SINCE Watergate, the grand-daddy of all political scandals, it has been commonplace to observe that the serious damage is often caused, not by the initial offence or row, but by subsequent attempts to minimise the damage.
To say that the scandal that attends the Salmond Inquiry is, in terms of its potential political fallout, just such an example is not to dismiss the importance of the original charges, but to point out that, after Mr Salmond’s victory over the Scottish Government in 2018, and almost a year after the courts then acquitted him in a criminal trial, the public has still to obtain answers to serious questions about the government’s handling of the matter.
The most recent ruling, by Lady Dorrian, may lead to the resubmission of Mr Salmond’s evidence to the committee next week, and increase the chances of the former first minister appearing before it, though we await the full details of the judgment. But despite the protestations of both parties that there would be full co-operation in bringing forward the details of how the initial investigation unfolded, there have been constant failures to clarify the most basic points of fact.
There has been testimony that many people – whatever the truth of the matter – have found it difficult to view as anything other than evasive, inadequate or hard to credit. If there are sound reasons for any of this, we’re unable to assess their validity, since the details have not been forthcoming. It is disingenuous to maintain that so much material must be redacted to maintain the anonymity of complainants, as Lady Dorrian’s ruling concedes.
Quite aside from the rights and wrongs of crucial questions about the Scottish Government’s handling of the complaints against Mr Salmond, and whether Nicola Sturgeon has breached the ministerial code, this whole saga has exposed problems that appear to be structural.
Though they may be most damaging to the SNP, and seized upon by the political opponents, the most important are not to do with internal party power struggles between allies of the current and former First Ministers.
With hindsight, it seems, at the very least, unwise of Ms Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, to have continued as the party’s chief executive while she served as party leader and First Minister. It is conceivable that there will be revelations that will embarrass the party further or lead to resignations. There is growing disquiet, even among supporters, about the worryingly authoritarian intolerance of dissent in their ranks, and aversion to scrutiny. But that is merely their look-out.
The relationship between the government and members of the civil service is an even more concerning issue; neutrality and transparency here are critical. We expect politicians to manoeuvre and engage in turf wars; we require public servants to operate impartially.
There must also now be doubts about the dual role of the Lord Advocate, simultaneously senior legal advisor to the government and head of the prosecution service, when he has refused to produce the legal advice that led to £500,000 of taxpayers’ money being wasted on the judicial review case that, by all accounts, was known to be hopeless.
The apparent inability of the Holyrood committee to compel ministers, civil servants and others to produce testimony is also a significant failing. It is not now clear that the parliament actually has the ability to do what, in any functioning democracy, should be its most basic task: holding the executive and the government to account. That is not a temporary embarrassment for the SNP or Ms Sturgeon. It is an indictment of systematic failings.
The SNP’s current electoral dominance is not a licence to act with impunity, but the problems this case exposes about transparency and public accountability are not confined to them alone. There are failings here that would potentially allow any party in government to operate without real checks; moves to rectify that are obviously in the public interest, no matter where your political allegiance lies. A shambles like this should never be permitted again.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel