BRIAN WILSON’S COLUMN: SALMOND, STURGEON AND THE ‘DUTY OF CANDOUR’

“Duty of candour” has become a staple reminder to witnesses in Holyrood’s most candour-free zone – for shorthand, the Salmond committee, writes BRIAN WILSON.

According to the Civil Service code, failure by public servants to disclose evidence which might enlighten the truth is bad form, because it is lacking in “candour”.

We now know that as Nicola Surgeon and her inner circle ploughed on with defending an action they could not win, their own counsel and the judge, Lord Pentland, both reminded them of their “duty of candour”.

They continued anyway until the crash with reality when Lord Pentland damned their defence as “unlawful, procedurally unfair and tainted with bias” while awarding Mr Salmond costs of over £500,000 with the overall price-tag at least double that.

It seems extraordinary that not a single head has rolled in deference to that outcome. Instead, the prevarication continues and evidence which could bring this  unsavoury affair to a conclusion remains withheld. It is farcical.

I suppose “duty of candour”   covers the ground between downright lies and truthfulness; Sir Humphrey territory. But at what point does failure to disclose relevant information create such a distortion of truth as to become tantamount to lies?

That enigma is at the heart of the committee’s frustrations but this is no sitcom (though an eye-watering £54,378 of Scottish taxpayers’ money to coach senior civil servants in their evidence, so inept that four had to return to correct previous testimony, does open up a new element of farce).

The first underlying question is whether a conspiracy evolved at the highest levels of the Scottish Government and its ruling party to deprive a man of his liberty. The second is whether, as alleged by Mr Salmond, his successor repeatedly misled MSPs about her own role.

I have no brief for either principal player or privileged access to the definitive truth. However, I do have a deep attachment to the concept of guilt or innocence being determined in a court of law, rather than within the confines of St Andrew’s House.

When Police Scotland was formed, I was among those who expressed concern that the various branches of law enforcement were being brought too close together with the potential for political involvement. Nothing about this case has diminished these concerns.

The inescapable logic of evidence so far is that Salmond or Sturgeon, is –  to borrow the euphemism – failing grievously in the “duty of candour”.  The committee must hear from both and thereafter the facts are well capable of being established.

However, that cannot happen without the missing evidence – legal advice, e-mails, What’sApp messages and all.  Yet every device is being deployed not to produce them.  This must stop before the “finishing line” of delay  – i.e pre-election purdah –  comes within sight.

In these extraordinary circumstances, is there no role for the Presiding Officer at Holyrood to defend the integrity and credibility of the institution if the alternative is for this inquiry to run into the ground because of obstruction?

Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans; the ‘admirably forensic’ Jackie Baillie MSP and Lord Pentland.

Much of this week’s evidence (including Mr Salmond’s written intervention) dealt with meetings involving the Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans, the Investigating Officer and two  complainants. These proved crucial to Lord Pentland’s  ruling and also, in Mr Salmond’s submission, could have been highly relevant to his defence in the criminal case.

Pressed by the admirably forensic Jackie Baillie MSP on why one meeting was not disclosed, Ms Evans replied that it was “not particularly concealed”. Ms Baillie responded: “So, it was not concealed but neither was it disclosed. That is unfortunate, given the duty of candour that exists”. Quite.

Ms Baillie pressed Ms Evans on whether a warrant, requiring  the Scottish Government to hand over all relevant documents to the criminal  investigation, was fully complied with. Ms Evans replied: “I cannot tell you at this stage”. Mr Salmond alleges “prima facie, a contempt of court”.

These are serious matters for the personnel directly involved and also the credibility of the Scottish Parliament, It is past time for the duty of candour to be compelled from all sources – or else confess to a shameful failure of accountability.

DEFINING POST-PANDEMIC PRIORITIES OFFERS LABOUR ITS OPPORTUNITY

Richard Leonard will stay on and stand for parliament at the elections in May.

It is neither ideological nor personal to conclude that Richard Leonard acted honourably by standing down as Scottish Labour leader.  Equally, I am glad he will seek re-election to Holyrood.

Scottish Labour’s turnover of leaders since 2007 provides opponents with legitimate sport, best taken on the chin.   The party that delivered a Scottish Parliament has found great difficulty in adapting to opposition within it.

 However, there is nothing that cannot be recovered from if the need exists – and today’s Scotland, as much as in any other period,  needs the  party which exists to advance the interests of working people, their families and communities.

While some former Labour voters have moved towards Nationalism, particularly because of the 2014 polarisation, many more are open to persuasion if a credible alternative presents itself.

The Nationalists have already stated that they want a mandate to demand a second independence referendum. Yet polling suggests  this is far from the highest priority for most Scottish voters.

Labour’s success or failure will depend on articulating the message that a Scottish Government can and should do much, much better with  its current responsibilities – which must be its sole focus for the next four years..

There is no need to get bogged down in arguments about a second referendum that will not and should not happen within the time-frame of post-pandemic recovery, as some of the more thoughtful Nationalists acknowledge.

What happens thereafter is a long way off and meanwhile trying to turn a pandemic election into a referendum on a referendum can, in capable hands, be exposed as a cynical reflection of misguided priorities. For Scotland’s sake, let’s hope so.

One comment

  1. Out of Europe, a slumped economy, a destructive choke on being able to export food and other produce, restrictions at borders, and all topped off with COVID there is not much light for Scotland.

    But the English Brexiteers got their way and now we are restricted in free movement of people and goods. The days of simply having something delivered£ to or from Europe is gone. Levies, taxes and customs checks are now in place.

    And the EU protections on consumer rights, worker protections, and environmental protection standards are soon to be relaxed, abandoned in favour of what can only be described as a move to a sweatshop economy for many..

    Between that and austerity it will create the biggest drive ever to reduce wages and working standards. Work for whatever or simply starve on peppercorn social security support.

    Ah well the pelagic and shell fish industry certainly knows about that as their industry collapses a mere couple of weeks into transition exit ( or Trexit )

    Like the rest of us we’ll all just have to suffer it. Workers rights are after all a luxury. Why shouldn’t a worker be compelled to work more than 48 hours a week, what gives a worker a right to paid maternity leave, what gives a worker the right to transfer employer on the same terms and conditions when a service contract changes hands, what gives workers the right to a minimum wage.

    Well all these slackers are going to find out that they’re going to have to work harder and have less of the comfy life. It is after all what they voted for. A right wing Tory Government, out of Europe and austerity. Just the ticket to make Britain great again.

Leave a Reply