By Philip SimBBC Scotland political correspondent
Alex Salmond launching a fresh legal case against the Scottish government is the latest development in five years of political and personal controversy.
The former first minister is believed to be seeking damages and loss of earnings of £3m.
It relates to the botched handling of an investigation into harassment claims made against him.
Throw in a criminal trial in which Mr Salmond was cleared of sexual assault charges and you have a story that goes to the heart of how Scotland is run.
So, what is the background?
This runs all the way back to 2018. The Scottish government had just set up a new procedure for investigating harassment complaints against ministers and former ministers.
The very first use of it was for two internal complaints against Alex Salmond.
But he immediately complained that the process was unfair.
And before the outcome of the investigation was announced – which we now know was to uphold the complaints – he launched a judicial review in the courts.
That concluded with the government admitting defeat and that the application of the new process had been unlawful.
It had been “tainted with apparent bias”, because the official who carried out the investigation had had contact with the complainers prior to the probe.
The government had to apologise to Alex Salmond, and to the women who had made complaints.
It was a huge embarrassment, ultimately leading to a parliamentary inquiry – which dominated the run-up to the Holyrood election in 2021.
That came a separate criminal trial, which saw Alex Salmond cleared of charges of sexual assault – on the day the country went into lockdown in 2020.
The inquiry saw people like Mr Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon give hours of evidence, and laid bare the problems in the government’s attempts to defend the judicial review after legal advice was published.
Mr Salmond was very critical of people in Ms Sturgeon’s government and at the top of the SNP – he said there was a malicious plot against him – and he said his successor had misled parliament in what she had said about it all.
Ms Sturgeon denied that there was any conspiracy against Mr Salmond, and while the committee was critical of her she was ultimately cleared of breaking the ministerial code by her independent adviser.
Mr Salmond accepted the outcomes of the inquiries, but he has long talked of going back to court.
Now, he says he is suing for misfeasance – which means the wrongful exercise of lawful authority.
What is misfeasance, anyway?
It’s a civil law term which is basically a way for Alex Salmond to claim damages for injury to him.
In this case it’s not about physical injury, but how he feels he lost out due to his treatment by government officials.
His lawyer Gordon Dangerfield – known previously for representing former MSP Tommy Sheridan – says government officials acted “improperly, in bad faith and beyond their powers with the intention of injuring Mr Salmond”.
He says they decided at an early stage of the harassment investigation that he was guilty, and that in pursuit of proving this the situation “snowballed” into a whole range of other problems – all specifically aimed at “injuring” his client.
While the government did concede that its investigation was mishandled, ministers have never accepted this version of events. They have always described the failings in the probe as being more technical and bureaucratic.
Nicola Sturgeon told MSPs repeatedly that there was no grand plot against Mr Salmond, nor was there any evidence of one.
It’s that sort of evidence which her predecessor is aiming to be able to bring out via this case.
Hasn’t Alex Salmond already won a payout?
The government had already been ordered to pay Mr Salmond half a million pounds.
That was for legal costs incurred during the judicial review – the cost of hiring lawyers and going to court, despite the fact the case collapsed relatively quickly when the government gave in.
But very quickly after the inquiry there was a suggestion that he could sue for damages too.
Now that is in part a question of money – the Herald newspaper is talking about a claim of £3m for damages and lost income, his team say they don’t recognise that but that it would be “significant”.
But this is about a lot more than money. It’s about accountability.
Mr Salmond was very critical that nobody from the Scottish government took the fall for the botched investigation.
He had specifically called for the Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans – the top civil servant who had a big role in drawing up the complaints process, and who was singled out for criticism by the inquiry – to lose her job.
Rather, she had her contract extended, and left office in 2022. She is named in this legal action, as is Ms Sturgeon.
So there is clearly some unfinished business there for Mr Salmond.
He was also frustrated that he couldn’t put certain evidence on the record which he believed supported his position, because there were legal barriers. He talked about his submission being “censored” during the inquiry.
Those legal barriers still exist – which makes some of this quite difficult to talk about – but he seems determined to bring this to the fore again.
What happens next?
There has been an initial hearing at the Court of Session, essentially to lay the groundwork for a future case.
It seems likely there will be a case, because Humza Yousaf has pledged to defend the action “robustly”.
But we are a long way from it actually coming to court as it stands.
It’s been put on hold for now while a couple of other investigations take place – into complaints Alex Salmond has made about events around the original case, about leaks to the media and claims of perjury.
On the latter, the Crown says they are considering correspondence from Mr Salmond’s lawyers and are going to respond in due course. It’s understood the matter is being looked at by independent counsel.
That means it’s hard to say when this case might see the light of day again.
But Mr Salmond says that a “day of reckoning” is coming for the government.
What is the political impact?
Ultimately this litigation is a legal matter – it’ll be decided in court, where judges will weigh up the merits of the arguments.
But the people involved are politicians – and prominent ones – so there is a political impact too.
The last case, and the inquiry, was intensely difficult for the government – it threatened the position of Nicola Sturgeon as first minister.
Her successor Humza Yousaf can of course say it was all before his time, but a big court case like this is still the last thing his government needs.
It’s also interesting for Mr Salmond, whose new-ish Alba Party has been pushing for a “Scotland United” deal with the SNP.
The idea is to put the infighting behind them and unite the independence movement .
But if he is to resume his criticism of senior figures in the party and government – while chasing them through the courts – any hopes of a political rapprochement seem remote.
