SNP messages about Salmond harassment complaints published

The messages, which were previously before the courts but have never been made public, appear to show discussions about identifying complainers, sharing information with police, and reactions to the criminal case brought against the former first minister.

Mr Salmond long maintained there had been a conspiracy to destroy him politically — claims strongly rejected by the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon.

He was cleared of 13 charges, including attempted rape and sexual assault, at the High Court in Edinburgh in March 2020.

During the trial, his legal team argued there had been “deliberate fabrications for a political purpose”. Speaking outside court after his acquittal, he said there was “certain evidence I would have liked to have seen led in this trial” but which had not been heard.

The messages obtained by the paper span a period between September 2018 and January 2019, covering the collapse of the Scottish Government’s internal investigation into complaints against the ex-SNP leader — later ruled unlawful — and the subsequent police probe.

Some of the exchanges appear to show efforts to identify potential complainers. In one message, Sue Ruddick, the SNP's Chief Operating Officer, asks Compliance Officer Ian McCann: “Are the xxxx complaints the folk she said she would get?”

Mr McCann claims the person "overreached".

“She was claiming she’d get five folk by the end of that week,” he texts.

Sign up to Unspun Election Briefing – our 8am Holyrood campaign newsletter

Other messages suggest attempts to encourage further complaints following Mr Salmond’s successful judicial review. In one exchange Ms Ruddick tells Mr McCann a complainer: “Hopefully she's sickened enough to get back in the game”.

Former first minister gave evidence to MSPs investigating the Scottish Government's handling of (Image: JEFF J MITCHELL)

The published messages also include exchanges in which individuals appear uncertain whether their experiences amounted to criminal conduct.

One message reads: “Tbh, what happened to me did not particularly bother me at the time but I felt it was important to back up the other women.”

In response, another participant adds: “Yeah I’m in the same boat in terms of backing others.”

Another states: “I speak for myself here — I do not think what happened to me would constitute an offence so there may be more than 14.”

Elsewhere, a woman is reported as reacting angrily after learning her name had been passed to police, saying: “How have they got my name? Must be her. I’ll kill her.”

The messages also include more overtly hostile comments about Mr Salmond following news that he had been charged in January 2019.

One reads: “Indeed. He is going to jail. And I’m f*****g glad.”

Another states: “Jeez. Think **** is in trouble… Salmond is not going to stop until he gets her and he’s bringing down Nicola on the way.”

Another message states: “Was considering briefing media… but it’s a good move by police to do this now then we are all protected by contempt of court.”

Senior party figures are also named in some of the exchanges reported by the Sunday Mail. In one message, former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell is quoted as saying: “TBH the more fronts he’s having to firefight on the better for all complainers.”

In another exchange, Mr Murrell is reported to have expressed frustration after a conversation with a complainer, stating: “Ian has just returned from his chat… forgot to ask if she knew any of the charges involved her or indeed whether ok for us to pass her complaint over to police. All in all he’s pissed me off with his attitude again.”

Former first minister Alex Salmond is sworn in before giving evidence

The existence of the material had previously been referenced during a preliminary hearing.

Mr Salmond’s defence counsel, Gordon Jackson KC, told the court there were messages between complainants, government officials and SNP figures, and sought to have some admitted as evidence.

He said he believed there had been “a concerted effort made by people in the government to influence the process, to get it as best they could in terms of criminal prosecution”.

The material echoes claims previously raised by Tory MP David Davis, who used parliamentary privilege in 2021 to allege a co-ordinated effort to damage Salmond.

After the Court of Session ruled the Scottish Government’s handling of the complaints against Mr Salmond was unlawful, procedurally unfair and “tainted by apparent bias” in 2019, a Holyrood committee was set up to examine how ministers, civil servants and special advisers dealt with those complaints and whether their actions complied with the government’s harassment policy and the Scottish ministerial code.

As Deputy First Minister, John Swinney fronted the Scottish Government’s response to the Holyrood committee and took ministerial responsibility for what material was released, including during a protracted row over publishing the government’s legal advice on the failed judicial review.

Ms Baillie, who sat on the Holyrood probe, questioned why the exchanges had not been shared with the committee.

“These messages raise serious questions for John Swinney and the SNP,” she said.

“It is outrageous that this information was withheld from the Scottish Parliament’s inquiry into the issue and John Swinney has some serious explaining to do.

“The SNP’s handling of complaints against Alex Salmond in both the party and the government has let down complainers and undermined confidence in the process.

“For too long John Swinney and the SNP have operated in a culture of secrecy. He withheld information from the committee and forced members to move votes of no confidence in his handling of the matter.

“It’s time for John Swinney and the SNP to come clean about this scandal and tell us what actually happened and explain exactly who knew what and when.”

Murdo Fraser, who also sat on the committee, said: “The SNP should have come clean about this scandal and the toxic atmosphere within their own ranks long ago.

“As Nicola Sturgeon’s senior lieutenant during this murky business, John Swinney urgently needs to explain why information was withheld from the inquiry, and why the SNP are continuing with their habitual refusal to be open and transparent with the Scottish public.

“These are extremely serious allegations, but if the Nationalists return to government, we know that they will arrogantly continue to operate for their own benefit, rather than being accountable."

The Holyrood inquiry did receive some material from the Crown Office, including text and WhatsApp messages uncovered during the police investigation.

However, MSPs agreed not to publish private communications between women, arguing they were not relevant to the committee’s remit and could cause distress.

The committee’s convener, Linda Fabiani, said at the time the messages represented “safe spaces for confidential support” and that publication was not in the public interest.

The SNP said the issues raised had already been examined.

A party spokesperson said: “These issues, including the question of WhatsApps between women, have been examined repeatedly over the last seven years. The SNP’s focus is on continuing to deliver for the people of Scotland.”

The committee concluded there had been serious institutional failings in how the government ran the investigation, however MSPs were split on whether Nicola Sturgeon had misled Parliament.

Opposition MSPs used their narrow majority on the committee to state that she had given an inaccurate account of key meetings with Mr Salmond, while SNP members formally dissented and branded that conclusion politically motivated.

However, days later, James Hamilton’s separate ministerial code inquiry found she had not breached the code, allowing her to reject calls to resign and claim vindication.

Alex Salmond outside the Court of Session (Image: NQ)

The claims come as fresh allegations are also made in a new memoir by Joanna Cherry, serialised in the Sunday Times.

In Keeping the Dream Alive, Ms Cherry describes what she calls a “witch-hunt” against Mr Salmond and suggests some within the SNP had prior knowledge of allegations before they became public.

She recounts an account from Anne Harvey, who attended a gathering of party staff in August 2018 shortly after news of the allegations emerged.

According to the book, Ms Harvey expected staff to be “upset and in a state of shock” but instead found the mood “jovial, even celebratory”.

Ms Cherry writes that comments were made about “how much they were looking forward to a ceremonial melting down of the bust of Alex Salmond that stood in the boardroom at SNP HQ”.

The account adds: “This was not a group of people who had learnt of a shock development less than 24 hours earlier. It felt as if some people had been well prepared for this.”

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Ms Cherry said: “I do have evidence which suggests there was some kind of conspiracy by actors within the government to go after Alex.”

However, she said she did not believe police or prosecutors were part of any conspiracy.

Mr Salmond, who died in 2024, was cleared of 13 charges including attempted rape and sexual assault at the High Court in Edinburgh in March 2020.

A spokesperson for Ms Sturgeon dismissed Ms Cherry’s book as “a work of fiction”.