First Minister John Swinney, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain and Conservative leader Russell Findlay.
Dumbarton Notebook by Bill Heaney
That information was kept from the media and the public. Thirty-one minutes after receiving that information, John Swinney passed it to his most senior SNP spin doctor. Why?
That’s a question that most journalists would like to ask.
But asking questions is a No Go area for journalists in Secret Scotland, not least in West Dunbartonshire where The Dumbarton Democrat has been banned us from asking questions by the local council.
Since this has been going on for so long, it begs the question why are both the Labour administration and the SNP opposition at the Council doing nothing about it?
Today I became so fed up with the whole business that I asked them to put up or shut up.
Why don’t you have me charged with breach of the peace, I asked.
They must surely have all the evidence they need if what they allege – that I interupted a council meeting – is included in the minutes of that meeting. It’s not.
He told MSPs: “Let me make it clear that I understand the importance of protecting live criminal proceedings. That is exactly why the Lord Advocate sent me a minute to warn me about the risk of contempt of court in a significant criminal case. It is abundantly clear that I would be asked about that case in court. She did that in order to ensure that I did not prejudice the proceedings.
“The very brief minute that was sent to me by the Lord Advocate, which is a type of communication that I receive from the Lord Advocate on a number of occasions, was issued to the people in the Government who have to speak on my behalf. If it is important that I am reminded by the Lord Advocate that I must be careful and respect the live criminal proceedings, it is equally vital that those people who are authorised to speak on my behalf have the same information.”
He said: “The reason why John Swinney passed sensitive information from the Lord Advocate to his SNP spin doctor is obvious. It was because he knew that it gave him and his party a political advantage in an election year. Thanks to the Lord Advocate, John Swinney and the SNP knew the precise scale of the alleged crime, while the public knew nothing. Mr Swinney was also given key information about potential timescales, which was also concealed from the public.
“Yesterday, the Lord Advocate claimed that she briefed John Swinney so that he did not say anything to jeopardise the case. John Swinney says that he accepts that, but her explanation is simply not credible.”
He added: “If it really was about preventing any risk to the case, who else did John Swinney share that information with?”
“Mr Findlay has made a number of comments that are, frankly, contemptible—utterly contemptible. On the radio this morning, a prominent King’s counsel, Mr Thomas Ross, was asked what to make of the issues that were raised in Parliament yesterday.
He replied: “I thought it was an absolute disgrace. I mean, the current Lord Advocate has practised at the Scottish bar for 40 years. She has a stellar career. She is trusted by every practising lawyer and every judge in the country, and for her to be accused of corruption without a shred of evidence to support it was one of the most shameful episodes I have seen in that building.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, pictured left
“It was a shameful episode, for which Russell Findlay was responsible. He should be ashamed of himself for what he has said.”
The former foot-in-the-door, tabloid journalist Russell Findlay became more insistent: “Imagine boasting about getting an FOI answered on time—absolutely desperate.
“The First Minister did not answer the question, but it sounds like he did not share the information with his entire Cabinet, but he shared it with his spin doctor.
“The Lord Advocate should have known that handing politically advantageous information about an acutely sensitive criminal case involving Nicola Sturgeon’s husband to the SNP leader was a gross misjudgment.
“The Lord Advocate was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon and retained by both Humza Yousaf and John Swinney. As a member of the SNP Government, the Lord Advocate is supposed to be scrupulously politically neutral.
“I will say it again: in the real world, this smacks of corruption.
“It once again highlights the inherent conflict of interest with Scotland’s top prosecutor also being a member of the Scottish Government. John Swinney stood on a manifesto promise to address that. Five years later, nothing has changed. I wonder why. Does John Swinney now agree that the Lord Advocate’s dual role must end?”
It was at this point the First Minister became extremely angry.
He said “Before I address that point, I want to say something very directly to Mr Findlay, the Parliament and the public in Scotland. Dorothy Bain is an outstanding prosecutor. She is an outstanding lawyer. She has 40 years of unimpeachable service to the public interest in Scotland. She alone is responsible for more cases of sexual violence of men against women being brought to justice than any other person. I put on record my absolute confidence in the Lord Advocate in undertaking her duties.
“I am disgusted by the way that Russell Findlay spoke about the Lord Advocate yesterday. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should withdraw every word of contemptible rubbish that he put on the record yesterday and today.
“The Government was elected on a policy commitment to explore, examine and consult on issues related to the dual functions of the Lord Advocate. Those issues are being considered; research work has been undertaken and it awaits decisions among ministers.
“I point out that the regulation of the arrangements for the Lord Advocate holding the dual functions of being the chief legal adviser to the Government and the head of the prosecution service is in the Scotland Act 1998, which is reserved legislation. If Mr Findlay wants to do something about that, he should support Scotland in becoming an independent country.”
“After five years of inaction, it maybe will take this rotten episode to finally force the SNP to end the Lord Advocate’s dual role.
“This scandal is typical of an SNP Government that is obsessed with secrecy and spin, personified by the First Minister. If John Swinney really does not understand why this stinks, he is in need of a software update.
“The Lord Advocate’s private memo gave John Swinney political advantage.
He was Nicola Sturgeon’s right-hand man and he got a heads-up about the criminal case involving her husband. The Lord Advocate’s actions were wrong and her excuses do not stack up. John Swinney says that he has confidence in the Lord Advocate, so will he therefore support our plan to get her back into Parliament to provide a full statement about this shameful, rotten episode?
“Parliament decided on that point last night in a democratic vote by its elected members.
“Yesterday, Mr Findlay put on the record all his points to the Lord Advocate. I think that 14 members were able to ask questions of the Lord Advocate, in an extended urgent question in Parliament. This morning on the radio, Thomas Ross KC said:
“I hope that now everything’s calmed the Scottish Conservatives are big enough to apologise for making that slur”—
the slur against the Lord Advocate—
“because being trusted is the most important thing for every lawyer in the country, and for somebody who is trusted”—
the Lord Advocate—
“to be accused in some way of dishonesty, I thought, was shameful.”
“I agree with Mr Ross. I was disgusted by the behaviour of Russell Findlay and a number of other contributors in Parliament yesterday. The most appalling level of behaviour was deployed by members of Parliament. We have a code of conduct and some standards to uphold in this Parliament.