No - he just claimed that Aurvandil would not be a friend of the Moot's at the end of the day. And I think it would be safe to say that has passed.
Of course he didn't have any proof - other than the fact that Aurvandil was formed by defecting nobles, so clearly they were traitors. And you can't trust a traitor.
Yea, but then again: would Madina have been a friend at the end of the day?
Madina had griefed us for too long. Yes, we may have Aurvandil to worry about now, but at least we got closure about Madninian "claims" to what was then our capital. The idea wasn't that Aurvandil would be our friend forever, but that we'd take care of them in due time as well.
I don't even remember anyone who was on the Lord's Council that wanted to take Paisly after the Capital was moved to the Tower. Our issue was Barca, never Paisly. And then Barca supporting Aurvandil - well, at least that turned out just like Madina said it would. . . pretty sure Vallyn flat up told the Moot that Aurvandil would betray them and keep the city.
Whether people wanted it or not, your ruler, until VERY late in the conflict (like, until you were obviously doomed and beyond saving to everyone's eyes but your own) refused to promise not to ever let such a war erupt again. There might not have been any plans, but he refused to curtail the "rights" of his nobles to "uphold their claims", and that this was not a promise a Madinian ruler could legally make. Which honestly quite undermined the later promise and pissed off some D'Harans more than anything.
And as I said above, the idea was never that Aurvandil would never betray us. We were just sick of Madina, and did not consider that Aurvandil or Madina were our sole options for who would reside to our South.