SNP - Oldies Versus Goldies
The First Minister has responded to Jim Sillars’ letter claiming she breached the Ministerial Code by criticising Alex Salmond at her covid briefing.
— Paul Hutcheon (@paulhutcheon) February 27, 2021
She denied a breach and said it was “entirely wrong” to suggest she was casting doubt on the outcome of Salmond’s trial pic.twitter.com/8gpPGHXMBT
Jim Sillars, a former deputy leader of the SNP, wrote to Nicola Sturgeon complaining the First Minister had broken the Ministerial Code.
Nicola responded, rejecting his claim, but Jim came back again pointing out, fairly in my view, that the First Minister cannot be 'judge and jury' in her own cause.
Dear Nicola,
Confirmation of complaint of you breaching the Ministerial Code
I did not reply immediately to your letter to me, as I thought careful consideration should be given to what you had to say in insisting that you did not breach the Code. I think it would have been wiser for you to take more time to consider the substance of my letter.
Of course I was aware that the Permanent Secretary, under normal circumstances, cannot refer the First Minister to an investigation, due to the anomaly in the Code that complaints about the First Minister can only be dealt with by the First Minister. I am also aware that both you and your predecessor overcame this problem by a referral to an independent authority. The matters Mr. Hamilton is looking into at present, is the latest example of that practice.
My reason for addressing my letter to the Permanent Secretary was that I assumed she would be able to give you advice, acting on the highest standards of the civil service, on whether or not you should again refer your conduct to Mr. Hamilton, or other independent person.
As you can see from the heading of this letter, I am informing you that I wish my complaint to be considered, and as you disagree with me on that, may I request that you transfer the question of whether or not you breached the Ministerial Code to Mr. Hamilton or some other suitable independent person. I think, given the gravity of the breaches I have detailed, it would not be construed as proper for you to be judge and jury.
I now come to the reasons why I wish to confirm my complaint:
I concur with your view of the Covid briefings as of great advantage to the public. You have been scrupulous in keeping them to that agenda, which is your Government’s agenda. When you chose to depart from that practice and respond to a non-Covid related question from James Matthew, to launch a political attack on Alex Salmond, you breached the Code as I set out in my original letter.
Of course, I accept, as you say, that you did not know that Mr. Matthew would ask you a non-Covid related question; but you had the choice to inform him that it was not an appropriate one in the context of a public health briefing, or to take the bait. The choice you made was yours, and yours alone.
You are an experienced Minister, with many years of dealing with questions from journalists. You and others in your position never know what they might ask, just as you do not know the supplementary questions that will come from MSPs at FMQs. Ministers have a variety of ways that enable them to avoid answering questions that are inappropriate, or asked in a context not germane to the agenda for which the meeting was called. It is not a criticism to say that you employ that approach each week at FMQs, and could have done so in reply to the first non-Covid related question from the SKY journalist. Again, I make the point that you chose not to do so.
Your excuse, that if you ‘had refused to answer these questions I would have been criticised for avoiding scrutiny,’ is unconvincing. Who would have criticised you? Not the public looking in on the briefing, for whom public health information is their only reason for watching. I venture to suggest that a sharp reminder to Mr. Matthew of the purpose of the briefing would not have been criticised by the public, but approved. It is true that journalists may have criticised you, but that goes with job and should not be something of such importance to you, that you chose to breach the Code in order to avoid their anticipated critical views. Your reply gives me no reason to withdraw that part of my complaint.
I now turn to your statement that ‘It is also entirely wrong of you to suggest that I was casting doubt on the outcome of the criminal trial.’ Actually, what your chosen words at the zbriefing were directed to was the “outcome,” which has, and has continued to have, a different meaning, since the trial, than the “verdict.” The word “outcome” as well as encompassing the decision of the trial also encompasses comment upon it post-trial, allowing people to constantly invoke the fact that the complainers were women and claim, therefore, ipso facto, if they say something happened then it happened. That was the meaning you gave to the words you chose to use at the briefing.
I am not alone in believing that your words draw the inference that the jury got it wrong. Several people were in touch with me. One comment is typical, from a woman, referring to your words: “she” meaning you, “is saying he is guilty, it’s just the jury got it wrong.”
In a rather more nuanced way, as one would expect, the statement issued by the Faculty of Advocates, expressing their concern about the reputation of the Scottish legal system, included ‘and perhaps most importantly, the vital place of the verdict of impartial juries in criminal proceedings.’ That they should feel it necessary to issue that statement on the day following your departure from the purpose of the public health briefing, speaks volumes. I see no reason to withdraw my complaint that in choosing to speak as you did in relation to the criminal trial, you breached the Code.
I now refer to the final paragraph of your letter where it says: ‘Of course the most appropriate place for me to be questioned about these matters is in front of the Parliamentary Committee.’ I agree. But in choosing first to use the forum of a briefing on Covid public health matters, you breached the Code.
I shall be grateful to have your assurance that you will refer my complaint to either Mr. Hamilton or some other person with the authority to investigate it.
Yours sincerely
Jim Sillars
Jim Sillars may be in his 80s, but the octogenarian is winning his argument with Nicola Sturgeon hands down.
