LADY Dorrian has cleared the way for the Holyrood probe into the Scottish Government's botched handling of complaints against Alex Salmond to publish 'all key and relevant evidence,' the Spectator magazine has claimed. 

Last week, after the publication took legal action in a bid to seek clarity, the judge agreed to amend her contempt of court order preventing the naming of women involved in the former First Minister’s criminal trial. 

On Tuesday, in a 10-page decision, she said "the addition of a few words to the order" could help prevent any misinterpretation.

The words “as such complainers in those proceedings” would, she added, “serve to highlight the scope of the order whilst maintaining the necessary protection for complainers.”

Members of the Holyrood committee probing the government’s botched handling of harassment complaints are meeting tomorrow to discuss if this now means there’s no impediment to the Parliament publishing evidence submitted by the ex SNP leader or his former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein.

Salmond was due to appear last Tuesday but pulled out after MSPs voted against publishing his evidence, after Parliament's lawyers warned that it could risk identifying the women.

He has tied his appearance to attend to the publication of the dossier.

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 handling ultimately cost the taxpayer half a million pounds.

At a later criminal case, the former SNP leader was cleared on 13 counts of sexual assault.

After the Scottish Government conceded the judicial review, Nicola Sturgeon referred herself to the independent advisers on the Ministerial Code over claims she had broken strict rules when meeting with Salmond about the complaints.

James Hamilton, a former director of public prosecutions in Ireland, has been tasked with investigating the First Minister’s actions.

In his submission to Hamilton – most of which is already in the public domain after being published by Wings Over Scotland and The Spectator – Salmond made a number of allegations and said the First Minister had “repeatedly misled” MSPs about meetings between the two at Sturgeon’s home.

The SNP leader has always denied her predecessor’s claims.

In her published reasons, Lady Dorrian said: “In the present case, the prohibition in the order was designed to protect the identity of those who were complainers in the criminal proceedings in which the order was made, and to prevent the publication of information which might identify them as having been complainers in the case.

“I recognised that a reputable journal and responsible senior counsel have suggested otherwise, and that any slight risk of misinterpretation could readily be addressed by the addition of a few words to the order, which the Crown did not oppose.

“I did not consider that adding the words ‘in connection with these proceedings’ would achieve the stated aim: it seemed to me that these words ran the risk of actually creating confusion and of diminishing the protection of complainers.

“I considered that the addition of the words ‘as such complainers in those proceedings’ would serve to highlight the scope of the order whilst maintaining the necessary protection for complainers.

“I agreed therefore to vary the order to that extent.”

The Spectator welcomed the decision. In a statement, they said it confirmed that “the court had no intention of obstructing a legitimate parliamentary inquiry established to investigate government behaviour and hold it to account.”

The magazine added: “We believe there is no reason why all key and relevant evidence should not now be published.

“It is right, of course, that none of the complainers should be identified: this is a matter of basic decency as well as observing a court order. But both Parliament and the Press do have a duty to scrutinise evidence from all sides and to inform the public on issues of national importance.

"We respect the importance of striking the correct balance between the freedom to publish important information and providing anonymity for complainers.”

Last week, Andy Wightman, the independent MSP who sits on the committee was less convinced that Lady Dorian's variation would make any meaningful difference.

He tweeted: "Whether the variation affects the publication of material that might lead to jigsaw identification and the risks in so doing can only be answered in full once Lady Dorian has published her written reasons. But, on the face of it, it does not appear to make a material change."