THE convener of the Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair has made it clear she does not expect the former First Minister will ever testify before it.
Linda Fabiani said Mr Salmond had missed repeated chances to "comment extensively", but MSPs now planned to draw on his written evidence instead and move on.
Confirming the inquiry was unable to meet the conditions Mr Salmond had demanded before appearing, she said it would complete its work “without further delay”.
The brusque goodbye came after the inquiry voted 5-4 against publishing a submission from Mr Salmond in which he accused Nicola Sturgeon of misleading parliament.
The cross-party committee split down Yes and No lines, with the four Unionists MSPs in favour of publication outvoted by five pro-independence MSPs opposed to it.
Former Green turned Independent Andy Wightman was the crucial swing vote, siding with the four SNP MSPs on the inquiry.
It means Mr Salmond, who had made publication and a guarantee of legal protection pre-conditions for his testimony, is no longer expected to appear at the inquiry.
He would have been the most important witness after Ms Sturgeon.
The inquiry is looking at how Ms Sturgeon’s government bungled a 2018 sexual misconduct probe into her predecessor, which he had set aside in a judicial review in 2019.
The government’s mistakes left taxpayers with a £512,000 bill for Mr Salmond’s costs.
READ MORE: Alex Salmond set to quit Holyrood inquiry as MSPs again refuse to publish censored evidence
In a 21-page submission to the inquiry, Mr Salmond accused Ms Sturgeon of repeatedly misleading parliament about controversial meetings they had in April, June and July 2018 while he was under investigation.
He claims she therefore broke the ministerial code - a resignation office she denies.
The inquiry last week refused to publish the submission in case it breached court orders, data or privacy laws.
Mr Salmond said the "farcical" decison meant his evidence could not be included in the inquiry's final report and pulled out of today's scheduled testimony, though he left the door open to an appearance before February 16 on condition the submission was published.
After the inquiry today rejected a Tory-led compromise to publish the material with “appropriate redactions”, and instead ruled out publication altogether, Ms Fabiani wrote to Mr Salmond with the news and reminded him he had passed up multiple opportunities to give evidence.
She said: “A majority of the Committee agreed that, given the legal constraints under which the Committee must operate, it is not able to publish any version of your submission on the Ministerial Code.
“That said, we offered you an opportunity to attend today to provide hours of evidence before the Committee.
“As made clear last week, you could have commented extensively on all of your contact with the First Minister and your views on her actions and the Scottish Government’s actions.
“You were also free to comment on your two submissions and over a hundred pages of records you have previously provided and the Parliament has already published.
“You were also offered the opportunity to provide a further submission to the Committee.
"We appreciate that, as well as not publishing your full submission as you requested, the Committee is also not in a position to meet your request for immunity from prosecution to enable you to refer to certain evidence under oath.
“On that basis, the Committee is not in a position to meet the conditions that you have set for giving evidence to this Committee.”
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon vows to address 'ridiculous suggestions' head-on at Salmond inquiry
She went on: “The Committee must fulfil the task Parliament has set it including publishing its findings and making recommendations to the Scottish Government.
“On that basis we must complete evidence taking without further delay and the Committee has already had a series of letters with you exploring possible dates and formats for evidence taking.
“The Committee is grateful for all the other written evidence that you have submitted which we have been able to publish.
“We will draw on this evidence to question the First Minister and to reach conclusions in our report.”
Ms Sturgeon is due to testify on February 16.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel