Nicola Sturgeon is among senior figures accused of “misfeasance” in former first minister Alex Salmond’s fresh legal action against the Scottish government.
Mr Salmond took the government to court in 2019 and was awarded £512,000 over its mishandling of harassment complaints against him.
The former SNP leader – who was first minister between 2007 and 2014 – was subsequently cleared of sexual assault charges in a separate criminal trial in 2020.
The Alba Party leader is now alleging “misfeasance” by civil servants and is seeking damages and loss of earnings in what he said will be a “day of reckoning for the Scottish government”.
The Alex Salmond v Scottish ministers case called at the Court of Session on Friday.
The public officials and ministers named in the action include former permanent secretary Leslie Evans, ex-chief of staff Liz Lloyd, and former first minister Nicola Sturgeon.
In a statement after the case called, Mr Salmond said “not one single person has been held accountable” for what he described as a “tawdry business” – which included a judicial review, criminal trial and Holyrood inquiry.
More on Alex Salmond
Related Topics:
He said he had “done my talking in court or in front of parliament” and would continue to do so.
Mr Salmond added: “Despite Lord Pentland’s findings in the Court of Session that the behaviour of the former permanent secretary and her officials was ‘unlawful’, ‘unfair’ and ‘tainted by apparent bias’, despite the ongoing police and Crown Office enquiries into the criminal leaks and potential perjury at the criminal trial, despite the astonishing revelations of misfeasance contained in the eventual publication of the government’s own legal advice, and despite the specific findings of the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the former permanent secretary and the former first minister, not one single person has been held accountable.
Advertisement
“With this court action that evasion of responsibility ends.”
Image: Alba Party leader Mr Salmond pictured in August
Mr Salmond said he would delay the progression of the case – known as sisting – to allow criminal investigations into alleged leaking and perjury to take place.
But he added: “However, the calling of the action signals that the day of reckoning for the Scottish government’s record of misfeasance on this grand scale will inevitably come.”
Mr Salmond was investigated by the Scottish government after two complaints from staff were made under a new complaints procedure which included former ministers.
The investigation was deemed by a judicial review to have been “tainted with apparent bias” after the Scottish government conceded defeat and Mr Salmond was awarded £512,000 as a result.
He was subsequently cleared of more than a dozen charges of sexual misconduct – including attempted rape – following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.
A Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish government’s handling of the original two complaints then followed, which called both Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon to give evidence.
During the inquiry, Mr Salmond attacked Scotland’s former top civil servant – then permanent secretary Ms Evans – accusing her of having a “bias” against him and calling for her resignation.
In March 2021 – just days before he announced he was the leader of the fledgling Alba Party – Mr Salmond confirmed his intention to take legal action against Ms Evans.
The inquiry, which worsened an already sour relationship between Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon – who had previously been close – found Ms Sturgeon misled MSPs in her evidence, but she was cleared of any breaches of the ministerial code.
Mr Salmond’s lawyer, Gordon Dangerfield, said: “This is an action of misfeasance in public office in which we aver that public officials of the Scottish government conducted themselves improperly, in bad faith and beyond their powers, with the intention of injuring Mr Salmond.
“We aver that public officials decided at an early stage that Mr Salmond was to be found guilty of allegations against him, regardless of the actual facts.
“As events snowballed, we aver that public officials then took part in the criminal leaking of confidential documents, the concealment of documents in defiance of court orders and a criminal warrant, the misleading of the court during judicial review proceedings, the soliciting of false criminal complaints, and ultimately the commission of perjury at a parliamentary inquiry.
“All of this, we aver, was done for political reasons, and specifically to injure Mr Salmond.”
Mr Dangerfield claimed many documents requested over the past year in regards to the averments “continue to be concealed by the Scottish government”.
He added: “A major aim of Mr Salmond in bringing this action is to obtain disclosure of this vital evidence and to blow apart the Scottish government cover-up which has gone on now for far too long.”
First Minister Humza Yousaf has said the Scottish government will “robustly” defend itself.
Speaking at a press conference at the British-Irish Council in Dublin on Friday, Mr Yousaf initially refused to be drawn on the case, but added: “Unsurprisingly to anyone listening or watching, the Scottish government will defend its position robustly, but I’ll say no more because that’s a live case.”
Cryptocurrency scammers have impersonated Australian police and exploited government infrastructure to pressure victims into handing over their digital assets, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) said Thursday.
The AFP said scammers used the local cybercrime reporting tool ReportCyber to submit reports about their targets. At a later time, they contact the victims posing as police and inviting them to check the report on government websites, lending credibility to the scammers.
In one case, the scammers warned the victim that they would be contacted by a representative from a crypto company, who would also provide information to prove their legitimacy. This second caller then attempted to persuade the target to transfer money from their platform wallet to a wallet of their choice.
“Thankfully the target became suspicious and hung up,“ the AFP said.
AFP Detective Superintendent Marie Andersson said the scammers falsely claimed that an individual had been arrested and the victim identified in an investigation involving a crypto breach. She noted that the scammers’ verification steps often resembled legitimate law-enforcement procedures, making the scheme “highly convincing” to some victims.
Andersson said this was part of a broader trend in scams becoming increasingly sophisticated. She encouraged “Australians to adopt necessary safety measures online” and warned that “if you’re contacted by someone about a ReportCyber report you didn’t lodge or authorise someone to make on your behalf, terminate the call and notify ReportCyber.
“Also bear in mind legitimate law enforcement officials will never request access to your cryptocurrency accounts, wallets, bank accounts, cryptocurrency wallet seed phrases, or any personal information relating to your financial accounts.”
In late October, the AFP announced that it had cracked a coded cryptocurrency wallet backup containing 9 million Australian dollars ($5.9 million) — suspected to be the proceeds of a crime.
In late August, Australia’s markets regulator was reported to be expanding its campaign against online scams, having taken down 14,000 since July 2023, with over 3,000 involving cryptocurrency.
In July, authorities in the Australian island state of Tasmania found that the top 15 users of crypto ATMs in the state were all victims of scams, with combined losses of $1.6 million.
Taiwan is preparing to issue a report on its Bitcoin holdings, signaling that officials are weighing whether the country should follow the United States in creating a national Bitcoin reserve.
Zhuo Rongtai, premier of the Republic of China (Taiwan), said the country is preparing a report to assess the total amount of Bitcoin (BTC) confiscated by domestic agencies.
The report will be issued before the end of the year, said Rongtai during a legislative general fiscal inquiry meeting with the Finance Committee on Tuesday.
When asked about the fate of the confiscated Bitcoin, legislator Ge Rujun proposed that Taiwan’s government “hold it unchanged” before deciding whether to liquidate the assets or include them in a strategic reserve, according to local media outlet Blocktempo.
Rongtai’s forthcoming report will also include a list of “pros and cons” for creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve, marking the first time Taiwanese officials have publicly considered BTC as a reserve asset.
The premier’s pledge to “study” Bitcoin for a strategic reserve asset and draft more Bitcoin-friendly regulations in the next six months is a “breakthrough” for the country, wrote Ko Ju-Chun, a lawmaker in Taiwan’s unicameral legislature, the Legislative Yuan, in a Tuesday X post.
Governmental interest in Bitcoin started rising after March 7, when US President Donald Trump signed an executive order outlining a plan to create a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, initially using cryptocurrency forfeited in government criminal cases, Cointelegraph reported.
The Bitcoin reserve marked the “first real step toward integrating Bitcoin into the fabric of global finance, acknowledging its role as a foundational asset for a more stable and sound monetary system,” said Joe Burnett, head of market research at Unchained, at the time.
Taiwan legislators are calling for a Bitcoin reserve as a hedge against global uncertainty
While Taiwan has yet to make an official move, lawmakers have previously called for the creation of a Bitcoin reserve.
In May, Ju-Chun called for the government to consider adding Bitcoin to its national reserve, citing Bitcoin’s potential to serve as a hedge amid global economic uncertainty, during a speech to the Taiwanese government at the National Conference on May 9.
Ko Ju-Chun advocated for the adoption of Bitcoin by the Taiwanese government before the Legislative Yuan. Source: Ko Ju-Chun
The lawmaker previously suggested a maximum allocation of 5% of Taiwan’s $50 billion reserve.
Taiwan has been exploring more crypto-friendly regulations to bolster institutional cryptocurrency adoption. In October 2024, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) of Taiwan announced the launch of a trial for crypto custody services for financial institutions.
The crypto community is bracing for the launch of the first spot XRP exchange-traded fund (ETF) after Nasdaq certified the listing of Canary Capital’s XRP ETF.
The Nasdaq Stock Market exchange on Wednesday officially notified the US Securities and Exchange Commission that it has received the Form 8‑A filing for the Canary XRP ETF (XRPC).
“The official listing notice for XRPC has arrived from Nasdaq,” Bloomberg’s senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas wrote on X, adding: “Looks like tomorrow is on for the launch.”
While ETF watchers expect Canary’s spot XRP (XRP) ETF to debut trading on Thursday, the SEC has yet to issue its final approval for trading to commence, leaving the debut uncertain heading into the market open.
The sixth single crypto asset ETF
Nate Geraci, president of NovaDius Wealth Management, took to X on Thursday to report that Canary had launched its website for the Canary XRP ETF, highlighting the likely soon-to-come trading launch.
“Canary Capital will be first to market,” Geraci said, adding that its XRP ETF would be the sixth single crypto asset in the ETF wrapper after Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Solana (SOL), Litecoin (LTC) and Hedera (HBAR).
Source: Eric Balchunas
Other industry observers, including Crypto America’s Eleanor Terrett, shared optimism on X, noting that Nasdaq had “cleared XRPC for launch at market open” on Thursday, but some cautioned that the exchange’s letter was procedural and does not authorize trading.
“The Nasdaq letter itself does not say the ETF is effective — it only says Nasdaq approved the listing and joined the registrant’s request for SEC effectiveness,” one commentator wrote, adding that the certification is a “routine procedural letter, not confirmation that trading will start.”
With trading going live on Oct. 28, some ETF observers have suggested that these new crypto funds relied on “automatic effectiveness” provisions during the government shutdown.