ONE of the complainers in the Alex Salmond case has dismissed allegations raised by Conservative MP David Davis in Westminster.

In a statement issued through Rape Crisis Scotland, the woman said the claims were "fundamentally untrue".

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon also "strongly refuted" the allegations after being quizzed over the issue at her regular coronavirus briefing. 

It comes after Mr Davis used parliamentary privilege to claim messages disclosed by a whistleblower show there was a "concerted effort by senior members of the SNP to encourage complaints" against the former first minister.

He also alleged messages exist that suggest Ms Sturgeon’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, had been “interfering” in the complaints process in February 2018.

A Holyrood inquiry is looking at how the Scottish Government botched a probe into sexual misconduct claims made against Mr Salmond in 2018.

The former first minister had the exercise quashed in a judicial review in January 2019, after the Government conceded it had been “tainted by apparent bias”.

After the Government’s defence collapsed, Ms Sturgeon revealed she had three meetings and two calls with Mr Salmond about the probe, and insisted she first learned about the investigation when he told her himself at her Glasgow home on April 2, 2018.

It later emerged Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein told Ms Sturgeon of claims on March 29, a meeting she claims she forgot.

If Ms Sturgeon knowingly misled parliament on this point it would be a breach of the Scottish ministerial code - a resignation offence which she denies.

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Davis said the Crown Office was barring publication of evidence which was "critical in determining whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code".

He said: “It is clearly in the public interest to see this evidence. I have it on good authority that there exists from 6 February, 2018, an exchange of messages between civil servants Judith McKinnon and Barbara Allison suggesting that the First Minister’s chief of staff is interfering in the complaints process against Alex Salmond.

“The investigating officer complained, ‘Liz interference v. bad’.

“I assume that that means very bad. If true, this suggests that the chief of staff had knowledge of the Salmond case in February, not in April.

“The First Minister tied herself to that April date in both parliamentary and legal statements.

"She was, of course, aware earlier than that. The question is just how aware and how much earlier.”

In a statement issued through Rape Crisis Scotland, one of the complainers in Mr Salmond's criminal trial, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, addressed the claims.

She said: "I am aware of comments from David Davis MP, in which he suggests the Chief of Staff to the First Minister, Liz Lloyd, was aware of and “interfered” with complaints against Alex Salmond in February 2018

"These allegations are fundamentally untrue and are being deliberately misrepresented.

"In January 2018 I was approached by Scottish Government HR regarding an investigation they were undertaking into a complaint about Alex Salmond’s behavior during his time as First Minister.

"I had been named as someone who experienced such behaviour in statements obtained during the course of HR's investigation.

"After discussion with HR, I decided I did not in any way wish to share with them my own personal experiences, however I also did not want to obstruct an investigation.

"I did not know if I was obliged to cooperate after being asked to.

"I decided to raise the matter with a trusted senior person in government, Liz Lloyd, to gain advice and an understanding of my obligations.

"I was extremely conscious of the sensitivity of the investigation and I, therefore, did not tell Liz who the complaint was from, who it was about or the nature of the complaint.

"I informed her I had been approached by HR in relation to a current investigation.

"I said I had been asked if I wanted to make a complaint and made it clear to her I did not want to, but I was concerned that if I didn’t I may be impeding an investigation.

"She offered to convey my concerns and what I wanted to happen to an appropriate senior civil servant, who was the most appropriate person to discuss the issue with. I agreed to this course of action.

"This was not 'interfering' but acting in line with my wishes.

"I then met with the senior civil servant and relayed my extreme apprehension about being involved in the investigation.

"They offered me reassurance that should I decline to cooperate that I would not be impeding the investigation.

"I conveyed my decision to HR and had no further part in the process."