WHEN the SNP won a majority in 2011, Alex Salmond and his colleagues had an unprecedented opportunity to unveil a radical domestic agenda.
The former First Minister could have made education his top priority and ushered in changes that would have helped closed the attainment gap. He could have led the way in reforming the NHS and taking on vested interests.
However, other than giving voters a historic choice on independence, the majority was squandered on two awful pieces of legislation.
One was the The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, which abolished the legacy police forces and replaced them with Police Scotland.
Given the controversies on stop and search and the illegal spying scandal, as well as the M9 tragedy, it is difficult to argue that Act has been anything other than a disaster.
The second low point was the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act, which clamped down on "offensive behaviour at regulated football matches".
The legislation not only unfairly stigmatised many football fans, but it was a textbook example of a Government rushing to the statute book in response to short term panic.
Salmond and his Justice Secretary, Kenny Macaskill, could have responded to an ill-tempered Old Firm match with a cool head, but instead they responded with a bad law.
The Government was warned from the start by lawyers, fans’ groups and politicians that existing legislation was sufficient
Our story today confirms these predictions. Of the outstanding charges at the time of repeal, over half have since been converted into different statutory offences. Put simply, existing law could already capture the behaviour that was deemed criminal.
The end result is a six-year farce that wasted the time of MSPs, police, prosecutors and the courts. There is no denying that sectarianism in football is a major problem, and that it needs to be tackled – but this law was not the way to do it. The police should be pursuing real criminals, not teenagers singing daft songs.
Salmond had a golden opportunity to change Scotland for the better, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion his majority could have been put to better use.
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 here