Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, spoke of a “moment you’ll never forget” when Alex Salmond shared a letter detailing the sexual harassment allegations against him.

“What he described constituted, in my opinion, very inappropriate behavior on his part – perhaps another reason why that moment was so deeply ingrained in my mind,” she told a Scottish Parliamentary Committee.

Remember when Mr. Salmond She delivered the letter to her at her home in Glasgow on April 2, 2018, Mrs. Sturgeon He said, “My head was spinning, I was having a whirl of emotions. Alex Salmond told me something very shocking and there were a number of things in my head.”

Sturgeon is facing calls from Scottish Conservatives to resign after allegations she misled Parliament about meeting her predecessor.

She said she did not “immediately record the April 2 meeting” because she did not want it to be made public and risked “breaching the secrecy of the operation.”

She added that she does not intend to interfere in the investigation process and has not interfered, saying that doing so would be an abuse of her role.

The First Secretary had originally claimed that she first learned of the Scottish government’s investigation of Mr Salmond on 2 April 2018, before later admitting to having a meeting on 29 March 2018 – four days earlier – with former Mr Salmond Chief of Staff Geoff Aberdeen.

Mr. Aberdeen claims he discussed complaints with her at that meeting in her office.

Mrs. Sturgeon She was testifying before the Hollywood Harassment Committee. In the session:

• She said that April 2 was when “any doubts I had or general awareness of a problem became actual and detailed knowledge.”

• She said that at the March 29 meeting, Mr. Aberdeen had indicated that an issue of the type of harassment had arisen, but what I remembered was that he did so in general terms.

• She was hoping that her memory of the March meeting would be “more vivid,” but “it was the details of the complaints under the procedure submitted to me on April 2 that were really important and shocking.”

• She denied she had any reason to “get” Mr. Salmond

• She denied misleading Parliament and insisted that the government has nothing to hide

• She said it was “absurd” to refer to anyone who had acted with hatred or conspired against Mr. Salmond

• Apologized to two women who filed a complaint against Mr. Salmond

Ms Sturgeon refuted Allegations made by her predecessor in his testimony last week It violated ministerial law on several occasions.

Please use Chrome Browser for easy-to-access video player

Regarding the failed investigation by the Scottish government into the allegations against Mr. Salmond, she said that the two women who complained about him had been let down by a “very serious mistake”.

She reiterated her apology to them and the taxpayers for the hundreds of thousands spent on the judicial review of Mr. Salmond’s investigation by her government.

The Scottish government paid its legal costs of £ 512,000 in August 2019 after the review ruled that the government’s investigation of complaints was “marked by bias”.

He was acquitted of 13 charges in March 2020 following a criminal trial.

Sturgeon denied she had any reason to “obtain” Mr. Salmond and described his allegations as “ridiculous” about a plot against him.

The Prime Minister rejected “the suggestion that anyone acted maliciously or as part of a conspiracy against Alex Salmond,” saying that “the allegation is not based on any truth.”

“There is nothing here for the government to hide,” she added.

She said she acted “properly and appropriately” in dealing with allegations of harassment against her predecessor.

The First Secretary addressed a central allegation that she had broken ministerial law by misleading Parliament about it when she learned of complaints against Alex Salmond.

She told Parliament that Mr Salmond told her when he delivered her a letter detailing the complaints at her home on April 2, 2018.

This was contradicted by an account from Jeff Aberdeen, who said he had discussed complaints with her in her office four days earlier, on March 29, 2018.

Ms Sturgen told the committee that no details were mentioned during the March meeting.

She said, “Jeff had mentioned a harassment issue, but what I remember is that he generally did.”

“Since the approach from Sky News in November 2017 (regarding complaints from female staff at Edinburgh airport about“ inappropriate ”behavior, which he denies) I had a long-standing suspicion that such cases regarding Mr. Salmond would raise their heads – so if Hearing a potential problem in itself wouldn’t be a huge shock.

“What I remember so hard about the conversation was how concerned Jeff was about Alex’s well-being and his mental state – something that alarmed me as a friend.

He also said he believes Alex may be considering quitting his party membership.

“It was these factors that prompted me to meet him, and these factors set the meeting on April 2 strongly in the personal and party space.”

Mr. Salmond said that the Prime Minister had offered to intervene after reporting complaints against him and that this position was confirmed.

Duncan Hamilton QC, Mr. Salmond’s legal counsel, told the investigation in a written memo that he attended the April 2 meeting and recalled Ms. Sturgeon saying, “If it comes to that, I’ll intervene.”

The First Minister insisted that she did not intervene and made no offer to do so.

There was controversy over the fact that it did not register the April 2, 2018 meeting as an act of government out of a “desire to protect the independence and confidentiality of the process”.

Mr. Salmond said that no one present at the April 2, 2018 meeting had any doubts about what the arrangement for this meeting had been arranged.

Nicola Sturgeon responded to this suggestion, saying, “When it was [Mr Salmond] He arrived at my house insisting on speaking to me completely in private – far from (others in the house).

“It would not have been necessary if there was indeed a common understanding on the part of all of us.”

The Scottish government issued its legal advice on the eve of the appearance of Sturgeon’s Witness.

It has indicated concerns among the Government’s legal advisers about the loss of the appeal against the judicial review launched by Mr. Salmond.

It was alleged that this constituted a breach of the ministerial law by the Prime Minister because she had allowed her government to continue expensive legal proceedings that were doomed to failure.

Ms Sturgeon rejected any breach, saying, “In any legal challenge the government faces, there is a balance of risks. This risk cannot be eliminated, but the ministers’ job is to carefully consider all the advice we receive and consider the broader public interest.

“The test in the ministerial law is not the viewpoint of outside lawyers, but rather the viewpoint of legal officers.”

Regarding Mr. Salmond’s claim that he was the victim of a conspiracy by prominent figures in the Scottish National Party and the Scottish government to harm him and keep him out of public life, Ms. Sturgeon described it as “ridiculous”.

She said: This claim is not based on any fact. What happened is this and it is simple.

“A number of women have made serious complaints about Alex Salmond’s behavior.

“The government – undoubtedly despite its mistake – tried to do the right thing,” he added.

“As first president, I refused to follow the old pattern of letting a tough guy use his stature and connections to get what he wanted.”

Analysis: Nicola and Alex, best friends and worst enemy

Written by James Matthews for Scotland correspondent

Nicola Sturgeon’s love period was a quick reminder of just how close she was. So, too, a voice that is inseparable from emotion but tense at times.

Nicolas and Alex, best friends and worst enemy – a political force that could not have fallen apart any further.

She said that 14 hours of witness evidence combined was a storm of what he had said. It was the same before they sat in the hot seat and would stay for a long time after he’s gone.

The Scottish government quickly issued a press release that it had “lifted all allegations against it”.

The opinion is not necessarily shared by the harassment committee which will, after all, be a judge and jury.

A member of the opposition declared their work “no further progress” as they were still awaiting key documents from the Scottish government.

Another indicated that the supporting evidence is still present and contradicts the testimony of the Prime Minister.

Clearly a lot of this story still has to be written, as Clavanger is which of the “best friends” comes out of the worst.