Nicola Sturgeon: Why evidence at UK Covid Inquiry will not have changed entrenched public perceptions of former first minister

Former first minister defends intentions but deflects key questions

Since Nicola Sturgeon’s shock decision to step down as first minister, the intense scrutiny of the 53 year-old’s leadership during the pandemic has been at the forefront of the myriad issues that have cast a long shadow over her political legacy, with serious concerns raised over how decisions were made and the mass deletion of messages.

Even though a year has not yet passed since she left office, it was not the same Nicola Sturgeon that was on the stand at the UK Covid-19 inquiry. This version was at times vulnerable, uncertain, nervous even, as she struggled to provide substantive answers to key questions. Yet so too, there were glimpses of the figure who dominated Scottish politics for a decade. One who was forthright about the ruinous emotional toll of the pandemic, and who rediscovered her vim when challenged about the autonomy of her administration.

At the end of a long day of evidence, two things are clear. Firstly, the proceedings will not shift entrenched public perceptions of Ms Sturgeon. Her many supporters will point to her moments of affecting testimony as proof she tried to do her best in an unprecedented crisis. Her many detractors will dismiss such candour as a deflection tactic by a leader who jealously guarded her power and prioritised good PR above all else. Such is Scottish politics.

The second takeaway, however, is more important. Namely, there remains much we do not know about why she and her ministers had such wildly inconsistent interpretations of information retention policies. And despite Ms Sturgeon’s insistence that it was her Cabinet that guided Scotland through the pandemic, uncertainty lingers around who took key decisions, and how they did so.

Given the inquiry’s focus to date, it was unsurprising that its lead counsel, Jamie Dawson KC, devoted considerable time to the issue of informal messaging within Ms Sturgeon’s government. While she stressed her use of WhatsApp was neither “extensive” nor “meaningful”, certain exhibits offered forceful arguments to the contrary, such as a lengthy exchange between her and Liz Lloyd, her former chief of staff.

It catalogued extensive discussions about changes to restrictions for the hospitality sector in October 2020, with the conversation going into granular detail, such as whether the closing time for venues should be 6pm or 8pm. At one point Ms Sturgeon wrote: “OK we should prob stick with 6.” If this was not an example of WhatApp being used for decision making, what was it?

According to Ms Sturgeon, she and Ms Lloyd were “simply talking” about matters to be discussed at Cabinet, but as the questions mounted, her responses were less persuasive. At one point, she said her WhatsApp messages “weren’t retained”, until her euphemism was directly challenged. “But you did delete them?” Mr Dawson asked. Ms Sturgeon responded: “Yes, in the manner I have set out.”

Nicola Sturgeon gives evidence at the UK Covid-19 Inquiry in Edinburgh. Picture: UK Covid-19 Inquiry

In keeping with her former deputy John Swinney’s evidence, Ms Sturgeon also downplayed suggestions the heart of power within her government lay with the tight-knit Gold Command group. Kate Forbes, Ms Sturgeon’s finance secretary, previously told the inquiry that not only was she not invited to those meetings in 2020, but that she was unaware of the group’s existence until 2021. Asked about this, Ms Sturgeon said it was a “reasonably fluid” group, and there would have been “nothing to stop” Ms Forbes from attending. For a trained lawyer, it was not the most convincing answer.

Neither was her response to questions about a WhatsApp message sent by Professor Jason Leitch, to the-then health secretary, Humza Yousaf, in which he wrote “she actually wants none of us”, a message that appeared to corroborate criticism of Ms Sturgeon’s governance style. There was a glib attempt at humour by Ms Sturgeon, who also said people would have to know Prof Leitch to appreciate his “turn of phrase”.

She found surer ground in the afternoon, when many questions probed at intergovernmental relations, and specific decisions taken by her government. Even as Mr Dawson’s questioning verged on the pugnacious, she spoke with authority, clarity and purpose as she staunchly defended her administration's autonomy. The section brought out the Ms Sturgeon of old, a politician at home amidst the cut and thrust.

As she repeatedly emphasised her priority was protecting people’s health, her anger at suggestions she sought to politicise the pandemic felt sincere, and she looked hurt at the suggestion she was motivated by ego, or a desire to be credited as “the person who drove Covid out of Scotland”. Indeed, that was one of a handful of moments when Ms Sturgeon’s voice quivered. The other came when Mr Dawson asked if she considered herself the right first minister for the job. Nearly in tears, Ms Sturgeon said there was “a large part” of her that wished she hadn’t occupied Scotland’s highest public office during the pandemic, but that she strived to be “the best first minister I could be”.

It was a moment of unflinching honesty, and Ms Sturgeon returned to the topic as the session neared its end. “The nature and content and the substance of the decisions deserve to be scrutinised as closely as possible,” she told the inquiry. “[But] I take it very, very personally when people question motives, because I know the motives were absolutely in good faith, and for the best reasons.”

It is a statement that betrayed the fundamental dichotomy underlying her evidence. On the one hand, she offered a heartfelt declaration of her good intentions in the face of unconscionable angst and suffering. On the other, her invitation of scrutiny fell flat, given vast tranches of communications between Cabinet ministers and senior civil servants have been deleted, with records of Gold Command meetings sparse, if not non-existent.

It will be for the inquiry to appraise those factors, but one suspects that as far as the wider public is concerned, minds are already made up.