THE Faculty of Advocates has become concerned that the debate around the Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Government's handling of harassment complaints made against Alex Salmond could undermine confidence in Scotland's legal system.

Salmond has been critical of the Crown Office - the body responsible for prosecuting crimes in Scotland - describing them as "simply not fit for purpose".

This came after the former First Minister was due to appear before the Holyrood Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints on Wednesday but pulled out after a last-minute intervention from prosecutors saw the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) agree to delete sections of his submitted evidence.

He is now due to give evidence to the committee on Friday.

The decision to edit parts of Salmond’s testimony came after the Crown Office told the Parliament it had “grave concerns”.

It was briefly taken offline on Tuesday morning before being uploaded later in the day with five of the 33 passages redacted.

The Crown Office’s intervention was described as “unprecedented and highly irregular” by Salmond’s lawyers.

​READ MORE: Crown told to hand over Alex Salmond plot messages in another dramatic day at Holyrood

The Faculty of Advocates, the group that regulates those in the legal profession, has become concerned that the continued debate around the topic is "to the detriment of Scotland as a whole" and could lower public confidence in the judicial system and rule of law.

A Faculty spokesperson said: “The Faculty of Advocates is becoming increasingly concerned at the debate, both in the media and in parliament, in relation to the parliamentary committee into the investigation of harassment allegations.  The debate appears increasingly to be focussed on the courts and Crown Office.

 “The Faculty wishes to remind all concerned of the importance of maintaining confidence in the judicial system and in the rule of law. Maintaining that confidence requires, amongst other things, recognition of the importance of the independent role of the Lord Advocate, the independent role of the courts and, perhaps most importantly, the vital place of the verdicts of impartial juries in criminal proceedings.

 “No one in public life is beyond reproach, and healthy public debate surrounding the justice system is to be encouraged. However, when the public discourse fails to respect the basic tenets of the independence of the system, it is in danger of leading to irreparable harm. Such harm is something which might be to the detriment of Scotland as a whole in the long term.”

The National: EU debate Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood (Gordon Terris/The Herald)

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was forced to defend her credentials and reputation at Holyrood today as opposition parties focussed on the probe during FMQs.

Sturgeon, who is due to appear before the committee next Wednesday denied covering up the redaction of Salmond's evidence to the probe in response to a question from Scottish Tory group leader Ruth Davidson.

"It's not a cover-up. I expect to be fully questioned on all of these matters when I sit before that committee at long last on Wednesday of next week.

"Wednesday by my count will be the sixth date I have had in my diary to be before this committee, they've all been postponed ... I want to sit before that committee and I want to address all of these questions," she said, adding that scrutiny of her actions was legitimate.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon accuses Alex Salmond of putting ego first in pursuit of 'scorched earth policy'

She then added: "What is not legitimate is to pursue a conspiracy theory, a scorched earth policy that threatens the reputation and the integrity of Scotland's independent justice institution just because you happen to dislike the Government and to sacrifice all of that if I may say so Presiding Office on the altar of the ego of one man."

The cross-party harassment 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 former SNP leader was cleared on 13 counts of sexual assault.