HOLYROOD managers have delayed a decision on whether to publish evidence from Alex Salmond in which he accuses Nicola Sturgeon of misleading parliament.
The cross-party Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) met this morning after being asked to give a definitive ruling on the issue by the Holyrood inquiry into the Salmond affair.
A decision had been expected this lunchtime.
However the SPCB decided it needed more time to digest material from the inquiry.
The six-person group, which is chaired by Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh, will now reconvene in the afternoon.
However the meeting will have to be juggled with Mr Macintosh chairing the parliament, and it is unclear if any final decision will me made today.
The hold-up is yet another twist in the saga about a written submission Mr Salmond made which the inquiry refused to publish in case it breached court orders, data or privacy laws.
The inquiry is looking at how the Scottish Government botched a probe into sexual misconduct claims made against Mr Salmond by civil servants in 2018.
READ MORE: Holyrood inquiry invites Alex Salmond to give evidence next week
He had the exercise set aside in a judicial review by showing it was “tainted by apparent bias”, a Government flay that left taxpayers with a £512,000 bill for his costs.
He was later charged with sexual assault but cleared on all counts at a High Court trial in March last year.
Mr Salmond made the submission to the independent adviser into the Scottish Ministerial Code last month and also sent it to the inquiry.
In it, the former First Minister accused his successor of repeatedly misleading Holyrood about meetings they had about the probe in 2018, and so broke the ministerial code - a resignation offence Ms Sturgeon denies.
Mr Salmond said he would not give evidence under oath in person unless the material was published by the inquiry, so that it could be included in its final report.
However the committee last week refused to publish the material in case it breached court orders, data or privacy laws.
READ MORE: Tom Gordon - In a recovery election, will the SNP look stuck in a rut?
The Spectator magazine then went to court to seek a variation to an order made by judge Lady Dorrian during Mr Salmond’s trial in order to allow publication in a redacted form.
After Lady Dorrian clarified her order with a written ruling on Tuesday, the inquiry had been expected to agree to publication of the material, as it was now in the public domain.
However, in a 5-4 vote on Wednesdsay, MSPs again refused to allow publication and then voted 6-3 to refer the issue up to the SPCB as the final authority on whether publication would be legal.
The SPCB contains a member of each party at Holyrood - Tory Jackson Carlaw, Liberal Democrat Liam McArthur, Labour's David Stewart, the SNP's Sandra White, and Green Andy Wightman, who is also on the inquiry.
Meanwhile, Mr Salmond’s lawyers have now submitted a revised version of his evidence to the inquiry in order to put the legality of publication “beyond doubt”.
The inquiry has yet to see this material, but early indications suggest it will be published by the parliament, helping to pave the way for Mr Salmond to testify under oath in person.
It means that, even if the SPCB decides not to publish the first version of his submission, this could prove irrelevant if the second version is published.
READ MORE: Alex Salmond 'clears diary' as he seeks to give evidence to Holyrood inquiry
The inquiry has invited Mr Salmond to testify on Wednesday, February 24.
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: “The SPCB will reconvene this afternoon once Members have had the opportunity to consider more fully the substantial material submitted to it by the SGHHC [Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel