Alex Salmond inquiry: How did we get here and where will the probe go next?

The committee is running out of time. It only has weeks left to write the report and have it submitted in enough time to allow the Scottish Government to reply before the next Holyrood election.

What happened?

On August 24, 2018, the Daily Record reported that the Scottish Government had reported the former SNP leader to police over sexual assault allegations by two members of the civil service. The accusations were historic, dating back to his time as First Minister.

Salmond issued a denial and launched legal action against the Government he used to lead.

“The procedure as put into operation by the Permanent Secretary is grossly unfair and therefore inevitably will lead to prejudicial outcomes,” he said

A spokesperson for the Scottish Government told the paper at the time they would defend their position “vigorously”. They said: “As a matter of principle and integrity, it is vital that any allegations of harassment are treated seriously and investigated thoroughly, regardless of the identity of the party involved.”

However, fewer than four months later, the Government conceded its case after it emerged that Judith Mackinnon, the civil servant appointed to lead the investigation had “prior contact” with the complainers.

READ MORE: Alex Salmond inquiry demands Crown papers in unprecedented move

Judge Lord Pentland said that the Government’s actions had been “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and had been “tainted with apparent bias”. Salmond was awarded costs of £512,000.

Following the Government’s defeat, Sturgeon referred herself to the independent panel on the ministerial code and parliament launched a full probe, with both the First Minister and her predecessor agreeing to co-operate fully.

It’s worth keeping in mind that these are separate probes, though both are looking at the same evidence.

What happened next?

But before the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints could hold its first meeting, Police Scotland charged Salmond on 14 counts, including attempted rape, sexual assault and indecent assault.

The offences were alleged to have happened at various locations in Scotland between June 2008 and November 2014, including at the First Minister’s official Bute House residence in Edinburgh, a nightclub and a restaurant.

The nine women who complained about the former First Minister were all current or former Scottish Government officials, SNP staff or politicians. Early on, Lady Dorrian granted a court order to prevent the names or any other information that could identify the complainers being published. This remains in place.

At a trial the following year Salmond was acquitted on all charges. After nine days of hearing evidence, a jury of eight women and five men at the high court in Edinburgh found him not guilty of 12 charges and passed a verdict of not proven on one charge of sexual assault. Another charge was dropped by prosecutors.

READ MORE: Why it’s time for the for the former First Minister to graciously bow out

Speaking outside court afterwards Salmond said his faith in the judicial system had been “much reinforced”. He said he planned to release further information about the case at a later date.

“As many of you will know, there was certain evidence I would like to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we weren’t able to do so. At some point that information, that fact and that evidence will see the light of day but it won’t be this day, for a very good reason,” he said.

What are the committee looking at?

The remit of the cross-party Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints is to “consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and

special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s ‘Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers’ procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code”.

That procedure was introduced in 2017 in the wake of the #MeToo movement that saw high-profile figures in entertainment and politics, like Harvey Weinstein, finally being held to account after years of getting away with abusive behaviour.

Ministers ordered the civil service to review “policies and processes for addressing inappropriate conduct”. This review, led by the Government’s top civil servant, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans, was signed off by Sturgeon in December.

Crucially, unlike what went before, the procedure applied to former ministers.

In January 2018, two female staff members made formal complaints about Salmond’s conduct. That sparked an internal Scottish Government inquiry, with HR boss Judith Mackinnon appointed as investigating officer. Salmond was first told about the investigation on March 7.

Events over the next few months are key to both the committee’s work and to the investigation into whether or not Sturgeon broke the ministerial code.

After the judgment the First Minister told Parliament that she became aware of the Government’s investigation of the allegations against Salmond when he told her at a meeting in her Glasgow home on April 2, 2018.

However, it later emerged that she met Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, in her office on March 29, 2018.

In her evidence to the cross-party Holyrood inquiry, Sturgeon said she had forgotten that meeting. She added: “However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.”

In his submission Salmond said this was “untenable”.

Sturgeon’s comments to MSP, he argues, are a breach of Section 1.3 of the ministerial code which states that “ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the first minister”.

In a submission to James Hamilton, the former prosecutor tasked with leading the ministerial code probe, Salmond suggested the First Minister deliberately chose not to mention the meeting, because it would then call into question the purpose of the meeting between the two on April 2.

Section 4.22 of the ministerial code states that “the basic facts” of government meetings with “external individuals” should be recorded.

But the First Minister has said the meeting was on party business, that she was attending in her capacity as SNP leader and therefore did not need to be recorded. In her written evidence to the Holyrood inquiry Sturgeon said she had “met a friend of 30 years” as leader of the party, because she “suspected that he may be about to resign from the SNP”.

The situation has been slightly confused by Sturgeon’s husband, SNP chief executive Peter Murrell.

In his evidence to the committee he suggested the First Minister never discussed the complaints with him because they were government business. Though he suggested Sturgeon could have initially believed the meetings were a party matter, before subsequently realising they were “something else”.

There were two further meetings between Salmond and Sturgeon, another at SNP conference in Aberdeen on June 7 and again at Sturgeon’s Glasgow home on July 14. Neither of those meetings were recorded.

Sturgeon’s response to this is that she was “trying to protect the confidentiality and integrity” of the complaints process. She said this section of the code is designed to “prevent a minister having meetings about decisions that they are taking in government and not declaring them”, but added “that was a decision I was not involved in”.

They also spoke by telephone on April 23 and July 18 and swapped messages on Whatsapp.

Sturgeon told Evans, about the meetings on June 6 when Salmond said he was preparing to sue the Government.

There is also a third possible breach of the code, according to Salmond.

He claims Sturgeon allowed the Scottish Government to contest a civil court case against him despite having had legal advice that it was likely to collapse.

His submission says that “at the very latest, by October 31, 2018, the Government and the First Minister knew of legal advice ... that on the balance of probability they would lose the judicial review and be found to have acted unlawfully.

“Despite this the legal action was continued until early January 2019 and was only conceded after both government external counsel threatened to resign from the case which they considered to be unstateable.”

What can we expect on Tuesday?

Salmond’s supporters believe he’s the victim of a conspiracy. During his evidence to the court in his criminal trial, Salmond claimed the allegations were “deliberate fabrications for a political purpose”. He said it was about preventing him from making a political comeback.

READ MORE: MSP claims Alex Salmond probe risking its credibility as key evidence withheld

Speaking outside court after the verdict, he said he planned to release further information about the case at a later date.

“As many of you will know, there was certain evidence I would like to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we weren’t able to do so. At some point that information, that fact and that evidence will see the light of day but it won’t be this day, for a very good reason,” he said.

It’s not clear how much, if any, of that we can expect to hear about on Tuesday. The Crown Office has threatened Salmond with prosecution. Though the committee secured some messages held by prosecutors, they have unanimously decided not to share them as they were “chains of private messages between different women in what we are clear were safe spaces for confidential support”.

There is also some uncertainty over what Salmond can say about his meetings with Sturgeon. The committee last week decided not to publish his submission to Hamilton’s investigation – even though it is largely already in the public domain.

That could mean he’s unable to reference the allegations in it when he gives evidence. Salmond called the decision “farcical”.

What will Nicola Sturgeon say when in front of the committee?

The First Minister has repeatedly said she refutes the allegations put forward by Salmond, and has said she will “set these matters out properly and fully” when in front of MSPs.

When asked about his claims last month, Sturgeon said: “I will set out my recollection of events to both of those inquiries and people will draw their own conclusions.

“It’s very important that I answer any questions that are levelled to me before these inquiries and that I am open to full scrutiny. I do not consider that I misled parliament – but that is of course for others to judge.”

A spokesman for Sturgeon recently accused Salmond of “spinning false conspiracy theories”. He added: “We should always remember that the roots of this issue lie in complaints made by women about Alex Salmond’s behaviour whilst he was first minister, aspects of which he has conceded.”

Whatever happens, the rift in the SNP is substantial.