NICOLA Sturgeon has been urged to refer herself for investigation over claims she failed to properly-record a meeting with the former boss of Ferguson Marine.

The Scottish Tories have written to the First Minister, calling on her to refer herself for the meeting with Jim McColl, as well as claiming she did not fulfil a requirement for a civil servant to be present at the encounter.

The Scottish Government has labelled the claims "factually wrong".

Scottish Conservative MSP Craig Hoy has written to the FM for a second time following correspondence sent by Ms Sturgeon to members of Holyrood’s Public Audit Committee.

READ MORE: Sturgeon should be held to account over ferry fiasco, say ex-Ferguson Marine executives

The complaint follows evidence given by the SNP leader to the committee last month in relation to the SNP’s ferry fiasco.

Mr Hoy, the party chairman and a member of the committee, said the responses from Ms Sturgeon breach paragraphs 4.22 and 4.23 of the ministerial code.

He claims that Ms Sturgeon should have ensured that a meeting with Mr McColl in May 2017 was formally noted or minuted.

During a committee hearing last month, the First Minister said she would provide details of the meeting. However, files lodged with the committee contain no substantive record of it.

READ MORE: Jim McColl claims Nicola Sturgeon of 'misrepresenting facts'

Mr Hoy claims an email sent by a special adviser after the meeting with Mr McColl does not contain the “basic facts” required to be recorded under the code.

He has also raised concerns that a special adviser – rather than a private secretary or civil servant – was present with Ms Sturgeon at the meeting. The ministerial code is clear there is a distinction between special advisers and civil servants as set out in the special advisers code of conduct.

The Scottish Government insists that special advisers are temporary civil servants and constitute an 'official' in terms of the ministerial code.

Mr Hoy has urged the First Minister to refer herself to the current independent advisers of the ministerial code to determine whether she has fallen short of the standards expected.

The Tory MSP said: “Nicola Sturgeon was quick to deny these claims when responding to my letter following the committee evidence session last month.

“But her latest correspondence to the committee fails to deliver any evidence of the required note or minute. Nor does she explain why only a special adviser was present.

“These appear to represent clear breaches of the ministerial code.

“The email evidence which the First Minister presents as the supposed minute of a meeting with Jim McColl is nothing of the sort because it reveals very little about what was actually discussed. This is made more worrying by the fact that Mr McColl has given a very different account of the discussion.”

Mr Hoy added: “Nicola Sturgeon also appears to have forgotten the clear distinction between special advisers and civil service officials.

READ MORE: Jim McColl: FM should have known about ferry crisis five years ago

“It’s clear that no officials were present at this meeting and no facts were passed on afterwards. Under the code, this must happen if no official is in attendance when government business is being discussed.

“Because of these two breaches, I have written to Nicola Sturgeon urging her to refer herself to the independent advisers of the code immediately.

“Her evasiveness under questioning from the committee last month set alarm bells ringing, and the lack of detail in her subsequent correspondence adds to the suspicion that she has something to hide.

“The public deserves to know the truth. That’s why, in addition to referring herself, Nicola Sturgeon must agree to hold a full, independent public inquiry into the whole ferries scandal.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The First Minister has complied in full with the obligations of the ministerial code in respect of this meeting, and there is nothing in Mr Hoy’s latest letter to indicate otherwise. 

“As the First Minister set out in her response to Mr Hoy on 10 November, this meeting was arranged through the civil service and so, by definition, officials were aware of the details. The meeting was recorded in the official record of ministerial engagements published by the government.

"An official – a special advisor – was present and a brief note of the outcome recorded. To claim otherwise is factually wrong.

“In evidence to the committee, the First Minister gave a commitment to see whether information relating to actions resulting from the meeting could be made available. This has been done.”