SO DID SHE ANSWER THE 6 KEY QUESTIONS?

Yesterday, the Mail set out six key questions Nicola Sturgeon needed to answer. SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR MICHAEL BLACKLEY assesses whether MSPs got the answers needed

Why were meetings and conversations with Alex Salmond kept secret from the public?

MISS Sturgeon argued that she believed the meeting at her home with Mr Salmond on April 2, 2018, when she first discussed the complaints with him, was going to be in the ‘personal/ party space’ rather than about government business. She appeared to acknowledge that, even when Mr Salmond showed her a letter from the Permanent Secretary about the complaints about him, she chose not to declare the meeting had taken place because she wanted to retain ‘confidentiality’ and didn’t want to face questions about why she had been meeting Mr Salmond in her home. This will be a key aspect of James Hamilton QC’s probe into whether she broke the code of conduct. Has her reasoning for breaking the code done enough to support her actions? Was it really for her to decide not to follow due process?

Which account to MSPs was wrong – Miss Sturgeon’s or the one given by her husband, Peter Murrell?

IN his oral evidence, Mr Murrell, the SNP’s chief executive, described Miss Sturgeon’s meeting with Mr Salmond as relating to a ‘Scottish Government matter’ and to ‘Scottish Government business’. Miss Sturgeon has explained that she felt the meeting regarded party business. She suggested yesterday that Mr Murrell was inexperienced answering questions in front of MSPs, and claimed his explanation was merely an interpretation of her own evidence. She said he was ‘making assumptions on the basis of evidence he had read’ but insisted he answered questions ‘appropriately and truthfully’.

Has the Scottish parliament been misled on the meetings?

MISS Sturgeon told MSPs that she found out about the complaints from Mr Salmond himself at the meeting on April 2, 2018. Yet she subsequently admitted in her written evidence that she met with Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, on March 29. He told her that Mr Salmond wanted to see her urgently and that ‘the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature’. She yesterday confirmed she was told by Mr Aberdein of a ‘harassment-type’ issue and that he was worried about Mr Salmond’s ‘welfare and state of mind’. But she was unable to fully back up her previous assertion that she was told Mr Salmond was about to resign from the SNP, saying only that this was her impression following the meeting. She also admitted that some have asked how she could have forgotten elements of the conversation, saying only that she wished her memory was ‘more vivid’ about it.

Taxpayers were landed with a bill of more than half a million pounds as a result of the defeat to Mr Salmond in the judicial review. Could this have been prevented?

THE Scottish Government’s investigation into allegations about Mr Salmond was declared ‘unlawful’ and ‘tainted by apparent bias’ in January 2019.

Explosive legal advice published this week revealed that senior counsel warned the Scottish Government more than two months earlier, on October 31, that the issue of prior contact between an investigating officer and a complainant was a real problem which could have repercussions for the entire case. Miss Sturgeon yesterday defended the decision to press on, saying that there was still a ‘stateable’ case. But she accepted there were ‘catastrophic’ failings – although she did not clear up why nobody has had to resign.

Did one of Miss Sturgeon’s officials leak the name of one of the complainers?

IN his evidence, Mr Salmond said the name of a complainer was given to his chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein. His claim was corroborated by Duncan Hamilton, QC, who wrote to the inquiry to say Mr Aberdein told him a senior Scottish Government official shared the name in April 2018. Miss Sturgeon insisted she has been given an assurance the name wasn’t leaked – but refused to say more, other than the official may give evidence in private.

Mr Salmond now has corroboration for many of his claims – does Miss Sturgeon?

THE evidence submitted by former SNP director of communications Kevin Pringle and Mr Hamilton backs up many of Mr Salmond’s key claims. Mr Hamilton even says he is prepared to make his comments under oath. But Miss Sturgeon was unable to bring significant new evidence to back up her claims, and also failed to provide the same level of corroboration.