STEWART Maxwell, the SNP West Scotland MSP, was hauled into the headmistress's office for a ticking off this week.
His crime? Attempting to shout down Ken Macintosh when the Labour MSP called on Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick to address what he described as the "obsequiousness" of SNP MSPs serving on parliamentary committees. Mr Macintosh's point of order at the end of First Minister's Question was greeted with howls of indignation from the Nationalist benches. Any number of MSPs could have found themselves outside Ms Marwick's door: Mr Maxwell was singled out because he had the decency to confess.
As the spat showed, feelings are running high about claims SNP MSPs are using their control of parliament's committees to shield the Scottish Government from criticism or embarrassment. In other words, that they are failing in their parliamentary duty to hold ministers to account.
The row blew up after The Herald revealed last Saturday that the Public Audit Committee had failed to agree a report on the troubled launch of Police Scotland. Four opposition MSPs produced a minority report claiming the official version, voted through by the five SNP committee members, failed to reflect criticisms of the government aired during six months of evidence-taking. Labour's Hugh Henry, the committee convener, said other committees - which are all dominated by the SNP - had been similarly undermined. He accused SNP MSPs of belonging to a "cult of obedience and slavishness" to their party leadership.
Other complaints have emerged. SNP MSPs were accused of trying to suppress a public petition calling for independence referendums for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, while the finance committee, it was claimed, withdrew an invitation to an expert witness after he produced a written submission unhelpful to Alex Salmond's case for independence. The complaints have prompted the question: is Holyrood broken and, if so, how could it be fixed?
At this point it's important to stress that SNP MSPs reject the notion that anything is amiss. A party spokeswoman dismissed the complaints as "partisan attacks" and said votes in committees produced a "democratic decision". Yet there is mounting evidence that, as the referendum draws near, the workings of parliament have become more highly politicised than ever. At First Minister's Questions SNP backbenchers now line up to ask not about issues in their constituencies but the benefits of independence. A "topical question" this week related to the actions of Labour ministers in the 1970s.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that in the past MSPs have stood completely aloof from party politicking. They have always faced a tricky task juggling dual roles as parliamentarians and party politicians. But the opposition parties believe the balance has tipped so far in recent months that proper oversight of the government is being lost.
The concerns have been growing for a while. Last year I reported on claims by Mr Henry and others that SNP backbenchers were using their committee majorities to block inquiries which might prove embarrassing for the government. The story - which, at first glance, might appear to be just so much Holyrood bubble chatter - failed to catch fire. But last December the Presiding Officer told The Herald she wanted to see committee conveners elected directly by the whole parliament rather than selected by party chiefs, in bid to reinforce their role scrutinising the work of government. The idea - which this newspaper welcomed - was roundly dismissed by Mr Henry. He claimed the SNP would simply install its favoured candidates so nothing would change.
LibDem MSP Tavish Scott, also on the audit committee, made another suggestion this week, calling for party whips to be banned from sitting on committees. The truth is, however, that while both proposals would improve a system that was already running well, neither could prevent abuse. If Holyrood is broken there is no quick fix. And that leaves MSPs like Hugh Henry with little option but to vent their frustrations in public and let people decide for themselves whether they have a case or, as the SNP insists, just a bag full of sour grapes.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article