LET us play fantasy politics. Go on, indulge me. Your role in the game? To convene a meeting of the SNP election campaign team. The rules? Simple, lay out the Big Questions.

First, the campaign theme? Oh, that’s easy. “Scotland needs to rebuild after the pandemic – and the best way is with the full powers of independence.” Ask me another one.

OK, who will be leading that election campaign for the SNP?

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon's office trash Alex Salmond inquiry after bombshell finding

That such a question can be posed, even in fantasy, underlines the extent of the challenge confronting Ms Sturgeon and the SNP. It is a question prosecuted assiduously by her opponents.

The challenge has been brought into focus by the leaked Holyrood committee report into the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints against the former First Minister, Alex Salmond.

READ MORE: Old Firm and coronavirus: How to avoid more disgraceful scenes

The report will be published on Tuesday but the leak suggests MSPs voted five to four in favour of finding that Nicola Sturgeon misled them, with regard to her recollection and interpretation of a discussion she held with Mr Salmond.

To say that this presumed finding has been dismissed by Team Sturgeon is to add euphemism to litotes to understatement. One source told me the finding had been based on “to use a strictly scientific term, hee haw.”

However, is the First Minister in trouble? Yes. Does that trouble solely or principally arise from the committee majority finding? No. Not even close.

That committee finding is heavily influenced by partisan considerations. We are just weeks away from Scottish Parliamentary elections. To say as much is not remotely to heap contumely on the committee or its members, but to dwell in the land of realpolitik rather than fantasy.

One senior Nationalist source said that the committee majority, comprising five non-SNP politicians, could have written their report months ago “and, in their minds, probably did”.

Still, let us recall the genesis of this controversy. There were two complaints, from within the civil service, about the behaviour of Alex Salmond while in office.

Mr Salmond objected, in the Court of Session, to the way these complaints had been handled. He won his case as it emerged that the Investigating Officer had prior contact with the complainers, contrary to rules.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon facing vote of no confidence over Salmond inquiry crisis

That cost the public purse and let down the complainers. Ms Sturgeon has repeatedly apologised for that and has acknowledged significant failings by the government she leads.

Ms Sturgeon faced questions from the Holyrood committee for eight hours, much of it focusing on what she knew, when, and her response.

Did she only know the detail of the complaints against Mr Salmond when she met him on 2 April 2018, or at an encounter, days earlier, with Mr Salmond’s former Chief of Staff? Why was her memory apparently opaque about that earlier meeting?

Did she offer to intervene to help Mr Salmond and then backtrack or did she seek to let him down gently as an old friend and colleague?

The Scottish Tories say, bluntly, that she lied. Interestingly, they do not rely particularly upon the committee report. Douglas Ross, their leader, says it will simply confirm what is already evident. Team Sturgeon says the Tories reached that conclusion in advance, without hearing a scintilla of evidence.

So where are we now? Next week will be crucial. Firstly, we will have the full committee report. We will learn whether the conclusion that Ms Sturgeon misled the inquiry is without caveat. Whether, in short, the majority on the committee are willing to state that she “knowingly” delivered a terminological inexactitude, to borrow from Churchill, or whether their criticism falls short of that.

READ MORE: Alex Salmond inquiry chair Linda Fabiani 'dismayed' by leaks to media

Again, the SNP insist she did not mislead Parliament, that she has answered every question honestly and at length, in the interests of full disclosure.

The committee report matters. This is very far from Nicola Sturgeon’s chosen political environment. But, to be blunt, their verdict is not entirely unexpected. In addition, we should look elsewhere.

Which brings us to other key verdicts. The Tories still have on the table at Holyrood a motion of no confidence in the First Minister. They are likely to pursue that next week and can expect support from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

How about the Greens? They have no member on the inquiry committee. Andy Wightman voted with the majority but he previously resigned from the Greens, complaining of internal intolerance in the transgender debate. The party dissents from that perspective.

The Greens voted against a no confidence motion in John Swinney, Ms Sturgeon’s deputy. They might do the same again. One, they feel the committee has departed from its core cause, driven by raw partisanship. Two, the Greens’ election strategy depends partly on persuading independence sympathisers to lend their Second Vote. Might be trickier if they are seen to turn on Nicola Sturgeon.

Then there is another report, being compiled by James Hamilton QC on the specific issue of whether Ms Sturgeon broke the Ministerial code. First appointed by Alex Salmond, Mr Hamilton is an Irish lawyer with a standing role in such matters.

He too is expected to report next week. If he finds Ms Sturgeon broke the code, then she would be expected to stand down. I very much doubt that, in such circumstances, she would rely upon the precedent set by the Home Secretary Priti Patel who was retained in office by Boris Johnson, despite an independent inquiry finding that she bullied Whitehall staff.

This is not a civil war in the SNP. This is more vicious and more visceral

Ms Sturgeon, I expect, would go. However, Team Sturgeon remain decidedly hopeful that she will not be found to have breached the code, and that she can advance towards yet another verdict, that of the Scottish people at those upcoming elections.

Tonight I am taking part in a virtual launch of plans to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Sir Walter Scott’s birth. Scott aptly reminded us “what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive”.

Nicola Sturgeon would readily concede that she is enmeshed in a notably tangled web. But she is adamant that she did not practise to deceive. The week ahead may contribute to a verdict upon that.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.