Fraser Nelson has narrated this article for you to listen to.
Did Nicola Sturgeon lie to the Scottish parliament? A Holyrood committee into the now infamous Alex Salmond affair has been looking into what she knew and when she knew it. In its possession is Salmond’s explosive written evidence, which contradicts her account. So who is telling the truth? This SNP-chaired inquiry has been in no rush to find the answer. Last month, it made the extraordinary decision not to publish the Salmond submission at all — blaming legal problems. There’s a risk, it said, that his account might identify some of the women who complained against him, thereby defying a court order to protect anonymity. Without the key evidence, its inquiry would run into the ground. All very convenient. And questionable. The refusal to publish vital submissions fits a depressing trend. Free speech is already under attack by the SNP’s Hate Crime Bill, and journalists trying to get to the bottom of the Sturgeon/Salmond mystery are told there are ill-defined legal constraints on what can be reported. In an SNP-dominated parliament, there’s no means of appeal. The only way out was to go to the High Court and ask for clarity. It quite rightly wants to preserve anonymity for the women — but was its ruling ever intended to halt a political investigation? Challenges are possible, but cost a lot of money. Who would be crazy enough to blow cash on a court case with an unknown chance of success?
Step forward Andrew Neil, chairman of The Spectator and holder of the pen that hovers over the cheque books. So we went to the High Court in Edinburgh, and last week we successfully persuaded the court to clarify its ruling.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in