'Two people have made complaints against former first minister Alex Salmond, who denies ever sexually harassing anyone. His successor, Nicola Sturgeon, said the complaints were made in January and were investigated through a process she had agreed to. She said the situation was "difficult for me to come to terms with" given her long history with Mr Salmond, but the claims "could not be ignored". Mr Salmond told BBC Scotland he was "no saint" and has "got flaws". He added: "I have made many mistakes in my life, political and personal. "But I have not sexually harassed anyone and I certainly have not been engaged in criminality." He also insisted that a new complaints procedure introduced by the Scottish government last year following wider concerns about harassment at Holyrood and Westminster was "unfair and unjust".' Very odd. The complaints apparently were made in January, but he wasn't told about it until March, at which time he told Sturgeon. He is suing the Scottish Government, because he feels that the process used to investigate the claims was illegal. This really is odd. I am no fan of Salmond, far from it, but I cannot believe he would have sexually harassed/assaulted anyone. There is some confusion in the reporting: The Daily Record says the allegations date back to December 2013, and that Mr Salmond has been reported to police over claims he sexually assaulted two staff members at the first minister's official residence at Bute House in Edinburgh. Is there a legal difference between 'harassed' and 'assaulted'? The two terms seem to be being used interchangeably in the reporting. There does seem to be a cooling of relations between the SNP and Salmond, no one is exactly rushing to his defence. The highlighted words are mine, there is a lot of C&P to avoid having to type too much.