Nicola Sturgeon’s indyref speech ‘blocked’ from publication by top bureaucrat

The speech, delivered on July 14, marked the publication of the Scottish Government’s second paper outlining the case for independence, called Renewing Democracy Through Independence.

While the full document and a summary were published on the Government’s website, the speech was blocked by Marks, who is intended to be a politically neutral government worker.

He said it “was not right” for the speech to be released on Government channels – despite it being delivered at the First Minister’s official residence and broadcast using official communications channels.

John Paul Marks blocked the publication of the FM’s speech on independence (Scottish Parliament TV)

His comments were revealed in a letter to Tory MSP Jamie Halcro-Johnson, who complained about the use of government resources on the plan and then leaked to the Scottish Daily Mail.

READ MORE: These are the four poshest villages in Scotland, according to estate agents

The full speech, which included attacks on both the Tories and Labour as well as a comment about the race for No 10, was published by the SNP on their website – who are said to have wanted text published in full on the official Government website.

Alba have said the episode shows the SNP are not sufficiently focused on who they have appointed to powerful positions, reiterating their attack on the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain who has admitted she is not confident the Scottish Government’s legal case in the Supreme Court battle to secure indyref2 is legally sound.

Chris McEleny, the party’s general secretary, said: “It seems we now have a Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government that wants to block statements by the Scottish Government, about papers prepared by Scottish Government civil servants, from being published on the Scottish Government website because they are pro-independence statements.

Chris McEleny has said the SNP have made poor appointments to top roles in the battle to secure independence

“This of course isn’t a surprise because [Marks] is clearly a high-flyer with 20 years of his civil service career left.

READ MORE: Win-win for independence no matter who is Tory leader, poll finds

“He has no intention of seeing them out at the Scottish Government as he likely is using this as a stepping stone to one of the great offices of state.

“When you add this to the fact that we have a Lord Advocate unwilling to advocate the Scottish Government’s position in the Scottish Parliament then the First Minister should pay more attention to who she appoints to key positions.”

Marks’s roles before taking the top role in St Andrew’s House were as a speechwriter to the chief secretary to the treasury followed by a long spell in senior positions at the DWP including the principal private secretary to Iain Duncan Smith.

Halcro-Johnson said he was concerned Sturgeon had breached the ministerial code.

Marks replied: “The Government Communications Propriety Code provides that where ministers wish the full text of a speech, including any party political comments, to be published, this is not for the Government and must be taken forward by the respective political party.

The FM announced the publication of the second independence paper in July

“This is what occurred in this case, where the preference was for the full text to be published without any redactions.

READ MORE: Michael Gove confronted over Brexit ‘lies’ at airport by passenger suffering 30-hour delay

“Given this, it was right for my team not to publish the written speech on the Scottish Government website.”

Marks added that he was “satisfied” it was appropriate for the speech to have been delivered with the support of the civil service – who are supposed to be politically neutral and aid the government of the day in implementing their agenda.

On the political references in Sturgeon’s speech, Marks said he had checked they were not drafted by “any permanent civil servant” but by the First Minister or her team.

The Scottish Government was approached for further comment.