Key questions remain

IT was a gruelling session lasting more than eight hours – with Nicola Sturgeon under the microscope as never before.

And yet the Salmond inquiry hearing was perhaps more notable for what we still don’t know – rather than what we’ve learned.

While her supporters were predictably quick to portray Miss Sturgeon’s wellrehearsed appearance as a complete vindication, the reality is more complicated.

As Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said: ‘The abiding memory… will be Nicola Sturgeon proclaiming “I can’t recall” on repeat.’

On the key questions of what she knew – and when – about the Salmond allegations, many of her responses were highly evasive.

Legal constraints were cited in limited answers about meetings which took place before the date when Alex Salmond briefed her about the complaints against him.

The work of the inquiry has been marred at every turn by the obfuscation of Miss Sturgeon’s government. And the frustration of MSPs who have been treated with such contempt was palpable.

Ironically, Miss Sturgeon said she shared the MSPs’ frustration – even though she was in a position to order the release of the documents the committee has demanded to see.

Meanwhile, we await the conclusions of James Hamilton, who has been tasked with assessing whether or not Miss Sturgeon breached the ministerial code.

He has access to evidence that the committee has not been able to examine in public.

And yesterday Miss Sturgeon said she will follow the ‘spirit and letter’ of the code.

It stipulates that ministers who knowingly mislead parliament are expected to offer their resignation.

If she’s true to her word, and Mr Hamilton rules against her, she must step down.