ALEX Salmond could head back to Holyrood in just two weeks' time, after the committee investigating the government’s botched handling of harassment allegations made against him, agreed to extend their deadline.
They’ve now asked to hear the former First Minister’s testimony on February 9.
If he accepts, Nicola Sturgeon will then be expected to deliver her evidence to MSPs on February 16.
The cross-party committee is investigating the Scottish Government’s flawed probe into allegations of misconduct made against Salmond by two civil servants.
He had the exercise set aside in January 2019, with a judicial review declaring it “unlawful” and “tainted by bias”. The Government’s botched handling ultimately cost the taxpayer half a million pounds.
At a later criminal case the ex-SNP leader was found not guilty on 12 charges of sexual assault charges.
The invitation to Salmond from committee convenor Linda Fabiani follows weeks of terse negotiations.
He had at one point offered to appear on February 8, but Fabiani said this session - expected to have been the last for taking evidence - was being saved for Nicola Sturgeon “as this inquiry is about holding the Scottish Government to account".
Earlier this month she told him that if he was not available on February 2 or any alternative dates that week - then the “committee regrets that it will not be able to take oral evidence from you”.
He then wrote to the Committee on Tuesday, offering to meet on "any day, at any time" on the week beginning February 8.
According to the Herald, SNP members on the committee were keen to stick to the original deadline, and so exclude Salmond’s evidence.
However the opposition majority took the “pragmatic” decision to wait another few days.
Salmond’s lawyer has previously criticised the committee for proceeding “in the absence of critical and material evidence which exists, our client has seen and is all recoverable by you.”
He’s even warned that his client will not be able to tell the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as the Lord Advocate has warned that he could be committing an offence if he mentions "key material from both the civil case and the criminal case".
Last week in an unprecedented move, the committee issued a notice to the Crown Office demanding a number of documents.
The committee has asked for text or WhatsApp communications between SNP chief operating officer Susan Ruddick and Scottish Government ministers, civil servants or special advisers from between August 2018 and January 2019, that may be relevant to the inquiry.
It also wants to see any documents linked to the leaking of complaints to the Daily Record newspaper in August 2018.
One of the key lines of inquiry for the committee is over when Nicola Sturgeon first knew of the sexual misconduct complaints against her predecessor.
She initially told parliament that it was only when she and Salmond met at her home on April 2, 2018, but it later emerged she discussed the allegations with his former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein, in her Holyrood office four days earlier.
In her written evidence she said she “forgot” about the encounter with Aberdein
However, Salmond has accused his successor of repeatedly misleading the inquiry and the parliament, breaching the ministerial code.
Sturgeon has vehemently denied misleading parliament and has accused her former mentor of spreading conspiracy theories to distract from his own shortcomings.
Asked about Salmond's claims on BBC's Marr Show last Sunday, she said: "I don't accept that and I will refute that vigorously."
She added: "I will sit before that committee and I will set out my account of what happened, given the very difficult situation that I faced, and people can make their own judgments on that."
Asked if Salmond was "spinning false conspiracy theories", Sturgeon said: "What I certainly reflect on is that at times I appear to be simultaneously accused of colluding with Mr Salmond to somehow cover up accusations of sexual harassment on the one hand.
"And then on the other hand, being part of some dastardly conspiracy to bring him down.
"Neither of those are true."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here