NICOLA Sturgeon’s evidence to the Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair has been published more than two months after she submitted it.

It includes five pages of WhatsApp messages sent between Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon in which he complains about a Scottish Government sexual misconduct probe into him.

She said the investigation had caused her “a great deal of personal anguish, and resulted in the breakdown of a relationship that had been very important to me, politically and personally, for most of my life”.

However she insisted she “did not seek to prevent or influence the proper consideration” of complaints against the former First minister and always “tried to do the right thing”.

She said: “I acted in a way that I judged would best protect the independence and confidentiality of the investigation.” 

The First Minister’s 15 pages of written evidence was released by the Scottish Parliament this morning alongside submissions from several other key players.

Ms Sturgeon complains to MSPs last week that she had been accused of withholding evidence yet her submission had yet to to be published.

She offered to give oral evidence to the committee any time it wanted.

Also released was evidence from Ms Sturgeon’s husband, the SNP chief executive Peter Murrell in which he confirms sending messages about the police, prosecutors and Mr Salmond.

The inquiry also released statements from Deputy First Minister John Swinney, the First Minister’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd, and the independent adviser of the Scottish Ministerial Code.

A cross-party committee is looking at how the Scottish Government botched an in-house probe into sexual misconduct claims made against Mr Salmond in 2018. 

Mr Salmond had the exercise set aside in a judicial review at the Court of Session, forcing ministers to admit it had been unfair, unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias”.

The collapse of the Government’s case in January 2019 left taxpayers with a £512,250 bill for Mr Salmond’s costs, and the Holyrood inquiry is investigating what happened. 

On 17 January 2019, Ms Sturgeon gave an undertaking to parliament to “provide whatever material” the inquiry requested.

She said: “That is the definition of full, thorough and open inquiries. My commitment is that the Government and I will cooperate fully with it, which is, I think, appropriate.”

However her officials and ministers have since tried to block witnesses and withheld swathes of evidence, citing “legal privilege” despite waiving it for three judge-led inquiries. 

In her evidence, Ms Sturgeon said the Scottish Government had a “duty” to investigate the complaints against Mr Salmond, and could not have “swept them under the carpet”.

She said: “As far as my personal involvement is concerned, over the last couple of years, I have faced accusations of ‘conspiring’ against Alex Salmond and also of ‘colluding’ with him.

“I reject in the strongest possible terms both of these suggestions.

“Indeed it seems to me that what some want to present as ‘conspiracy’ is in actual fact my refusal to ‘collude’ or ‘cover up’.

“In what was a very difficult situation - personally, politically and professionally - I tried to do the right thing. 

“Whether I always got it absolutely right is something I still reflect on, and the Committee will consider, but I sought all along to act in good faith and to strike the right balance of judgment given the difficult issues I was confronted with. 

“In the light of the #MeToo movement, I sought to ensure that the Scottish Government developed a process that allowed allegations of sexual harassment - including allegations of a historic nature - to be fully and fairly considered.

“I did not do this because I had a concern that allegations about my predecessor could materialise. 

“But nor did I, in any way, allow such concern to lead me to limit the scope of the procedure.

“I agreed to meet a friend of 30 years when I was told he was in distress and wanted to talk to me about a serious matter. 

“And it is certainly the case that I was anxious to prepare my Party as far as possible for an issue that, at different stages, I thought could be about to become public. 

“However, I did not seek to prevent or influence the proper consideration of the complaints. For the sake of the complainers, the Scottish Government and indeed Alex Salmond himself, I acted in a way that I judged would best protect the independence and confidentiality of the investigation. 

“However, when I became aware of a serious risk of legal action against my government, I felt I had a duty to make the Permanent Secretary aware of it. 

“My view throughout was that complaints must be properly and fairly considered, no matter who the subject of them might be, or how politically inconvenient the investigations may be. 

“And that remains my view, even though the circumstances and consequences of this particular investigation have caused me - and others, in many cases to an even greater extent - a great deal of personal anguish, and resulted in the breakdown of a relationship that had been very important to me, politically and personally, for most of my life. 

“Lastly, since August 2018 I have taken care to say nothing that could compromise other proceedings, including the Committee’s inquiry - even though that has meant being unable to say more about my own actions or challenge misrepresentations about them.”