John Swinney

The Commissioner had imposed a deadline of 15 January 2026. The documents were not disclosed until 24 February, after proceedings had begun. Ministers maintained that the delay arose from complex redaction work intended to protect the identities of complainants in Salmond's trial and was not deliberately disrespectful. Lady Poole nevertheless held that the failure was deliberate in the legal sense and constituted contempt of the Commissioner; she issued an admonition and awarded costs against the Scottish Ministers. The judgment legally targets the ministers collectively, not Swinney individually.

State of the evidence

Documented

The Programme for Government provides for consultation on legislation allowing prices to be capped for certain products such as bread, milk, eggs, rice and cheese at major retailers, presenting the measure as a public health and cost-of-living tool. Businesses and farming organisations warn that caps could shift price rises to other products, affect suppliers or conflict with competition rules and the UK Internal Market Act. At the verification date, the measure is a proposal under consultation, and no court has declared it unlawful.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The litigation began before Swinney returned as First Minister and concerned the Scottish Government's interpretation of sex in provisions on women's representation on public boards. Following the judgment, Swinney's government stated that it fully accepted the ruling and began bringing its policies into compliance. Attribution to Swinney is institutional and limited: he did not initiate the legislation or the original litigation.

State of the evidence

Documented

The Scottish Government maintained that Westminster's decision reduced available funding by approximately £160 million and that it lacked the budgetary capacity to retain universal entitlement immediately. Opposition parties and pensioners' associations criticised an SNP government for implementing in Scotland a Labour policy it denounced. Official Scottish documents explicitly stated that the choice was constrained by reduced UK funding, limiting Swinney's personal responsibility.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Shared responsibility

The Scottish Parliament had passed two resolutions demanding the documents to understand why the government had pursued litigation that it ultimately lost at a cost exceeding £500,000. Swinney maintained that waiving legal privilege would set a damaging precedent and restrict the government's future ability to obtain candid advice. Published documents showed that highly critical external advice on the prospects of success had been received before the case was abandoned. Swinney survived the no-confidence motion.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The statistical model sought national consistency after Covid exam cancellations but disproportionately affected students at historically lower-performing schools. Young people, teachers and opposition parties denounced a 'classist' system. Swinney initially defended the SQA but later acknowledged that the government had failed to properly consider the impact on individual young people and reinstated teachers' estimated grades. He subsequently survived a no-confidence motion.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Political responsibility

The policy sought to assign every child a designated professional to coordinate support and early identification of difficulties. The Court did not declare the concept of a named person itself unlawful and recognised the legitimacy of the child protection aim, but found that the statutory data-sharing rules were insufficiently foreseeable and proportionate. The government ultimately failed to implement the compulsory component as initially designed.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Opponents considered standardised digital assessments unsuitable for four- or five-year-old children and incompatible with play-based learning. Swinney maintained that these were neither examinations nor high-stakes tests and that decisions should be based on educational evidence rather than a political majority. The David Reedy review concluded that assessments could support teachers' professional judgment and should continue, subject to a code of practice and improvements.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The proposal was central to the SNP's 2007 government programme. Local councils, businesses, unions, tax experts and the UK Treasury challenged its centralisation, economic impact and associated funding arrangements; the Treasury also threatened to withdraw a substantial grant. Following the government's budget defeat and amid the recession, Swinney announced that the proposal would not be introduced during that parliamentary term.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The project would transform an environmentally sensitive dune area and faced opposition from environmental groups and residents. Swinney stated that the development offered significant economic and social benefits outweighing environmental impacts and made approval subject to protective conditions. The decision was lawful under the planning process but remains a major environmental and governance controversy.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated