Watchdog Accuses Scottish Government of Obstructing Sturgeon Inquiry

Hamilton Issues Scathing Rebuke to Holyrood Ministers

David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, issued a scathing rebuke to Holyrood ministers on Friday, signaling a breakdown in the relationship between his office and the executive branch. Standing firm against what he described as a culture of secrecy, Hamilton informed the Scottish Parliament that he no longer trusts government officials to handle documents related to the Nicola Sturgeon investigation with integrity. He has now threatened the administration with unprecedented legal action to force the release of evidence that has been suppressed for years. This legal standoff centers on the internal government handling of the Alex Salmond investigation, a scandal that nearly toppled the Scottish National Party (SNP) during Sturgeon's tenure.

Scottish ministers have repeatedly claimed that the files in question are protected by legal professional privilege. Hamilton argues that the public interest in understanding how the government spent over half a million pounds in taxpayer money on a botched judicial review outweighs the need for confidentiality. He pointed to a pattern of non-compliance where documents were either heavily redacted or omitted entirely from Freedom of Information (FOI) releases. Such tactics have transformed a standard administrative oversight role into a bitter courtroom struggle. Transparency died in the redaction pens of St Andrew’s House.

Historical Context of the Salmond Inquiry

Reaching this point required years of institutional friction. The roots of the current dispute lie in 2018, when the Scottish Government launched an investigation into harassment complaints against former First Minister Alex Salmond. Salmond successfully challenged the lawfulness of that internal probe in the Court of Session, proving it was tainted by apparent bias. The subsequent parliamentary inquiry into the government's handling of the matter became a flashpoint for accusations of perjury and conspiracy. Nicola Sturgeon, who was First Minister at the time, faced intense scrutiny over when she first learned of the allegations and whether she misled Parliament about meetings held in her private residence.

Records from that era remain incomplete in the public domain. While the James Hamilton report in 2021 technically cleared Sturgeon of a formal breach of the ministerial code, the underlying legal advice the government received remains a closely guarded secret. David Hamilton, a former police officer who took over as Information Commissioner in 2023, has expressed frustration that his office is being treated as an adversary rather than a statutory regulator. He noted that the government’s refusal to provide unredacted copies of advice even to his office for private inspection makes his job impossible. How can a watchdog verify a claim of privilege if he is not allowed to see the material being privileged?

The Breakdown of Institutional Trust

Trust is a currency the Scottish Government has spent to the point of bankruptcy. Hamilton told a Holyrood committee that the current administration's approach to information management has reached a nadir. He cited instances where his office was told specific records did not exist, only for those records to surface later during separate legal proceedings. Such discrepancies have led the Commissioner to conclude that the Scottish Government is actively gaming the system to avoid political embarrassment. This pattern of behavior undermines the very foundation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which was designed to foster an open and accountable government.

Ministers argue that they must protect the confidentiality of legal advice to ensure that civil servants and politicians can receive frank guidance. They claim that releasing these files would set a dangerous precedent that would chill the decision-making process within the Scottish Civil Service. Critics, however, point out that the Salmond case involved a massive failure of government process that resulted in a payout of £512,250 to Salmond for his legal costs. Public interest groups argue that when the state fails so spectacularly, the right to privacy for legal advisors is forfeited. The math of the settlement alone justifies the release of every scrap of paper related to the decision to proceed with a losing case.

Potential Legal Ramifications in 2026

Hamilton has now set a hard deadline for the Scottish Government to comply with his latest enforcement notices. If the documents are not produced, he intends to refer the matter to the Court of Session, where ministers could face contempt proceedings. Such a move would be a first in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It would put the judiciary in the position of having to rule directly on the SNP's transparency record at a time when the party is already struggling to maintain its grip on power ahead of the next election cycle. The court of public opinion rarely waits for a judge's ruling.

Legal experts suggest that the government’s position is increasingly tenuous. In previous rulings, the Court of Session has shown a willingness to override ministerial objections when the evidence of administrative failure is clear. The Information Commissioner has emphasized that his goal is not to embarrass the government but to uphold the law. He remains particularly concerned about the use of private messaging apps and personal email accounts by ministers to conduct government business, a practice that further obscures the paper trail for investigators. The Scottish Government’s document retention policy appears to be more of a suggestion than a requirement.

Institutional Fallout and the Path Forward

Parliamentary committees have reacted with alarm to Hamilton's testimony. Members of the opposition have called for an independent audit of the government's record-keeping practices. They argue that if the Information Commissioner cannot trust the government, then the Scottish people certainly cannot. The SNP administration, now led by Sturgeon’s successors, has attempted to distance itself from the controversies of the 2018-2021 period, but the refusal to release the files keeps the old wounds open. This institutional friction prevents the devolved government from moving past the shadows of its former leadership.

International observers have also taken note of the dispute. Transparency International has previously highlighted the Scottish Government's declining performance in responding to FOI requests. The current standoff with the Information Commissioner is case study in how a dominant political party can slowly erode the checks and balances designed to hold it accountable. If the Scottish Government continues to resist Hamilton’s orders, it risks a permanent fracture in the relationship between the executive and the regulators. Legal privilege was never intended to be a cloak for administrative incompetence.

The Elite Tribune Perspective

Why do we continue to pretend that ministerial codes and transparency laws have any teeth when the people enforcing them are the ones breaking them? The current standoff in Scotland is an exercise in bureaucratic obstructionism disguised as legal necessity. David Hamilton is right to be suspicious. When a government tells its own watchdog that it cannot see the evidence required to do his job, the veil of democracy has slipped to reveal a ruling class that views the public as an inconvenience. The SNP has spent nearly a decade perfecting the art of the 'non-answer,' using the complexities of the Salmond inquiry to bury its own catastrophic procedural failures. It is not about the privacy of legal advice; it is about the preservation of political careers. If the Scottish Government has nothing to hide, the unredacted files would have been on Hamilton's desk years ago. Instead, we see a desperate rearguard action to prevent the full story of the Sturgeon era from ever reaching the light. The Information Commissioner should not just threaten legal action; he should pursue it with the full weight of his office. Anything less is a betrayal of the Scottish electorate who were promised a new, more transparent form of politics at the dawn of devolution. The time for polite requests has ended.