After listening to most of that and after trying to cut through the word soup, deflection, and emotive language, I don't think she's done enough to save herself. I'm not convinced she was part of a criminal conspiracy, but I also don't think her reasons for 'forgetting' the meeting in March or for failing to have this properly recorded are credible. I can believe that AS was a bit sleazy, even it wasn't to a criminal extent. I actually feel a little sorry for her and can believe that she set out with good intentions following Metoo and knowing what Salmond could be like. Perhaps she felt guilty for not challenging this behaviour earlier. But this has been a major cock up that has become very shady in parts and has set women's rights back years. She was at the head of this, and she should take responsibility.
Looking at the actual evidence dispassionately, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that she knew of the allegations before the April meeting (and has therefore misled parliament on this point), and there could have been no doubt in anyone's mind that this was government business and thus should have been recorded. Even if, as she said, she only discovered it was SG business at the meeting, she should have then put it on record, but didn't. There are also multiple witnesses to corroborate that her office leaked the name of a complainant, but she has not referred this for investigation. She said clearly in parliament that this didn't happen, which is obviously untrue unless several witnesses have perjured themselves. The legal advice also seems to clearly show that she pursued a doomed case for a couple of months after her lawyers told her it was doomed, wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money. That's without getting into the evidence suppression and obstruction. Any one of these things should be a resigning matter, but given all if them, surely her position is untenable.