THE Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair has backed the former first minister in his fight to stop the Scottish Government potentially ‘maligning his reputation’.

MSPs have told SNP ministers that they do not want to see the botched sexual misconduct probe into Mr Salmond which was ruled unlawful and defective in court.

They also suggested the Scottish Government should drop its court action to release files related to the probe.

It follows Mr Salmond’s lawyer last week asking the inquiry “to make absolutely explicit to the Scottish Government and the public” that it did not want to see the material.

David McKie of Levy & McRae accused the Government of trying to undo Mr Salmond’s civil court case win against it by trying to release the tainted documents.

Mr McKie said the Government’s plan would “defeat entirely the purpose and effect of the court action successfully undertaken by our client”, adding: “The only possible explanation for seeking to take such a step appears to our client to be a desire unjustifiably to malign his reputation, rather than account for their own unlawful actions.”

The inquiry has now written to the Government saying quite clearly that it does not want to see the probe or the material that went into compiling it.

The cross-party group of MSPs inquiry is looking at how the Government botched a probe into sexual misconduct claims made against Mr Salmond in 2018.

The former First Minister had the exercise set aside, or ‘reduced’, in a judicial review at the Court of Session, showing the whole exercise had been “tainted by apparent bias”.

The Government’s mistake - it appointed a lead investigator who had been in prior contact with Mr Salmond’s accusers - left taxpayers with a £512,000 bill for his costs.

When its case collapsed in January 2019, the Government gave an undertaking to the Court not to share the probe, or the material behind it, without the court’s permission.

However last month, deputy First Minister John Swinney told the inquiry the Government now planned to return to court to clarify the exact extent of that undertaking.

He said ministers were “in favour of the release” of certain documents to the inquiry. 

The move prompted the push-back from Mr Salmond, who saw it as the Government effectively trying to undo his court win by the backdoor.

In two newly released letters, the inquiry today revealed it had asked both Mr Salmond’s lawyer and the Government to ask the court for the documents it still held on the two parties’ behalf, and then to forward those to the committee.

The court last week advised the parties could share their own productions, thereby helping to overcome the inquiry’s complaints of high-level ‘obstruction’.

In her letter to Mr Swinney, inquiry convener Linda Fabiani asked the Government to retrieve its productions from the Court of Session “at its earliest opportunity” and sent them to MSPs.

She also asked for the Government’s “Notes of Argument” for the judicial review and the opposed specification of document hearing which preceded it "for completeness".

In the most awkward section for the Government, she stressed the inquiry was not investigating the substance of the original 2018 complaints against Mr Salmond, or his criminal trial this year, at which he was acquitted of 13 counts of sexual assault.

The inquiry was therefore “not seeking, nor does it require the Government to seek, documents the Court cannot release without a court order that relate to the specifics of the complaints raised against Mr Salmond, including details that may also have been covered in evidence to the criminal trial. 

“The Committee is not requesting the Investigating Officer’s report, or any statements or other material taken or prepared by her in the course of preparing the same, which we understand is covered by an undertaking to the Court of Session.”

In the separate letter to Mr McKie, Ms Fabiani said: “Given the repeated undertaking from the Mr Salmond that he will co-operate with the inquiry in full, the Committee asks Mr Salmond to request the productions held by the Court of Session at its earliest opportunity and send these together with the productions that the Court has confirmed Mr Salmond already holds as soon as possible.”

She said she hoped to hear back from both Mr McKie and Mr Swinney by October 19.