FOI/202000077960 & FOI/202000093492 REGARDING PHONE CALLS FROM ALEX SALMOND TO TWO SG OFFICIALS IN NOVEMBER 2017

John Smythe:
This article covers two old responses which are part of my FOI database. They are FOI/202000077960 from 28 September 2020 and a follow up response FOI/2020000093492 from 04 February 2021. They contain interesting information in regard to the two calls Alex Salmond is said to have made to SG employees in November 2017 around the time of the Sky News Edinburgh Airport story. 

Below is the text from the initial request:

FORMER FIRST MINISTER CORRESPONDENCE IN 2017: FOI RELEASE
PUBLISHED 28 SEPTEMBER 2020
PART OF PUBLIC SECTOR
FOI REFERENCE FOI/202000077960
DATE RECEIVED 20 AUGUST 2020
DATE RESPONDED 23 SEPTEMBER 2020
INFORMATION REQUEST AND RESPONSE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002


Information requested

-All correspondence between the Scottish Government and Alex Salmond in 2017.

Please provide all emails, documents, written letters/notes, texts and Whatsapp messages exchanged between Mr Salmond and Scottish Government ministers and officials.

This should include any private email accounts - for example, linked to the SNP.

-All call logs and minutes of any meetings held between the Scottish Government (ministers and officials) and Alex Salmond in 2017.

We are aware Mr Salmond was in contact with two Scottish Government employees in November 2017. Please provide all details and any logs/reports on these the government has.

John Smythe: 
I suspect the last part is the whole point of the FOI request in the first place. 
Below is the initial response:

Response

Some of the information you requested is set out below and in the attachment to this letter.

An exemption under section 38(1) of FOISA (personal information), applies to some parts of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, for example names of individuals or other personal data, and that information has been redacted or not disclosed. Disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

Two SG employees received calls directly from Mr Salmond on or around 9 November 2017.

John Smythe:
Two SG employees received calls directly from Mr Salmond on or around 9 November 2017. The date and times, if they were logged in the system should be pretty clear cut so why then the ambiguity? The reason is because one of the people Alex Salmond is said to have called must be one of the future complainers against him. This on or around wordplay, when it comes to certain dates, is also repeated at times in the submitted evidence from the Scottish Government in regards to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints and is done to try and protect the identities of the false accusers. The SG take the approach that knowing exact dates and times could be possible identifiers. 
Leslie Evans in one of her many evidence sessions basically confirms that at least one of the staff members was a complainer as the following exchange between Jackie Baillie and herself shows below which is found on pages 10 & 11 of her evidence session of 08 September 2020:

JACKIE BAILLIE: That is helpful.
Was one of the staff members who reported the contact by the former First Minister with regard to the Sky News interest one of the complainers? 

LESLIE EVANS: Not to my knowledge, at that time. I came to know about the Sky News issue through two different sources: one person who had been contacted and another who had not but who knew that people had been contacted. At that time, these were the two routes through which I was alerted to this issue.

JACKIE BAILLIE: Let me be clear, because you said: "Not to my knowledge, at that time."

Did any of them go on to be complainers?

LESLIE EVANS: I suppose that I am differentiating between then and now. Then, I had no knowledge; now, I do. 

JACKIE BAILLIE: So, one of them went on to be a 

complainer.

LESLIE EVANS: I am so not sure about that. I am choosing my words carefully not to be unhelpful but because I am alert to the constraints.

JACKIE BAILLIE: I understand that. I would be happy if you wrote to the committee with that clarification with that clarification. 

LESLIE EVANS:

Leslie Evans: I am happy to do that.

John Smythe:
Leslie Evans did write a follow up letter to the Committee regarding this. It is reproduced in text form below and can be found in PHASE 5 of the submitted evidence and is contained in the Written submission from the Permanent Secretary following evidence session of 08 September 2020 on page 3 of the letter:

Ms Baillie asked about the staff contacted about the Sky News story. I am not able to answer that because of the risk of jigsaw identification.

John Smythe:
You see? At least one of those members of staff, perhaps even both of them, would go on to make complaints against Alex Salmond. Alex Salmond apparently phoned someone who he had behaved inappropriately with previously and who would then go onto make a complaint against him in order to have them help him try to bury a story about him behaving inappropriately with someone else, or at least this is what some of those in the SG would like you to believe. Why anyone would contact someone they had behaved inappropriately towards in order to get them to try and bury a story about them acting inappropriately towards others is never explained. Why would you alert them to other possible victims and ask for their help in trying to cover that up? It is like a serial cheater phoning up an ex girlfriend and asking her to help cover for him with his new girlfriend that he is cheating on. It makes no sense. A total half-wit would not do that let alone someone of Mr Salmond's intelligence. The truth is there was nothing to the Edinburgh Airport story at all as history has shown.  

Back to the FOI response and included with it is a 20 page attachment which I will spare the reader having to read on here (you will be glad to know!) as it contains no useful information on the two phone calls and instead focuses on official letters between Ministers. It is not until the follow up FOI response that the relevant information is actually provided. This is something people should always try do when putting in a FOI request: Always ask for a review or do a follow up FOI. By doing so you will usually get more information from the Scottish Government than is contained in the initial response. It does somewhat make a mockery of their system right enough though as if it worked properly it would provide the proper information first time round.

Below is the FOI follow up request:

FOI REQUEST 2002000077960 REGARDING FORMER FIRST MINISTER VARIOUS QUESTIONS: FOI RELEASE
PUBLISHED 4 FEBRUARY 2021
PART OF CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY, PUBLIC SECTOR
FOI REFERENCE FOI/202000093492
DATE RECEIVED 30 SEPTEMBER 2020 
DATE RESPONDED 27 JANUARY 2021

INFORMATION REQUEST AND RESPONSE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002

Information requested

"I note the above Freedom of Information request answered on 23rd September 

Secondly, which official/officials provided the information which suggested the November 9th date?

And on whose instruction was it included in the answer?

Thirdly, and please treat this last point as an FOI in itself as well as a question, kindly supply all emails, text messages or WhatsApp messages relating to the answering of the FOI of 20th August."

John Smythe:
Good questions. Below is the response:

Response

In relation to the first part of your second question, while our aim is to provide information wherever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested. 

It may help if I explain that the information was not provided by an individual but was instead identified through searches of our corporate records. This is formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information that you requested.

In relation to the second part of your second question, while our aim is to provide information wherever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested. This is because no-one instructed that the information be included. This is formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information that you requested.

It may help if I set out our usual processes for responding to FOI requests, which were followed on this occasion. FOI requests are allocated to casehandlers to be dealt with who undertake searches for information within the scope of a request. Casehandlers then assess the information to determine whether it is within scope, and if it is within scope, consider whether any exemptions apply. The casehandler then prepares a draft response and collates the information proposed for disclosure. In accordance with the Criteria for Decision-making, the draft is then passed to an official of appropriate seniority for a decision (if it is a routine request in terms of the Criteria) or to a Minister (if it is a sensitive request). Once the decision-maker has decided they are content with the draft response, it is issued to the requester.

In relation to your third question, while our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information that you have requested because exemptions under sections 25 (information otherwise accessible), 36(1) (legal privilege) and 38(1)(b) (personal information) of FOISA apply to that information. The reasons why these exemptions apply are explained below.


The information you request is enclosed with this response. Please note that there is no significance to the numbering of the documents.

Section 25 (information otherwise available)

Under section 25(1) of FOISA, we do not have to give you information which is already reasonably accessible to you. Documents that were released in response to FOI 202000077960 are not included in this response.

Section 36(1) (legal privilege)

An exemption under section 36(1) of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested because some of the documents and correspondence are covered by legal professional privilege.

This exemption is subject to the 'public interest' test. Therefore, taking into account all of the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open and transparent government and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and clients, to ensure that Ministers and officials are able to receive legal advice in confidence, like any other private or public organisation.

Section 38(1)(b) (personal information)

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA applies to some parts of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, for example names of individuals or other personal data, and that information has been redacted or not disclosed. Disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. 

This exemption is not subject to the 'public interest test', so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

John Smythe:
The questions are not answered. Instead the explanations provided make no sense given what will be shown in the rest of the article. Why was the on or around 9 November 2017 section put in and by whom? Also, why bother to mention that there was no significance to the numbering of the documents? Does that actually mean in reality that they are significant? With the SG it seems that black is in fact white.

This FOI response also includes a massive 66 page attachment and it is in these pages that some of the answers can be found. I will just post what I consider to be the relevant or interesting sections from it below but readers of course could check the whole 66 pages for themselves. 

On Pages 6 & 7:

Email 6
27/08/2020 @ 12:38
From: [redacted]
FOI 77960 – search request – OCT
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
We discussed yesterday the email request that has come in: 
-All correspondence between the Scottish Government and Alex Salmond in 
2017.

Please provide all emails, documents, written letters/notes, texts and Whatsapp messages exchanged between Mr Salmond and Scottish 

Government ministers and officials.

This should include any private email accounts - for example, linked to the SNP.

-All call logs and minutes of any meetings held between the Scottish Government (ministers and officials) and Alex Salmond in 2017.

We are aware Mr Salmond was in contact with two Scottish Government employees in November 2017. Please provide all details and any logs/reports 

on these the government has.


OCT won’t have any returns as we did not exist in 2017, however we have discussed that we may hold documents relating to the 2 SG employees referred to, who [redacted] and I’m afraid I have forgotten the name of the second individual.

Could you let me have any documents that fall within that part of the request that you are aware of? [redacted]

The response date is 17 September but in order to allow me to consider any documents thrown up by the search, it would be great to have those by Cop on Wednesday – that said, in light of all else that we have on, just let me know if dealing 

with this in the week beg. 7 September is more realistic. Certainly stay in touch on this, as it may be ambitious on my part to think that I could consider any documents before then anyway. 

Thanks

[redacted]
Email 7
27/08/2020 @13:37
From: [redacted]
Re: FOI 77960 – search request – OCT
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
In the work I’m doing for [redacted] I came across the attached reference: [redacted]
This relates to the contact between [redacted] and FFM I’ll keep you posted on anything else I come across.

On Page 10:

From: [redacted]

FOI 77960 search request

To: [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; DPEA CMS; 

[redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; 

[redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted]; [redacted];

Dear all, 

First of all, apologies for this single wide mailing list – please do just reply to me 

individually. 

I work in the Organisational Continuity Team and am the case handler for the 

following FoI request: 

-All correspondence between the Scottish Government and Alex Salmond in 

2017.

Please provide all emails, documents, written letters/notes, texts and 

Whatsapp messages exchanged between Mr Salmond and Scottish 

Government ministers and officials.

This should include any private email accounts - for example, linked to the 

SNP.

-All call logs and minutes of any meetings held between the Scottish 

Government (ministers and officials) and Alex Salmond in 2017.

Obviously 2017 is 3 years ago now, but a quick eRDM search for “Alex Salmond” for 

that year indicates that you saved a number of documents that year which 

(according to the search result) contain ‘Alex Salmond’ in it.

On the basis that you may have dealt with correspondence with the former First 

Minister in 2017, could I ask you please to conduct searches and let me know what 

information you hold. Please let me have any documents, together with your 

assessment of whether there are any sensitivities or whether they can or should be 

released under FoISA.


I should add that the request is for correspondence between AS and the Scottish 

Government – so this will not include any documents in which he is merely 

mentioned.

If you are no longer in the relevant business area, could I ask you to forward this on 

to the relevant area (copying me in)? 

I would be grateful for a response by the end of next week (Friday 4th September). 

I’m happy to discuss any of this. 

Many thanks

Kind regards

[redacted]

On Page 18:

Email 18

27/08/2020 @ 16:19

From: [redacted]

FW: FoI 77960 – initial search request – MACCS

To: [redacted]

Cc: [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]

Hi [redacted],

I don’t work on Smart Measures, but cc’ing some colleagues who may be able to 

help.

[redacted

John Smythe:
Good luck with that. I don't think there is anyone in the SG who works on smart measures. 

On Page 29:

Email 39

31/08/2020 @ 14:25

From: [redacted] on behalf of Permanent Secretary

Re: FOI 77960 – initial search request – Perm Sec Office

To: [redacted]

Cc: Andrew Bruce; Permanent Secretary mailbox

Hi [redacted]

I’ve now searched our outlook folders and archives for 2017, eRDM folders and the 

Perm Sec calendar and there is no record of any email exchange, meeting with, or 

written correspondence between the Permanent Secretary and Alex Salmond or his 

lawyers over 2017.

I have also spoken with the Perm Sec who has confirmed that she doesn’t hold 

anything directly either.

Happy to discuss.

Thanks

[redacted]

Team Leader I Permanent Secretary’s Office

On Page 30:

From: [redacted] 

Sent: 27 August 2020 12:03

To: [redacted]

Subject: RE: FoI 77960 - initial search request - Perm Sec Office

[redacted], 

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. 

This is one that will require documents returned to be considered for scope, 

exemptions etc. Once you have done your searches, it would be helpful to have a 

chat about scope and potential exemptions, just to ensure that we are on the same 

page. But the start is to pull up any such documents. 

I’ve looked through our FoI spreadsheet and cannot see that this question or a 

similar one has been asked in the past. There are various permutations of questions 

around correspondence in 2018 but nothing that I can find directly on point for 2017. 

Thanks

[redacted]

On Pages 33 & 34

Email 43

03/09/2020 @ 11:29

From: [redacted]

Off-sen – personal – contact between FFM and civil servants – November 2017

To: [redacted]

Cc: [redacted]

[redacted],

We have no record of any email communication between FFM (his representatives, etc.) and either [redacted] or [redacted] in the period 1 Sept to 31 Dec 2017.

[redacted] informed HR on or around 6 November 2017 that [redacted] had had a telephone call from [redacted] at Levy and McRae requesting that [redacted] give a statement about the FFM. Email attached showing this [redacted]

[redacted] similarly had a telephone call from Levy & McRae on 6 November 2017, where a voicemail was left. This is referred to in the email below (and the third  attachment within that email).

[redacted]

These two members of staff are the only ones that have come to light during our work as having been contacted by the FFM or his representatives during that period.

Thanks,
[redacted]
Organisational Continuity Team | The Scottish Government

John Smythe:
Bingo! That's the information. Notice it says on or around 06 November 2017 and not on or around 09 November 2017 as the response initially claimed. It also makes clear that it was not Alex Salmond himself who called. Remember what the response said? 
Two SG employees received calls directly from Mr Salmond on or around 9 November 2017.
Who put in that false information and was it done by accident or design? Based on the wording above it would seems that one of those members of staff would go onto become a complainer hence the on or around and the other was not given that the exact date of 06 November 2017 is stated. Also just to hammer it home, from the SG's own documentation itself the calls did not come from Alex Salmond directly but from his lawyers at the time Levy & McRae. There is also mention of email attachments so actual evidence provided for those calls at the time. 

On Page 35:

Email 46

04/09/2020 @ 08:11

From: [redacted]

Re FOI 77960 – initial search request – MACCS – responses required by 4th

September

To: [redacted

Cc: Deputy Director of RPID 

Dear [redacted],

I have looked at the two cases you have referred to: 

- 2017/0010648 [Diary] [redacted] Alex Salmond 21/04/2017

- 2017/0007686 [Diary] [redacted] Alex Salmond 30/03/2017

And looked at the old MACCS system and see that both of these cases were 

withdrawn from the system (see extracts below). The pdfs of the cases do not seem 

to be accessible. One of them has an acknowledgement letter (attached) but that 

does not give any detail.

2017/0010648 [Diary] [redacted] Alex Salmond 21/04/2017

On Page 38:

Email 49

04/09/2020 @ 11:53

From: [redacted]

FOI 77960 – correspondence in 2018

To: Barbara Allison

Dear Barbara, 

First of all apologies for not sending this to you earlier; I have been trying to take a

sensible approach to who needs to be asked to conduct searches, but with hindsight 

I should have included you. 

We have received the undernoted FoI request, which refers specifically to contact 

between FFM and 2 SG employees. As far as the rest of the request goes, I have 

conducted eRDM and MACCS cases which do not indicate that there was any 

correspondence between DCMSF and Mr Salmond in 2017. 

I’d be grateful if you could let me know whether you have any information in relation 

to these. On the specific contact (to clarify the point I believe you discussed with 

[redacted] yesterday), what our searches so far have indicated is that there is no 

actual correspondence on file, but there are notes of contact. 

It may be that I have picked up the wrong end of the stick, so do please let me know 

if it would be easiest to discuss.

Many thanks

Kind regards

FoI 77960 

“All correspondence between the Scottish Government and Alex Salmond in 2017.

Please provide all emails, documents, written letters/notes, texts and Whatsapp 

messages exchanged between Mr Salmond and Scottish Government ministers and 

officials.

This should include any private email accounts - for example, linked to the SNP.

-All call logs and minutes of any meetings held between the Scottish Government 

(ministers and officials) and Alex Salmond in 2017.

We are aware Mr Salmond was in contact with two Scottish Government employees 

in November 2017. Please provide all details and any logs/reports on these the 

government has.”

On Pages 57 & 58:

Email 67

11/09/2020 @ 11:12

From: [redacted]

FOI 77960 – request for search 

To: [redacted]

Dear [redacted], 

I believe Barbara was in touch with you yesterday so hopefully you are expecting an 

email from me!

The FoI in question asks for: 

-All correspondence between the Scottish Government and Alex Salmond in 2017.

Please provide all emails, documents, written letters/notes, texts and Whatsapp 

messages exchanged between Mr Salmond and Scottish Government ministers and 

officials.

This should include any private email accounts - for example, linked to the SNP.

-All call logs and minutes of any meetings held between the Scottish Government 

(ministers and officials) and Alex Salmond in 2017.

We are aware Mr Salmond was in contact with two Scottish Government employees 

in November 2017. Please provide all details and any logs/reports on these the 

government has.

I had not been aware of any contact that may have been made with you by FFM (or 

his lawyers) but I would be grateful if you could confirm. 

I am of course happy to discuss.

Many thanks

Kind regards

[redacted]

On Pages 58 & 59:

 
From: [redacted] 

Sent: 11 September 2020 13:14

To: [redacted]

Subject: FoI 77960 - notification / confirmation 

Dear [redacted], 

I believe Barbara mentioned to you that I would be in touch regarding the above mentioned FoI. 

The terms of the request that I am considering are as follows: 

-All call logs and minutes of any meetings held between the Scottish Government 

(ministers and officials) and Alex Salmond in 2017.

We are aware Mr Salmond was in contact with two Scottish Government employees 

in November 2017. Please provide all details and any logs/reports on these the 

government has.

I understand that there is no record of direct contact between Mr Salmond (as 

opposed to the solicitors acting for him) and yourself, but I would be grateful if you 

could confirm that that is correct. 

I’m happy of course to discuss! 

Many thanks

[redacted]

On Page 59:

Email 69

14/09/2020 @ 16:32

From: Judith Mackinnon

Re: FOI 77960 – off sen – request for confirmation 

To: [redacted]

[redacted]

I don’t have anything more than you have already in terms of records and no other 

member of HR was involved. As you can see, my contact was with AS’s lawyer, 

[redacted], not with AS.

Judith

John Smythe:
Not Judith Mackinnon again! Judith's contact with Alex Salmond's lawyers was not just confined to correspondence between them but she was also given direct access to legally privileged information from them to the Permanent Secretary as well courtesy of Private Secretary 1 who also shared those letters with Barbara Allison amongst others. 

On Pages 59 & 60:

From: [redacted] 

Sent: 14 September 2020 13:08

To: [redacted]

Subject: FoI 77960 - off-sen - request for confirmation

Dear Judith

I am currently preparing a response to the undernoted FoI. As the request covers 

the period 2017, I have taken a targeted (appropriate) approach to searching.

With apologies for only coming to you late in the day, I have only recently become 

aware of HR possibly having some records in relation to the second part of the 

request, namely the contact by Alex Salmond of individuals in 2017. 

I understand from our records that there are 2 instances of SG employees being 

contacted by AS directly. I attach a copy email which sets out those two names. For 

the purposes of this FoI response, I am not looking to include contact that was not by 

AS directly (for example, contact made on his behalf by others). 

For completeness, though, I would be really grateful if you could confirm whether you 

hold records indicating direct contact between AS and SG employees in 2017. 

The response is due on Thursday, but I am very conscious of having come to you so 

late on this. 

I’m happy of course to discuss. 

Many thanks

Kind regards

[redacted]

John Smythe:
A targeted approach to searching? What other kind is there? 

On Pages 60 & 61

Email 70

15/09/2020 @ 11:22

From: [redacted]

FOI draft response – 77960

To: Kenneth Hogg

cc: Colin McAllister; Barbara Allison; Andrew Bruce; [redacted] [redacted]

Dear all, 

I attach a draft response to FoI 77960; please let me know if you have any 

comments. The deadline is Thursday 17th. 

Colin, will this require ministerial clearance? 

Many thanks

[redacted]

John Smythe:
Colin McAllister. A keeper of the secrets in the SG. Look at the roles he has held and also what they are doing now. You will often see this slap head lurking in the shadows whenever someone in the SG is speaking to the media. If John Swinney is not around you can guarantee Colin will be. They are two cheeks of the same shaved bum. 

On Page 61:

Email 71

15/09/2020 @ 12:22

From: [redacted]

Re: FOI draft response – 77960

To: [redacted]

Thanks [redacted], [out of scope]

The draft response is fine for my interest. Although, I did wonder whether the draft 

implies that the exemptions apply, in the form of redactions, to the information we 

are releasing, and that for the third part of the request we are simply confirming that 

there were 2 calls with SG officials (i.e. we don’t say whether or not we hold 

information within scope on that part). I’m not aware that we do hold information 

considered to be in scope, but I wondered for FOI purposes whether we need to 

make that clear. 

But I’m content from my perspective. 

[redacted]

John Smythe:
So summing up.

On 06 November 2017, not 09 November 2017, Levy & McRae who were representing Alex Salmond contacted two SG members of staff. One of them, possibly even both of them, would go on to become complainers against him. One of the calls was not answered and went to voicemail instead. The information found in the 66 page attachment states this: 


[redacted] informed HR on or around 6 November 2017 that [redacted] had had a 
telephone call from [redacted] at Levy and McRae requesting that [redacted] give a statement about the FFM. Email attached showing this [redacted]

[redacted] similarly had a telephone call from Levy & McRae on 6 November 2017, where a voicemail was left. This is referred to in the email below (and the third 
attachment within that email).

[redacted]

These two members of staff are the only ones that have come to light during our work as having been contacted by the FFM or his representatives during that period.

Thanks,

Remember what Leslie Evans said in her evidence session as posted earlier in the article?

LESLIE EVANS: Not to my knowledge, at that 

time. I came to know about the Sky News issue 

through two different sources: one person who 

had been contacted and another who had not but 

who knew that people had been contacted. At that 

time, those were the two routes through which I 

was alerted to this issue.

John Smythe:
Who was the other person and how did they come to know so quickly that two people had been called when one of the calls never got through and instead went to voicemail? Bear in mind there is no record of any other calls but those two made by Levy & McRae as the SG acknowledges.

Now you can see for yourself that yet again the SG has provided false information to the public. In their original response they claimed: 

Two SG employees received calls directly from Mr Salmond on or around 9 November 2017.

There is no evidence, from the SG's own documentation, to support this claim. Based on their own documentation the response should have said:

Two SG employees received calls from Levy & McRae, in regard to Alex Salmond, on 6 November 2017. 

Their explanation for this also makes no sense and cannot possibly be true:

It may help if I explain that the information was not provided by an individual but was instead identified through searches of our corporate records. This is formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information that you requested.

How could the 09 November 2017 date and the mention of Alex Salmond phoning two SG employees directly be identified in their corporate records when there is no documentation of any kind, by their own admission, to support it? How does that work? Someone has to have put that false information into the response of their own volition. Now maybe just maybe they got the numbers mixed up 06 & 09. It could happen. The problem there though is there is a clear pattern of behaviour exhibited in these FOI responses that make it hard for me to believe that all these errors are just accidental and down to incompetence. Mixing up the numbers also could not explain why it was also stated that Alex Salmond himself called the two SG employees directly.