It is clear that the SNP's remarkable performance in the general election campaign had the major parties rattled, and long before any results confirmed the party's new political dominance.
That is no doubt why then Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael agreed to the release of the now notorious 'Nikileaks' memo, which suggested Nicola Sturgeon had told French ambassador Sylvie Bermann that she would prefer David Cameron to win the general election.
That decision has left his reputation badly damaged, perhaps irreparably so.
The story - untrue - was published by the Daily Telegraph without seeking a response from the SNP leader and quickly collapsed as Ms Bermann denied such a discussion had been part of her conversation with Ms Sturgeon.
The memo was a second hand account by a civil servant who was already warning about its plausibility. But for a Liberal Democrat MP whose party faced wipe-out in the SNP surge, the chance to undermine a rival party's leader may have appeared irresistible.
That in no way justifies Mr Carmichael's actions, which have now left him facing calls for his resignation after he admitted sanctioning the leak.
His position is almost impossible to defend. Bad enough was his initial public indifference to the memo's publication. "This is the middle of an election campaign. These things happen," he said last month.
That attitude was already the definition of an old-style politics voters are deeply sick of, and they arguably gave their verdict on that cynical view at the polls. (Ms Sturgeon's reaction at the time was "elections should be a battle of positive ideas and that's how I'll continue to campaign.")
But now it emerges that Mr Carmichael phrasing was disingenuously passive. This 'thing' happened only because he sanctioned it. He has admitted authorising the action - in the face of a Cabinet Office investigation which identified his special advisor as the source of the leak he could hardly deny it.
This story of deceit throws a different light on suggestions that somehow SNP MPs cannot be trusted to sit on the UK Intelligence and Security Committee in case they abuse confidential information. Can the trustworthiness of their fellow MPs stand up to the same scrutiny?
For Mr Carmichael isn't merely guilty of electoral cynicism. His suggestion that he had not seen the memo but had been aware of its contents was already perilously close to deceit.
But his appearance on Channel 4 news, when he stated that he had only become aware of the issue when a journalist phoned him about it, is impossible to reconcile with his statement yesterday. It was a clear lie.
Mr Carmichael accepts that he would have to have resigned if he were still a government minister. In some ways he is fortunate he is no longer in that position. Can he remain as an MP? The margin by which he was reelected was just 817 votes and had his actions been exposed before the election it is questionable whether that result may have been achieved.
Meanwhile had the Liberal Democrats and their Conservative partners delivered their 2010 pledge to allow constituents to force an election if their MP were guilty of wrongdoing, Mr Carmichael would almost certainly now be facing such a recall.
Mr Carmichael says he believed at the time that sharing the information in the memo was in the public interest. It is now in the public interest for him to consider his own position.
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