Tangled webs in the weaving
Here is why the Court of Session ruling matters regarding the labyrinthine battle between Salmond's personal mission and the SNP Government
Earlier today the Scottish Court of Session made a ruling, the importance of which might be lost on many who - unlike yours truly - aren’t anoraks and writers on Scottish politics. So, with the suffering of those struggling with the labyrinthine world of Salmond’s personal mission targeting the SNP Government, here’s a summary. How we got here, what happened today and why it actually could really matter one day.
My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber
Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciated
Background:
In 2019 then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon referred herself to independent adviser James Hamilton. She did so due to concerns she failed to record meetings and phone calls she had with Alex Salmond and his former chief of staff after he was the subject of complaints from two civil servants.
Mr Hamilton investigated and issued a report in March 2021 finding Ms Sturgeon did not breach the code.
However…
A) Hamilton said “it is for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether they were in fact misled” (which they did)
B) complained that ScotGov redactions to his published report meant it “cannot be properly understood by those reading it, and presents an incomplete and even at times misleading version of what happened”
Two weeks later ordinary voter Benjamin Harrop asked Scottish ministers for all written evidence gathered by Mr James Hamilton during his investigation via FOI
The Scottish Government refused twice to comply, prompting Mr Harrop to seek a review by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC)
The SIC ruled ScotGov ought to review their responses to Mr Harrop and his FOI request.
This lead ScotGov to take the unprecedented step - first time in devolved history - of appealing the SIC decision. All in an ongoing effort to keep said requested materials redacted and away from public eyes.
Now, today:
The head honchos - biggest of bigwigs - ruling over a Court of Session sitting ruled the SNP Government defence was bunkum. ScotGov argued that the materials held couldn’t be released, on the basis of a legal defence which can only be summed up as ‘we are only holding it for a friend’ (😂)
The ScotGov defence said:
“It is, in my submission, clear that the information is held on behalf of Mr Hamilton, that the ministers have no control over it, and it remains either stored by Mr Hamilton or stored on his behalf in a Government IT system. It remains in the control of Mr Hamilton”
The Lord President of the Court of Session rejected the ScotGov appeal saying:
“the court is satisfied that the information involved was held by the Scottish ministers in terms of the statute, and we will therefore refuse this appeal.”
Why this matters:
Now, being incredibly careful with what I can say…
When in 2021 James Hamilton stated publicly how irritated he was at SNP Gov redactions, he suggested the redactions might result in … readers not properly understanding … certain events. He raged in an open letter that his report:
“cannot be properly understood by those reading it, and presents an incomplete and even at times misleading version of what happened”,
Specifically, “certain events prior to 29th March 2018, which are highly significant for understanding who was aware of complaints against Mr Salmond and what they did with that information”.
Who was aware? And what they did with that information? That bit can’t be understood due to the evidence ScotGov are determinedly withholding.
I’ll just note here that James Hamilton found Alex Salmond’s former chief of staff Mr Geoff Aberdein’s account of these events “credible”.
And his “credible” account was backed up by four witnesses. Competing evidence of an anonymised official - which seemingly contradicted Mr Aberdein’s account - was seen as incredible. But it is believed by those close to the report those passages were removed from the report to protect anonymity.
So did ScotGov impose redactions and go all the way to the Court of Session just at the behest of civil servants just to prevent identification of those granted anonymity? Or, did it do so mostly or in part by…say…special advisors who wanted to end serious potential political damage?
If it’s the latter then ScotGov is not just attempting to protect anonymity of certain individuals who shall remain nameless but also to cover up misfeasance, malfeasance and potential perjury and criminal conspiracy.
So, yeah, a big deal really.
What next?
If there are large redactions in the now looming FOI, and the SIC again rules they're unacceptable, the SNP Gov would either accept and acquiesce or appeal (again) to the Court of Session (in which case we'll be back here in a year+)
On a separate note apropos nothing at all…
I’m a big fan of Scottish Sir Walter Scott. The best selling writer of novels, plays, and poetry had many brilliant lines. One of my favourites is “Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive”. Which means that when you lie or act dishonestly you are initiating problems and a domino structure of complications which eventually run out of control.
My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber
Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciated
Apropos your Sir Walter Scott quote. I have generally found that systematic lying is the result of an arrogance and pride and that the behaviour leaves a long and muddy trail behind it. It can be a successful strategy for years or decades (think Catholic Church in Ireland) but when the collapse comes it can be catastrophic as confidence is lost.
Tick Tock.
Good summary of how SNP yet again dissemble & use the judiciary to protect their dishonest backsides!