@Dingleydel
That was botched, in essence, resulting in a judicial review which reduced the original investigation.
Ok this is the bit I’m missing. How was it botched? What is Sturgeon guilty of? Was it that they/she tried to make the claims go away or was it that she tried to escalate claims of his crimes, supposedly to get him out of the way so she could further her career? Was it a bit of both? If it’s the later how can anyone be sure of her motive? I’d find it hard to agree that a woman believing and wanting to escalate the claims of women who may have been abused should lose her job for doing so. I can’t seem to find a definitive answer anywhere.
OK, trying to explain the accusations/facts without giving a slant...not easy!
The judicial review was launched because Salmond (via lawyers) claimed there were significant failings with the complaints policy/procedure which the government had created. In essence this policy was created "at pace" as the politicians love to say and doesn't seem to have been very good - indeed it has never been used since and the Scottish parliament is currently working on a new one. Among the claimed flaws is that it is essentially retrospective - they created a policy which would cover not just future former ministers but people who were already former ministers, who were not consulted. The complaints process found against him (while he was still arguing with them), they said a statement was going to be made about the outcome, he threatened an interdict government backed down. Whad'ya know, few hours later it gets leaked to the Daily Record. At this point, Salmond sues, launching a judicial review.
As the judicial review progressed the government were required to disclose information. They made a bit of a mess of this leading to their counsel being "professionally embarrassed" as they weren't releasing info they should have, but the big thing which came out (which wasn't even in the original petition) was that the investigating officer had prior contact with the two complainers which was expressely forbidden by the policy. So even if the policy was valid they didn't apply it correctly.
The government ended up conceding the case which meant that the report was reduced.
Sturgeon approved the policy.
What she's actually under investigation for is breaking the ministerial code, by allegedly lying to parliament about when she knew about the complaints, then failing to correct the record when she was "reminded" that this isn't when she first heard (she disputes this), failing to act on legal advice (it's alleged the judicial review should have been conceded before it was and failing to do so cost the taxpayer more money), various other things besides.
Salmond is also enraged that she refused to intervene when he advised her that his legal advice said the procedure was not legally sound. He asked her to intervene to request mediation - something which is in the policy for current ministers but not former ministers, and therefore one of the alleged "flaws" of the policy. She basically strung him along a bit then refused to. Those who claim she broke the code here say she did so because as a minister she has a duty to act if she is aware that the government may be acting illegally.
She also didn't make a record of the meetings with Salmond for months after, also in breach of code allegedly.
There's a lot more mess around it with leak allegations and so on. Plus the criminal trial, which is a big fat mess with even more allegations of setups and conspiracy!