Team Sturgeon breathes a sigh of relief

A collective sigh of relief went around Nicola Sturgeon's team after she finished eight hours of questioning by MSPs.

The conclusion among Team Sturgeon was that there were no real punches landed; nothing which would be highly damaging - even fatal - for the first minister's position.

That was the message from the Scottish Government ministers despatched on Thursday morning to make the first minister's case.

Constitutional Affairs minister Mike Russell praised the first minister's resilience on BBC radio, arguing Ms Sturgeon was honest about the mistakes made but clear that she would learn from them.

Mr Russell said Scots were in awe of her performance. Even the first minister's critics accepted she put in a good shift.

The ship, it is thought, has been steadied a bit. A vote of no confidence in the first minister won't pass at this stage - several people around Holyrood think the Scottish Tories moved too early.

But in the words of a senior ally of Ms Sturgeon: "I'm not under any illusion the story is going to go away - it's not."

Opposition parties are still asking questions - and want more answers.

Firstly, over Ms Sturgeon's meetings with Alex Salmond.

The first minister previously said she forgot a meeting in Holyrood on 29 March 2018, where it is claimed she was first told about allegations against Mr Salmond. At that meeting, a private discussion with Mr Salmond was planned for a few days later at Ms Sturgeon's home.

But Ms Sturgeon originally told parliament she had found out about the allegations at the latter meeting - on the 2 April. There is still an allegation on the table that Ms Sturgeon broke the ministerial code by not revealing the first meeting earlier.

It also matters because if 2 April was government business - ie to discuss a government investigation - why did Ms Sturgeon not report it to senior civil servants?

Ms Sturgeon says she didn't want to compromise the investigation being carried out by the government, but others believe there are still holes in the story.

Why, opposition sources ask, did Ms Sturgeon not report her further private meetings with Mr Salmond when it was clear he was asking her about government business?

There's also the question of whether the name of a complainant was revealed by a Scottish government official.

Ms Sturgeon doesn't think it was.

She says Mr Salmond knew one of the names because he had previously apologised for his actions and found the other through looking at social media. But Mr Salmond's account of this is different - and appears to be backed up by others.

In the coming hours and days, you can expect to see more legal advice given to the Scottish government. Will it show anything new?

The committee continues to pore over messages between senior SNP figures, which Mr Salmond believes show there was a plot to "get" him.

So far, there doesn't appear to be a smoking gun, but Mr Salmond is adamant there is something there. Ms Sturgeon has said the idea is absurd.

Mr Salmond has also sent supporting documents to the committee. Who would rule out hearing more from him in the coming days?

A lot in this case comes down to whom you believe - and your interpretation of complicated events. It isn't black and white.

There will, however, have to be some sort of finality to all of this before the election on 6 May.

The committee still intends to publish a full report on its long, complex inquiry before the Scottish parliament breaks up for the election.

The chances of a unanimous report seem pretty slim, but what will be said about the first minister's decisions?

Most crucial, however, will be the report from Ms Sturgeon's independent adviser on the ministerial code.

James Hamilton QC is continuing to speak to witnesses this week, but there's an expectation he too will deliver his conclusions this month.

This is likely to be the big moment where we get as close to a conclusion as possible.

Ms Sturgeon talked about the Hamilton conclusions several times during her evidence.

Senior figures in government believe that while the committee can be accused of having political motivations - Mr Hamilton can't and in that sense his conclusions can't be challenged.

When will that report come? Nobody really seems to know for sure.