Evidence has emerged of a deliberate cover-up.
A crucial detail was apparently hidden from the public.
According to Sky, the official knew it would potentially end their career if it came to light.
This is important because it may undermine Nicola Sturgeonās story. 2/13
Throughout the Alex Salmond affair, the First Minister has dodged questions at every turn.
She has tried to hide behind legalities, false narratives, straw men.
Every tactic in the book has been rolled out to stop the truth reaching the public. 3/13
To her utmost shame, the First Minister uses the women who were so badly let down by her government as a shield.
She argues they are being attacked, when nothing could be further from the truth.
We all want to get to the bottom of what happened here - for those women. 4/13
Instead of justice, those women have been caught in this uncivil war - that they never wanted to be part of.
Theyāve been failed by basic, unforgivable errors from Nicola Sturgeonās government.
And failed ever since by the SNPās obstruction over what went on. 5/13
The First Minister isnāt on those womenās side.
If she was, she wouldnāt have met with Alex Salmond all through the summer of 2018.
Her staff wouldnāt have - allegedly - revealed a complainants name to Salmond.
They would have done things the right way. 6/13
Weāve heard the FM make the ridiculous argument that sheās accused of both conspiring and colluding against Salmond.
Thatās pure spin. Iām not interested in either.
I care if the First Minister lied though. That matters. 7/13
Weāve heard the FM say sheās being blamed for a manās mistakes.
Letās be clear, Salmond is not a good man. His acquittal doesnāt change that. He did things that are out of order.
Nobody blames Sturgeon for his actions.
We blame her for lying about what she knew & when. 8/13
Sturgeon claims these are all conspiracy theories.
But the evidence is apparently backed up by credible people. Well respected people in legal and media circles, professionals.
Itās not Salmondās word against Sturgeon.
Itās a number of peopleās word against hers alone. 9/13
So letās cut to the chase, First Minister.
No more spin, no more hiding, no more shutting down scrutiny with cleverly worded statements.
Letās get some straight yes or no answers. 10/13
Did your official see a draft statement and ask for the record to be changed from when they āknewā of complaints to when they had a āsuspicionā of complaints?
This is a straight yes/no question, there are no legal repercussions to answering it. 11/13
The official apparently feared for their career if the original statement was published.
Was the original statement ā that they āknewā of complaints ā correct or incorrect, in the your view?
This is a straight question. It can be answered without getting into any details. 12/13
If that original statement was published, before a change from your official was apparently requested, would it fatally undermine what you have told the Parliament?
Again there are no legal repercussions to answering them.
@NicolaSturgeon - letās finally hear the truth. 13/13