Salmond Affair may end up being added to Scottish history’s long list of inconclusive mysteries

The Scottish Parliament’s investigation into the handling of allegations against former First Minister Alex Salmond has resumed, weeks after the committee of nine MSPs complained that it was meeting obstruction. The committee is not concerned with the criminal charges brought against Salmond: he was acquitted on all counts and, as far as the Law is concerned, that matter is closed.

Yet, though this is the case, the criminal trial still casts a long shadow, not least because Salmond’s counsel, Gordon Jackson, a very senior QC who was then Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, alleged that the case originated in the “political bubble” and “absolutely stinks”. Salmond himself spoke of a “conspiracy” against him. His supporters fervently believe there was such a conspiracy and their anger is now splitting the SNP in half.

Cock up always seemed more likely than conspiracy. But then, after the Scottish Government had shamefacedly conceded defeat in the civil case (at the cost of more than half a million to the public purse) and the criminal case had ended with Salmond’s acquittal, emails leaked a few weeks ago appeared to make things look a little different. They were sent by Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the SNP who is also married to Nicola Sturgeon, once Salmond’s protegée. In these emails, Murrell appeared to be urging the recipient to egg the police on and said that “the more fire-fronts “ Salmond was fighting on, the better.

However, Murrell denies these allegations and insists that apparently damning quotes from these emails have been taken out of context. They do not prove that there was a conspiracy. The Civil Service investigation of complaints had been mishandled, giving Salmond a victory in the first round. Murrell may well have been piqued. It is possible that he believed at the time that the women who had complained of being molested were speaking the truth and should be supported.

Or, of course, he may simply disliked Salmond and have been happy to see him in the dock, as some figures in the SNP seem to believe. Be that as it may, Murrell had no role in the investigation; that was a civil service matter, not a party one.

New guidelines relating to procedure in the investigation of complaints had been drawn up in the wake of the MeToo# flurry of accusations of sexual misconduct in the USA, and this encouraged previously silent or reluctant complainers to come forward, partly at least in the expectation that complaints would  receive a more sympathetic hearing in this changed climate.

We don’t know if any of the twelve (originally thirteen) women whose complaints led to their willingness to testify against the former First Minister in the criminal case in the High Court had talked about their alleged experiences with others before there was the prospect of a trial, but it would be quite natural if they had. There would have been nothing legally improper in any such conversation then.

What we do know is that in the civil case the Scottish Government acted improperly, its investigation being flawed and corrupted because the Investigating Officer had been in contact with some of the complainers before being charged with the investigation. This was a blunder, and evidence of incompetence if nothing else. Or so it seems.

It still looks more like cock-up than conspiracy, but there are other, darker questions that remain to be answered.

The first is whether anyone other than Salmond became the subject of investigations after the new procedures were introduced in the wake of MeToo#. If the answer is “none”, then either all other male Scottish politicians and senior civil servants were models of good behaviour (which some may doubt) or the new procedures were drafted with Salmond in mind. Improbable as this may seem, it would surely justify his claim to be the victim of a conspiracy – or at least selective litigation.

The second question concerns Nicola Sturgeon. What did she know and when? Her answers have been somewhat evasive to date. This is neither surprising nor, to my mind, discreditable. On the one hand she has had a long association with Salmond. He was her mentor and also, by her own account, her closest political friend.

On the other hand she may not have been greatly surprised by the complaints. Salmond is a tactile person, a hugger and kisser. Might he not on occasion have gone a little too far? Mightn’t some women quite properly have taken exception to what might be called over-friendly advances of a kind once deemed acceptable but no longer so? It would be a surprise if Ms Sturgeon hadn’t asked herself such questions.

Her position was difficult. It was surely unwelcome. It could only be thought otherwise if you already subscribed to belief in a conspiracy to prevent any chance of a Salmond comeback and to end his political career – something, one might add, that he was making a good job of doing himself by his decision to host a chat show on Russia Today.

So, she stood aside. When, in a number of emails, Salmond asked her to support his attempt to have the air cleared and the matter settled by mediation, she prudently declined. To have acceded to his request would certainly have looked like a cover-up, and, if there is one lesson any sensible politician has learned from the days of Watergate and President Nixon, it is that the cover-up is more damaging that the original misdemeanour or crime.

Of course, Salmond’s adherents believe that she failed him and that her failure to come to his aid is evidence of her willingness to see him destroyed. But, to my mind, it’s more probable that she was trapped in a difficult, embarrassing and painful position – a position that would have been made worse, far worse, if her husband was indeed also relishing in Salmond’s disgrace and was eager to see him not only in the dock but behind bars, as some have claimed.

It seems unlikely that the Parliamentary committee, limited to examining the circumstances of the investigation and the Scottish Government’s conduct in the civil case Salmond brought, will get at the truth of this strange affair. Even a Judge-led enquiry as now demanded by some of Salmond’s supporters like the former minister Alex Neil (who will be retiring from Parliament in May) may not uncover the truth of this bizarre business.

One of the great unsolved mysteries of Scottish history is the Gowrie Conspiracy in the reign of James VI. So puzzling is this episode that one old Scotch lady looked forward to Death and the Day of Judgement when the truth about that conspiracy would at last be revealed. Few of us may now believe in that Day of Judgement.

In a similar way, we may never know the truth about the Salmond Affair. Conspiracy or Cock-up? It’s certainly a puzzle one would like to see solved. It may however remain as open a question at the Gowrie Conspiracy, the murder of Darnley or the Monster of Glamis. Scottish history is rich in unanswered questions. The Salmond Affair may be added to the list.