NICOLA Sturgeon has called on Ruth Davidson to listen less to "Alex Salmond and his cronies" as she stepped up criticism of her predecessor and mounted a blistering attack on David Davis today.

The First Minister also defended her most senior aide over claims the Tory MP made in the Commons on Tuesday night.

Davis, the former Brexit Secretary, told MPs on Tuesday evening that Sturgeon's chief of staff interfered in the investigation of sexual harassment complaints against her predecessor.

He made the allegation as he used parliamentary privilege to describe a February 2018 exchange of messages between the civil servant then investigating Salmond’s conduct and another official.

Davis said he had it “on good authority” that the exchange suggested Sturgeon’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd was “interfering in the complaints process”. “The investigating officer complained, ‘Liz interference v. bad’. I assume that that means very bad,” Davis said.

A spokesman for Sturgeon said on Tuesday evening that the message read out by Davis concerning the First Minister’s chief of staff did not relate to the two women who had made complaints against Salmond. “At that time, [Lloyd] was not aware that there was any connection to the former first minister,” the spokesman said.

At First Minister's Questions today Davidson took up some of Davis's claims.

During robust exchanges Sturgeon pointed to a statement made last night by a Salmond complainer who said Davis's claims that Lloyd had interfered in the investigation were "fundamentally untrue".

She then objected to Davidson's stance that she was speaking up for the women involved in the case.

"Ruth Davidson has stood up again and mouthed one of the conspiracy theories in terms of my chief of staff," said Sturgeon.

"We heard yesterday from a complainer who had asked for the help of my chief of staff say categorically that what was being suggested by David Davis was and I'm quoting here 'fundamentally untrue and deliberated misrepresented'."

She added: "Week after week Ruth Davidson stands up here and claims for her it is all about the women, well can I suggest to Ruth Davidson that if that is true it is about time she started listening a bit more to the women at the heart of this and a bit less to Alex Salmond and his cronies."

She continued: "Ruth Davidson and the Conservatives are not interested in the women, they are not interested in evidence. They are only interested in using this as a political tool because frankly they have nothing positive to put before the Scottish people."

A Holyrood inquiry is currently preparing a report into what went wrong in the Scottish Government's handling of the investigation into the complaints made against Salmond.

Under legal challenge from Salmond in 2019, the Scottish Government conceded its investigation into complaints against him from two female civil servants was unlawful because it was “procedurally unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias”.

The former first minister was later charged with sexual offences and was last year acquitted in the High Court in Edinburgh of all 13 of the charges against him.

During an appearance lasting nearly six hours before the committee last month, Salmond suggested messages he had been shown ahead of demonstrated that there had been “collusion of witnesses” and “construction of evidence” involving Sturgeon’s allies.

In his speech in parliament, Davis echoed Salmond’s claims, citing messages among SNP officials including Peter Murrell, who is the party chief executive and Sturgeon’s husband, that he said showed improper meddling in a police inquiry.

The spokesman for Sturgeon said every message involving SNP staff had already been seen by the parliamentary committee investigating the handling of the complaints against Salmond.

“As with Mr Salmond’s previous claims and cherry-picking of messages, the reality is very different to the picture being presented,” the spokesperson said.

Some analysts have questioned whether the messages are the smoking gun Salmond suggests, citing judge Lady Dorrian’s decision ahead of his trial that they should not be put before the jury.

“If there was compelling evidence of a conspiracy, why would a judge refuse to allow that to go in front of a criminal trial?” Andrew Tickell, lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, wrote last month in the Sunday National.

Asked yesterday if she had full confidence in her chief of staff, Sturgeon answered with one word: “Yes”.