Who Leaked the Salmond Harassment Report?
In extracts from Nicola Stugeon’s forthcoming memoir, Frankly, published in the Times newspaper, the former First Minister makes a remarkable claim about one of the most shameful episodes in the whole Sturgeon-Salmond drama.
On 23 August 2018, the internal Scottish government Investigation Report (the Report) into allegations of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond was leaked to the Daily Record newspaper. The allegations and details of the investigation were splashed across the newspaper the next day and set in motion a series of events about which we are now all very familiar.
The leaking of sensitive personal information is an offence under Section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018
In the extract of Sturgeon’s book published in the Times on 9 August 2025, she writes the following
I do not know who leaked it, but it was not me or anyone acting with my authority or knowledge. It crossed my mind many times that it might have been Alex himself or someone acting on his behalf. To those with no experience of the dark arts of media manipulation, I know this will sound preposterous. However, in many ways it would have been classic Alex. I had known him to make these kinds of calculations in the past. If there is damaging information certain to emerge about you and there is nothing you can do to stop it, get it out in a way that gives you the best chance of controlling the narrative. At a stroke, he was able to cast himself as the victim of underhand dealing.
If what has been published in the Times is all that Nicola Sturgeon has to say on the matter (and it appears from the extract that it is), then this is not only a serious allegation, but is highly misleading, speculative and partial.
I accept her claim that she did not leak the report since she did not have a copy of it. Furthermore, if the leak was for political purposes then it would be important to ensure plausible deniability and thus a politifcal operative would have leaked it.
However, instead of examining what we do know about the leak, Sturgeon makes this wild claim and says nothing about the investigation into the leak nor of the likelihood of Salmond have acting as she alleges he did.
The claim is couched in careful language – “it crossed my mind many times that it might have been ….” By publising such material, however, the damage is done and the insinuation is clear (and don’t expect any of the big interviews by London journalists to examine the evidence or challenge the claim).
So, first of all let us examine the likelihood of Salmond having leaked the report and then we will examine what we do know about the leak.
Alex Salmond Leaked the Report
Context is important here. On the same day as the leak took place, the Scottish Government had informed Salmond that it intended to issue a statement in response to an FoI inquiry confirming the existence of the complaints. Salmond sought an interim interdict to prevent publication and in response the Government agreed to pause the release of the statement.
That same afternoon, however, the Report was leaked to the Daily Record and any concerns about public statements became redundant.
Salmond’s lawyers wrote to the Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans,
Our client is extremely concerned at the level of detail which the Daily Record appeared to have acquired on the story and is strongly of the view that the detail can only have been provided by a member of the Scottish Government. [1]
If Sturgeon’s claims are to be believed, Salmond himself leaked the report after having sought an interdict to prevent publication of statement by the Scottish Government.
Why on earth would he do that?
In normal political disagreements there can be benefit to (as Sturgeon puts it) leaking a story that is damaging to you in order to get ahead of the narrative. Indeed I claim that this is precicely what those around Sturgeon did themselves with the much later leak of the Scottish Parliament Committee’s report on the affair.
But allegations of sexual harassment?
How on earth does one control the narrative on that?
In October 2018, Salmond complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) under Section 165 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The ICO has criminal investigatory powers over data breaches and can report directly to the Crown Office for possible prosecution.
If Sturgeon’s claims are to be believed, Salmond, asks for an investigation by the ICO into criminal activity that he himself committed.
Why on earth would he do that?
Having been unable to pinpoint any individual responsible for the leak, Salmond then asked the ICO to review the decision by the ICO’s Criminal Investigations team to discontinue its investigation. A prosecutor from the Regulatory Enforcement Team at the ICO then undertook a review and found the original investigation to have been sound.
If Sturgeon’s claims are to be believed, Salmond asked for a review of the previous investigation by the ICO into criminal activity that he himself committed.
Why on earth would he do that?
What do we know about who leaked the Investigation Report?
What Nicola Sturgeon omits from her account of this episode in the extract that has been published is any acknowledgement of the steps taken to investigate the leak.
As noted above the ICO investigated the matter and then reviewed that investigation. [2]
A forensic examination of Scottish Government IT systems was carried out as part of the Data Handling Review conducted by the Data Protection Officer in the Scottish Government. The ICO was satisfied that no electronic evidence had been uncovered that would pinpoint an internal leak and no evidence was found of any unlawful access to the systems by a third party.
The ICO concluded that the people who had access to the Report included the original complainers, the QC, the First Ministers Principal Private Secretary, the Crown Office, Mr Salmond and his legal team as well as some civil servants. A total of 23 staff members were interviewed as part of the Data Handling Review.
The ICO concluded that following investigation with relevant staff members, no leads arose and that no person came forward to volunteer any information.
Carolyn Hubble, who was the Prosecutor who conducted the review, concluded that,
I am satisfied that the complaint has been investigated to an appropriate extent, with all reasonable avenues of inquiry considered and/or pursued. [3]
and noted that,
I have sympathy with the hypothesis that the leak came from an employee of the SG and agree that the timing arguably could raise such an inference [4]
The ICO further noted that the Scottish Government is the data controller in relation to the personal data contained in the Report. It was responsible for the secure and lawful processing of that data and for ensuring that it was not unlawfully disclosed.
As a matter of fact, that responsibility ultimately fell on Nicola Stugeon’s shoulders as First Minister and Head of Government. She omits any mention of this in the extract of her memoirs that has been published.
The evidence as to who leaked this Report suggests very strongly that it came from an employee of the Scottish Government. The ICO had no reason to express any view in the absence of any individual having been pinpointed but nevertheless actively chose to express this view in its official statutory investigation.
That alone is powerful evidence of where the leak came from.
It also strengthens the argument above that Salmond’s actions were utterly inconsistent with those of someone who themselves was the leaker of the Report.
In conclusion
It is beyond the most fantastical imagination to even speculate that Alex Salmond was responsible for leaking the investigation report to the Daily Record. To publish such speculation about a dead person and say nothing about the likelihood that it actually happened is iresponsible and misleading.
Omitting any reference to the investigations that actually did take place and what they concluded misleads the reader by omission.
To do all of this in a highly anticipated memoir sure to receive vast publicity only adds to the iresponsibility.
NOTES
[1] para 394, Report of the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints.(2.3Mb pdf)
[2] Copy of the ICO Review Report available here.
[3] Para 5.5 of ICO Review Report
[4] Para 4.6 of ICO Review Report
Various phrases come to mind but but I wouldn’t want to see them in print.
Lets just leave it as generally pathetic and and wholly self serving.
Going through the Sturgeon Bleatings done in a Calimero fashion ,I come out with four suspects Clegg who protests his innocence,,Believable?
Sturgeon? Her wording she used is strange,
One of the two others following orders or both, to me seems the most likely
Well it could not be David Clegg as he was the one to whom it was leaked rather than someone in possession who leaked.
Andy. David Davis MP said in the House of Commons that it was Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd who leaked the report. You know that David Davis said that I presume so why do you omit such a key piece of information? Joanna Cherry has tweeted that on Friday last as well. Cmon Andy.
1) because I do not know that it was and b) becuase the blog is not about who it might have been but about challengeing the idea that it was Alex Salmond.
I’m very much looking forward to reading Nicola’s book. I have enormous respect for her and did have for Alex as a politician, if not as a man. It’s a real shame that their relationship ended as it did. At its peak, it was a fantastic team.
Dont bother wasting your money Rosy its only fit for the bottom of my budgie cage.
Well constructed piece Andy.
The extract published in the Times might be an example of someone trying ” to control the narrative” – and whyever might they want to do that?
I have been around so long my eyes will be tested for future driving ability. But my politics remain the same as they were 60 years ago.
During that time I saw Alex Salmond emerge as a leader and I liked him as a leader because he was actually good at it and he loved this country and wanted us all to be free of Westminster shackles.
Had he lived I’m sure we would have seen him centre stage again especially as there really are no challengers to the present leadership which, let’s be honest, is woeful.
I have never taken much interest in foreign owned London newspapers.My grandmother would have hung it in the toilet.
Thank you Andy. It’s very sad that Alec Salmond now deceased is having his reputation dragged into the limelight by Nicola Sturgeon and reprehensible that she uses information SHE apparently believes to be true as a means of selling her book.
Alec and his family need to be left in peace.
As soon as we approach the time for Scotland to vote for freedom those who wish to stop it drag out anything to demonise our government and country. The secret is ignore the whole damn lot of them. Alec for me represents our lost chance of independence ( for now )… even he was not safe from the dark forces ranged against Scotland. He was a giant of a politician in our country and always will be. It’s time to let him rest and leave his wife and family peace to grieve.
I’m genuinely baffled as to why you speak of “dark forces ranged against Scotland”. And particularly in thos context where there is objective evidence for corrupt Scottish people trying to damage each other in secret.
Yes, but why on earth would Sturgeon have leaked it, or authorised the leak? I accept I may be very naive, but what was to be gained from her point of view? It looks far more like the dirty work of the British state.
Sturgeon did not leak it as she did not have a copy. No organs of the British State had a copy either. it was leaked from within Scottish Government.
Andy, As I’m sure you know, the “organs of the British state” have ways of knowing everything that goes on within the Scottish Government, and of using that information to hold on to Scotland at any price.
The reasoning Nicola Sturgeon attributes speculatively to Alex Salmond seems to me to be more applicable to the position in which the Scottish Government found itself.
I tend to accept the notion, put forward by David Davis, that it was Liz Lloyd who leaked the report. I’m still not convinced that Nicola is innocent of involvement in this either. She may not have been aware it was about to he leaked, but you can bet your bottom dollar that she knew where it came from.
Sturgeon is the epitome of someone who’d sell their grandmother if they thought there was a profit in it. She presided over the catastrophic decline of the country, because all her attention was on arguing for independence, for which she didn’t have a workable plan, and blaming all ills on Westminster. I don’t think she’d recognise ‘honesty’ if it jumped up and bit her. This sort of underhand behaviour – attempting to come across all humble and simply sharing her opinion – is the same sort of calculated manipulation she always seems to have been exceptionally talented at. She makes me sick. Those that genuinely want/wanted Scottish independence have only one person to blame. Well done Andy, forensic analysis of a flippant self-serving paragraph, which says so much about her.
She will get a nice pension from Mi5 for successfully dismantling the SNP..
Her party is now owned by the lairds anyway, who she has made fabulously wealthy on public money.
What would be the motive of the person who leaked the report