal process was established. This indicates a coordinated effort to target him, driven by political rather than procedural considerations.
Breaches of Protocol: The actions of Liz Lloyd coupled with her failure to report misconduct allegations to Sturgeon immediately, as required by the Ministerial Code, suggests lapses in accountability.
Murrell’s statement about SNP policy further complicates the picture, as it implied that any sharing of complaints with the government would have been improper unless criminality was evident.
Transparency and Trust: The discrepancies between the official narrative (no knowledge of complaints) and external inquiries (Clegg’s tip-off) erode trust in the government’s handling of the situation. If information was being shared or pursued outside formal channels, it undermined the integrity of the process.
Conclusion: The events of October 2017, suggest a troubling pattern of procedural overreach, many breaches of the Ministerial Code, and malicious efforts by a number of people to gather allegations against Alex Salmond.
The lack of transparency, combined with the timing of media inquiries and internal SNP communications, raises legitimate concerns about whether the process was fair, impartial, and consistent with governance standards.
Permanent Secreary Evans, acting as she did without providing verifiable evidence to Sturgeon, and Special Advisor, Liz Lloyd, who wilfully and repeatedly contravened the Ministerial Code.
Their actions should be subject to a Public inquiry,since there is the broader implication that the unneccessary review of harassment policy may have been influenced by political factors beyond ensuring “fit for purpose” procedures, compromising the principles of fairness and due process.
02 November 2017: An email headed, “Sexual harassment – message from the Permanent Secretary” was distributed to all Scottish Government staff. It gave no mention of former Ministers or historic complaints. Indeed, the message guided respondents “to share concerns about current cultures or behaviours” and where appropriate to speak to Russell, a senior civil servant employed outside the Human Resources Department, that had been tasked by Evans to provide a confidential “Employer Counselling and Wellbeing” support service. (EAP).
03 November 2017: Letter from Sir Jeremy Heywood to Evans. ” Civil Service Response to misconduct or misbehaviour.” Copied to Richards and Mackinnon, “He asks that we should be satisfied that info on conduct and on how to raise a concern is clear and easily accessible for all staff and channels for raising a concern are well publicised and easy to use, and that staff feel positively encourages to speak up; and? processes for investigating concerns and, where relevant, taking follow up action, are working well and ensure timely resolution.”
04 November 2017: Lloyd’s statement to the Holyrood Inquiry:
I was made aware on the evening of Saturday 4th November 2017 by a member of staff in an SNP parliamentary media office that they had received a query in relation to Mr Salmond and Edinburgh airport.
They called to alert me to the possibility of such a story running, in case any ministers were on Sunday morning media. I informed the First Minister of the query and that I understood that Mr Salmond would not be responding that evening.
On Monday 06 November 2017 I was approached by several civil servants within the Scottish Government who raised concerns that Mr Salmond and representatives of Mr Salmond were reportedly contacting other civil servants directly to ask that they provide supportive statements in relation to the matters raised by Sky News to his legal representatives.
The civil servants indicated that those being approached were finding this contact unwelcome.
I was asked if I or other Special Advisers could ask Mr Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct, however I was informed shortly after receiving this request that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by staff and were taking their request forward, so made no approach to Mr Salmond. See here:
05 and 06 November 2017: Media announcement of the Alex Salmond Show to be broadcast weekly on Russia Today (RT) starting 10 November 2017
This was how Alex announced his return to political journalism after losing his Buchan seat at Westminster in June 2017. And following an enforced 6 month sabbatical brought about by his “blackballing” by the unionist controlled media who denied him a the opportunity to carve out a new career in political journalism away from frontline politics.
Sturgeon surprisingly joined Unionist politicians in the public criticism of Alex choice of broadcaster but neglected to acknowledge that every other option for employment had been denied him.
Sky News joined the attacks on Alex and launched a “Get Salmond” operation utilizing its over used methodology of immersing its journalists and those to be abused in gutter politics.
05 November 2017: Sturgeon took the bait when at 08.50 hours, she messaged Alex saying: “Hi – when you free to speak this morning?” They spoke. Sturgeon briefed Alex about the query from Sky News “about allegations of sexual misconduct at Edinburgh Airport on the part of Alex Salmond”. He denied the allegations. Sky news did not run a story.
06 November 2017: Evans informed Sturgeon of telephone contact between Alex and unnamed Scottish Government members of staff. She said he wanted to talk to them about an incident at Edinburgh Airport incident that Sky News were investigating, She had been told by two different sources, that they had received this contact and they were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it. She didn’t know what was said, she didn’t ask, she didn’t think it was appropriate to know.”
09 November 2017: Sturgeon contacted Alex to comment on his decision to host a weekly political discussion programme on RT. The content of her message was redacted – as was the reply from Alex.
caltonjock 