We need an inquiry into the Scottish Government's pursuit of Alex Salmond

Judging by the obvious discomfort of John Swinney as he sat through the memorial to Alex Salmond at St Giles Cathedral, it will be some time before the SNP has a coherent reaction to their former leader’s death. 

The Scottish Labour Party’s response to the passing of the man who broke their hold over Scotland more than seventeen years ago should be clearer and swift. Because no one should be gulled into thinking that the dust will settle any time soon on the great disrupter’s legacy even though he is now lying in his grave. Not while questions remain on the attempt to bury him while he was still alive.

Scottish Labour should demand a judicial inquiry into the pursuit of the criminal charges against the former first minister and should make it a manifesto commitment for the 2026 election.

They should also move quickly to fulfil the commitment they made in this summer’s manifesto to give the Scottish Parliament full privilege for members to be able to speak without fear of legal action.

This is not about repairing Salmond’s reputation or defending his behaviour towards women in any sense.

It is solely about restoring faith in Scottish governance and the rule of law because there is at least a prima facie case to answer that the machinery of the state may have been manipulated for political ends to damage a critic of the government.

For Labour this is more than a chance to exploit the political discomfort of their main opponents. This is an opportunity to reset the workings of government they wish to lead.
What we know for certain is that Nicola Sturgeon’s administration acted unlawfully in its attempts to pursue Salmond. His victory in his judicial review told us that. We also know that John Swinney sanctioned spending public money on legal actions he was advised he would lose. Freedom of information has told us that.

What we need to know is what motivated the move to change rules to allow civil servants to retrospectively make complaints about former politicians they worked for, and how the path was laid from that to criminal charges.

Sturgeon, Salmond’s closest confidante, used to say he was the “least sexist man” she had ever met, without “a sexist bone in his body”. Yet instead of being relieved at her mentor’s acquittal she talked of feeling let down by him.

It is difficult to write about this matter because rightly the anonymity of the people who made complaints must be maintained. But let me put it this way: Alex Salmond and I shared a visceral dislike of each other as political opponents for most of the thirty years we knew each other. But what we found in the last few years is that we both shared a greater passion that justice is done in Scotland. I think if there is evidence that he was wronged, that at the very least should be the subject of an inquiry.

If acquittals on fourteen charges still fuels ‘no smoke without fire’ arguments about Salmond, then there are more than enough fumes to choke on, and heat to burn your fingers on, from the manner in which the case against him was brought.

Much of this could have been better investigated by the Scottish Parliament had they enjoyed full parliamentary privilege as members at Westminster enjoy. Indeed, without it, it has been left to Tory MP David Davis to raise the questions about the case against Salmond in the House of Commons.

Holyrood must enjoy the same rights not just for this case but for everything from the fiasco of the ferries, to the botched prosecution of former directors of Rangers Football Club, to the Crown Office’s handling of the Denise Clair rape case.

While normally the SNP leadership welcomes any increase in Scottish powers, they have been strangely muted on this one. The way for Swinney to ease his own discomfiture on Salmond is to tackle it head on. So far, he has been prepared to start addressing the SNP administration’s policy failings and budget problems and to reorganise his own party’s operations.

But the schism over Salmond has ripped the heart and soul out of the independence movement. Embracing an inquiry and facing up to the truth could be the greatest legacy Swinney could leave to the cause. Shying away from one could be a gift to Scottish Labour and give them the sense of reform and change which voters might well embrace.

The Salmond family’s action for damages against the Scottish Government may succeed but that is not enough for them. The Scottish Government may be forced to handover cash but there will be no need for them to lay bare the truth. No legal action is left open to them which could achieve that so an inquiry is the only way we will ever know what really went on.

This is not about vindication for Salmond or restoring his reputation. It is about restoring trust in Scottish governance. To quote him from the Holyrood inquiry: “The competence and professionalism of the civil service matters. The independence of the Crown Office matters. Acting in accordance with legal advice matters… Suppressing evidence from parliamentary committees matters and, yes, ministers telling the truth to parliament matters. The day that such things came not to matter would be a dark and dangerous one for Scotland.”

Scottish Labour should lead the way in shining some light.