A WATCHDOG was pressurised by the Scottish Government to water down a critical report into the merger of the British Transport Police with the single force.

Emails reveal that senior civil servant Don McGillivray tried to get Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) to change parts of the review that exposed key aspects of the policy.

He also appeared to criticise award-winning academic Dr Kath Murray, who had written a separate report on the merger, by claiming she had arrived at a “narrow perspective”.

Scottish Liberal Democrats MSP Liam McArthur said: "It is the persistent battering away at independent inspectors that will worry people. The Scottish Government needs to become more tolerant of other points of view."

In September, the Herald revealed that a draft report by HMICS contained severe criticism of the merger, which has been a key Government policy promoted by Justice Secretary Michael Matheson.

The draft claimed there had been no detailed business case setting out the benefits to Police Scotland, and noted that the Policy Memorandum did not mention the "disbenefits" to a range of organisations.

A final report was published last week and the wording of the initial document remained largely unaltered.

However, correspondence released by HMICS reveals a sustained attempt by Mr McGillivray, who is the Government’s deputy director of the police division, to challenge the “business case, benefits and disbenefits” section of the draft.

After initial contact, HMICS amended part of the report, but held firm on the overall reservations and sent back the document to the Government.

In a later email to the watchdog, Mr McGillivray noted there had been a “few cosmetic changes” but claimed that the “thrust of the material is the same”.

He believed HMICS, which is led by Derek Penman, had considered the Policy Memorandum “in isolation” from a “range” of other information provided by the Government.

He wrote that the impression given by the report - that potential disbenefits were not identified by the Government - was “factually inaccurate” and claimed it was “unfathomable” that other information had been excluded from consideration.

HMICS inserted additional context into a revised draft, but again left the main thrust of the criticism in place.

Mr McGillivray came back again days later and was more irritated than before. "You appear to have completely ignored my most recent response to the commentary in this section and offered no explanation for that. Can I ask why that is the case?” he wrote.

He fired off another email 15 minutes later, in which he acknowledged that a redraft had been made, but claimed that it didn't "address the key point of substance I was making in terms of factual accuracy".

In an earlier email, Mr McGillivray had suggested the basis of the disputed section had been informed by separate work carried out by Dr Murray.

“It seems to come from the Kath Murray research piece and I would highlight that she did not ask to speak to anyone in the SG programme team and therefore did not have access to any of the programme documentation.

“I can see why she might have arrived at such a narrow perspective with such a limited methodology but it lacks context on the other information that is available..."

Dr Murray said: "The review drew on evidence that could be accessed by readers, rather than unpublished Scottish Government documents. Separately, Mr McGillivray’s comments raise serious questions on the paucity of information made available during the passage of the Bill.”

A Scottish Tory spokesman said: "This is not the first time the SNP government has been caught trying to meddle in affairs like this. It's totally unacceptable for this kind of pressure to be applied."

Mr Penman said: “The content of a final report is entirely decided upon by me and I am ultimately accountable, for any findings and recommendations, to the Scottish Parliament.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The contents of the published HMICS report are entirely for the Inspectorate to determine. As part of their routine processes in advance of that, HMICS invited the Scottish Government and other organisations to provide factual accuracy comments on their draft report, in addition to requesting relevant information.

“The Scottish Government responses highlighted additional material that was relevant to the content of the report, and the reference to the research was to highlight the availability of additional information that provided a broader perspective on the issues."