THAT Alistair Carmichael is a hypocrite and a liar seems to be widely agreed.
Some might also think him an arrogant bully. In attempting to put the political boot into Nicola Sturgeon by presiding over the leak of privileged information he hoped would harm her image, he seems to me to have been guilty of cynical, vindictive and calculated abuse of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. By desperately now continuing to cling to his position as the only surviving Scottish Liberal Democrat MP, he appears to demonstrate not remorse but utter disregard for his wrongdoing, thus doing his party no favours at all.
His apology for what he euphemistically calls an error of judgment is largely worthless, since he has failed to apologise for what many of us consider the greater offence of subsequently lying about his involvement. The claim by some of his supporters that his dishonesty is no worse than that of many other elected politicians is a depressing prophecy of democratic despair.
Even so, I can't help but feel a wee bit sorry for the man. Following the 2010 General Election, his party prostituted themselves to the Tories in exchange for vicarious political power. Mr Carmichael's reward was to be elevated from relative obscurity to occupy first a middling Cabinet position and subsequently the senior and influential office of Secretary of State for Scotland. Through no particular merit of his own but just by being in the right place at the right time, he must have felt like a wee boy suddenly being allowed to sit up the front of the bus beside the driver.
Given the trappings and influence of high office, it takes an exceptionally strong and grounded character not to become intoxicated by an exaggerated sense of their own power in the scheme of things. Mr Carmichael can perhaps be forgiven for not having the strength of character to resist that hubris; how many of us would?
It can only be a matter of time before the shoogly peg holding his coat comes clattering off the wall. Meanwhile, I hope Mr Carmichael's mortification will be a salutary reminder to other who aspire to high political office.
Iain Stuart,
34 Oakbank Crescent, Perth.
WHAT difference a day makes, indeed. One day the Speaker of the House of Commons is reprimanding the SNP's 56 MPs for their enthusiastic support of their group leader Angus Robertson, then the very next day he is praising them for the spirit of solidarity shown that motivated such a large number from one party turning up at the same time ("Clapping and doughnuts for SNP's new 50", The Herald, May 29).
Interesting, but there is a serious point to this, in that the Speaker could certainly not address any such praise to the Government and main Opposition benches during an SNP-led debate on the current "safety provision at HM Navy Base Clyde" because there were so few present. This was appalling, considering it is the country's security provision that was on the agenda and bearing in mind that the Government and main Opposition are intent on renewing Trident. Their presence at such a vital debate should have been a foregone conclusion.
Catriona C Clark,
52 Hawthorn Drive,
Banknock, Falkirk.
ON the BBC panel commenting on the Queen's Speech proceedings, SNP MP Peter Wishart indicated that his party would prove to be the effective opposition in the new Parliament. His claim was haughtily dismissed by the Labour spokesperson Emma Lewell-Buck, who stressed Labour had considerably more MPs - quite true, but considerably feer than before.
More relevant is the presence of 56 out of a possible 59 seats of SNP representatives.
It does appear Ms Lewell-Buck does not acknowledge proportionality in any sense of the word. Labour may be the official opposition but the question as to an effective opposition may prove to lie within the considerably enhanced SNP ranks.
Allan C Steele,
22 Forres Avenue,
Giffnock.
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