Jackie Baillie returns to the note from senior counsel Roddy Dunlop on 31 October 2018, which says "it makes little sense to continue to defend the indefensible".

The first minister says that following consultation it was decided there was a credible argument that could be made.

It was felt at that point that the degree of contact between the investigating officer and the complainant did not make the process unfair. However, that changed when later information came to light.

"I think at each stage the decisions the government reached are absolutely defensible on the grounds of being legally sound," she said.

Image source, PA Media

Labour MSP Jackie Baillie says she has been on parliamentary committees for 22 years and has never felt so frustrated by attempts to get hold of information.

She says it took two votes in parliament and a motion of no confidence to get the legal advice published at 6pm last night.

Ms Baillie says information is still missing and that this is "disrespectful" to the committee.

"Do you understand that it looks as though the government does not want to give us critical information?" she asks.

Ms Sturgeon says she takes issue with the characterisation of it as prevarication and deliberate delay. She says it has been a complex matter and the government has provided information in a proper way.

The first minister says, for different reasons, she shares a lot of the frustration.

She says when information is not provided there is "a lot of mystique and intrigue" built up, which proves not to be the case when it is released.

Ms Sturgeon says many of the things said about the legal advice proved not to be true.

Jackie Baillie says the first minister has talked about a "litany of failures", errors in the investigation and in the judicial review, and errors in the supply of information.

Scottish Labour's deputy leader says she appreciates the first minister's apology as head of the Scottish government, but says: "You are ultimately not directly responsible are you?"

The first minister says things happen in the Scottish government that she is ultimately responsible for, but concedes she was not directly involved in the issues that led to the collapse of the judicial review.

Ms Baillie asks why nobody has resigned or taken responsibility for this, when two women have been badly let down.

The first minister says the situation was "horrendous for everybody that had to deal with it".

She accepts that people got things wrong and says she may have been too understanding of mistakes, but adds: "We are still in the process of investigation and inquiry into all of this."

Image source, Getty Images

Independent MSP Andy Wightman asks about the process of conceding the judicial review.

He refers to a meeting with the Lord Advocate on 31 December 2018 to discuss the grounds for conceding the case.

A joint minute was then agreed between the lawyers for Mr Salmond and the government, before Lord Pentland issued his interlocutor on 8 January 2019.

In it he said that the decisions taken by permanent secretary Leslie Evans, the head of the civil service, against Mr Salmond were unlawful as they were taken in circumstances that were procedurally unfair and "tainted by apparent bias".

Mr Wightman asks if Mr Salmond ever asked for any other grounds to be included.

Ms Sturgeon says not as far as she knows, but this would have been a matter for legal counsel.

The first minister goes on to tell SNP MSP Maureen Watt that she was in touch with the permanent secretary over the Christmas and New Year period about the decision to concede the judicial review, and that she supported that decision.

Image source, PA Media

Conservative MSP Margaret Mitchell says Alex Salmond had suggested that the Scottish government had everything to gain by arbitration, and asks Ms Sturgeon why this was rejected.

The first minister says this was not her decision and it had been part of the process that she was not involved in.

She says it would have been "highly inappropriate" for her to intervene on Mr Salmond's behalf in an investigation that she was not part of.

Ms Mitchell says arbitration could have saved a lot of money and, crucially, maintained the anonymity of the complainers.

Ms Sturgeon says it is "a massive leap of logic" to say that arbitration would have avoided all the problems.

She adds that saying no to a friend who was asking for help was "tough," but had been the right thing to do. "I will maintain that for as long as I live," she said.

In response to a question from SNP MSP Alasdair Allan, Ms Sturgeon says she owes external counsel, who were conducting the judicial review on behalf of the Scottish government, an apology for how the "commission and diligence" stage was handled by officials.

Ms Sturgeon says that by about 19 December 2018 the Lord Advocate was of the view that the judicial review case was "if not unstateable, then fast becoming unstateable".

She says that led to the process that ended up with the case being conceded.

Dr Allan also raises the question of sisting (pausing) the judicial review in order for the potential criminal case to run its course.

Mr Salmond said last week that certain people had been hoping the criminal case would ride to the rescue of the doomed judicial review.

Ms Sturgeon says the Scottish government did not sist the case and never asked to do so.

Image source, PA Media

The first minister is appearing before the Scottish Parliament committee on the Scottish government’s handling of harassment complaints.

Its remit is to "consider and report on the actions of the first minister, Scottish government officials and special advisors in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond".

A panel of nine MSPs was chosen for the committee, external, headed by deputy presiding officer Linda Fabiani.

The committee is made up of four MSPs from the SNP, two Tories and one from each of Labour and the Lib Dems as well as independent MSP Andy Wightman, a former Scottish Green MSP.

Murdo Fraser says Mr Salmond has claimed that the Scottish government only conceded the case when its senior and junior counsel threatened to resign.

"That's not my understanding," says Ms Sturgeon, who says she is not aware of them threatening to resign.

Ms Sturgeon says a lawyer would not carry on with an "unstateable case" and the government would not ignore what was in the note on 19 December 2018.

The first minister says she was in London on the day it became clear how much trouble the judicial review was in.

The first minister says they then had to go through the proper processes of consideration and review before conceding.

"It was not the happiest Christmas and New Year I have ever spent," she says.

Murdo Fraser insists the risk of losing the case was very high by 6 December 2018, and that continuing with the action was risking public funds.

Ms Sturgeon replies that every time a government defends a legal action it is risking public funds.

The first minister says she is "very, very, very, sorry" about the loss of taxpayers' money.

However, she stresses that the change in late December was very, very bad and changed the judgement about the case.

Mr Fraser suggests that the note from counsel on 19 December was "catastrophic".

Ms Sturgeon accepts that it was catastrophic, and says that is what led to the ultimate concessions.

Image source, Getty Images

Murdo Fraser asks about a meeting with the government's counsel on the 13 November 2018.

The first minister says that she requested that meeting to test herself whether there was still a stateable case, which she thought they had.

She says that changed after information emerged later in December about the extent of the contact between the investigating officer and the complainers.

The first minister says the meeting was to ensure the government was not "prolonging a judicial review that was dead in the water".

Mr Fraser says that by 6 December the situation "has deteriorated to an even more dramatic extent".

A note from counsel says that a challenge from Mr Salmond's legal team is "more likely than not to succeed" and warns that expenses would be far higher if they proceeded to a written judgement. It says "the least worst option would be to concede the petition".

Mr Fraser asks why the government did not do so.

Ms Sturgeon says that on 11 December the law officers' view was there was no question or need to drop the case, and the Lord Advocate was clear it should be heard.

The ministerial code says to abide by the advice of law officers, she points out.

The first minister insists she was acting in accordance with the views of the law officers.

Mr Fraser says that on 31 October 2018 an urgent note was received from senior counsel Roddy Dunlop after the discovery that investigating officer Judith McKinnon had prior involvement in the case.

The Tory MSP says senior counsel is clear that this "presents a very real problem indeed" and describes it as "very concerning".

Mr Fraser says Mr Dunlop was so concerned that he contacted the Lord Advocate and there was discussion about whether the case could continue or be conceded at that point.

"Is it fair to say at the 31st of October that the case is in real trouble?" asks Mr Fraser.

"No, I don't think I would use that phrase," replies the first minister.

Ms Sturgeon says it is not unheard of for issues to crop up that cause real concern during litigation.

Further discussions, that she was not part of, led to the conclusion that the point was arguable and defensible and the decision was taken to continue.

The views of the law officers until 11 December was that across the petition, including the appointment of the investigating officer, there was a stateable case.

Ms Sturgeon says there were wider issues beyond whether the case was stateable, with eight grounds of challenge that had been made to the procedure and its application.

The government wanted to hear from a court if these challenges were well founded or not, she adds, to check if the procedure was lawfully based and sound.

Image source, PA Media

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser asks about the first minister's role in the judicial review that Mr Salmond launched into the harassment complaints process.

She says she was named as an interested party in the petition and was involved in discussions about the prospects of success.

Mr Fraser says there were two votes in parliament calling for the legal advice to the government to be released to the committee, and it was only the threat of a vote of no confidence in Deputy First Minister John Swinney that led to some aspects of it being released.

He says that the notes of prospects from external counsel on 27 September 2018 said they saw vulnerabilities and were not confident.

The first minister says she does not think she has ever seen a legal opinion that said there was no risk of losing, and that this note of prospects was at the more optimistic end of the spectrum.

Here are the main points of the first minster's evidence on how her government handled complaints:

• “I had a lingering suspicion”: Nicola Sturgeon says she had no knowledge of specific complaints about Alex Salmond but was aware of something that might “surface" in regard to his behaviour.
• Messages between leading SNP figures - including her husband Peter Murrell - were not evidence of a plot, Ms Sturgeon says. She adds they have been taken out of context and "are not as presented”.
• The first minister declined to intervene in the complaints process. This is despite Mr Salmond saying she had indicated she would. “Maybe,” Ms Sturgeon says, "I did it too gently and gave him an impression that I did not intend."

Image source, PA Media

Independent MSP Andy Wightman says Ms Sturgeon has claimed that she told Alex Salmond she had no role in the harassment procedure and would not intervene.

However, evidence from Mr Salmond and his lawyer Duncan Hamilton said she did make an offer to intervene "if it came to it".

Ms Sturgeon says: "I believe I did make it clear that I would not intervene."

She says she was perhaps trying to "let him down gently".

"Maybe I did it too gently and he left with an impression that I did not intend to give him," Ms Sturgeon says.

"I had no intention of intervening and crucially I did not intervene in the process."

She says that during the meeting at her house on 2 April 2018 her head was "spinning".

"I was experiencing a maelstrom of emotions. I had been told something pretty shocking by Alex Salmond.

She says she did not intervene, and that this was "at the root" of Mr Salmond's anger towards her.

Tory MSP Margaret Mitchell says the complainants did not want to report their complaints to the police.

She says Scottish government staff were not trained to engage with victims, but despite this the government continued with its investigation.

The first minister says she was not involved in the handling of the investigation and is not aware of the details of the contact with the police.

Ms Mitchell says the Scottish government should never have been anywhere near the investigation, and that the choice about whether or not to go to the police should have been left with the complainants.

The first minister suggests that the committee could speak to the complainants privately and says "it is quite extraordinary" that the complainants' voices have not been heard more strongly.

Labour MSP Jackie Baillie asks about the text and whatsapp messages that the committee has not seen, but which Alex Salmond referred to in his evidence.

They are between SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, SNP compliance officer Ian McCann and Sue Ruddick, the SNP's chief operating officer.

Ms Baillie asks if Ms Sturgeon asked to see those messages.

"I have made enquiries about the messages to satisfy myself," Ms Sturgeon says.

"They are not my messages."

Image source, PA Media

She says the message between Ms Ruddick and Mr Murrell, who is also her husband, is "not as presented".

One of the messages refers to "pressurising the police", but Ms Sturgeon says that if the committee gets to see the full text they will get a very different impression from the one they currently have.

Ms Sturgeon says Mr Salmond, a man they had worked with for years, had just been charged with serious sexual assault.

She says people were upset and a bit angry and perhaps that came across in their communication.

"But the idea that suggests some kind of plot or conspiracy is actually quite offensive."

SNP MSP Alasdair Allan says Alex Salmond felt arbitration should have been used and asks the first minister if the government was right not to go down that line.

Ms Sturgeon says Mr Salmond wanted a process of mediation between himself and the two complainers before arbitration about the process.

She said the government came to a view that this was not appropriate and the complainers did not want mediation.

Ms Sturgeon says it was right for the SNP to encourage people with concerns to come forward.

The first minister says she is dismayed by suggestions that people were concocting or making up allegations.

"A number of women came forward, and they came forward of their own free will," she said.

She says she has seen nothing that "comes within a million miles" of a campaign against Mr Salmond.

Image source, PA Media

The first minister has been pressed on whether her government breached confidentiality. Here are the main points from the exchanges:

• Nicola Sturgeon denies her officials gave the name of a woman who had complained about Alex Salmond to one of his officials in a breach of confidence, saying: "It did not happen in the way that has been described".
• Instead she maintains Alex Salmond did his own investigations to find out the name of one of the women who had complained. She says he had already apologised to the other.
• The first minister denies leaking details of the complaints against Mr Salmond to the Daily Record newspaper, saying: “I don’t know where the leaks came from. I know they didn’t come from me.”

Mr Cole-Hamilton returns to the leak of confidential information to the Daily Record in August 2018.

He says that the day before the leak the Scottish government had prepared a press release on Mr Salmond's harassment disciplinary case, and that this was only stopped by his legal action.

Ms Sturgeon says that the permanent secretary wrote to her on 22 August and said the disciplinary process had concluded, "certain things had been upheld" and three matters had been referred to the police.

She says the letter told her there was consideration about putting further matters about the case into the public domain.

"It was not my press release," she says.

Mr Cole-Hamilton says the police had expressly requested that no more information about the case be released.

He asks Ms Sturgeon if she thinks the press release and the leak look like a determined attempt "to splash this information in order to damage Alex Salmond"?

Ms Sturgeon says she was not involved in the decision-making on the press release. She believes there was a freedom of information request that needed to be answered.

She says she recalls feeling "quite relieved" when the press release was withdrawn because of Mr Salmond's threatened court action.

"It meant I wasn't suddenly facing this thing coming into the public domain," she says.

Was it right to pass the complaints to the police even though the women did not want that to happen? asks Mr Cole-Hamilton.

Ms Sturgeon says that on balance it was correct. If the complaints had not been passed on it would have been a worse situation, she says.

Alex Cole-Hamilton says it has been corroborated that the name of one of the women who brought the complaints against Alex Salmond was given to Geoff Aberdein.

"If true, that is an egregious breach of confidentiality," the Lib Dem MSP says.

Ms Sturgeon again says that to the best of her knowledge, this was not true.

"If this happened it would be as serious as you are saying," the first minister says.

But she says she does not accept as fact that it happened, and she thinks there is an "alternative explanation".

She says it was Alex Salmond who told her the name of the complainer.