The escalating row over the handling of the Alex Salmond affair had the columnists twitching on Sunday. Here is The Herald’s pick of the views.
Mail on Sunday
Ruth Davidson said that the SNP was "up to its neck in sleaze" over the Alex Salmond affair describing it as "disgusting, pathetic and immoral".
The leader of the Conservative Party in the Scottish Parliament accused Nicola Sturgeon of seeking "at every turn to frustate" efforts to find the truth over how the inquiry into the handling of the affair was botched.
A committee of MSPs is investigating the government's handling of two harassment claims against the former first minister, after he successfully challenged the complaints process in court.
Mr Salmond won a £500,000 expenses payout from the government after it admitted acting unlawfully through its botched investigation.
In January 2019, Mr Salmond was arrested and charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, including attempted rape. He was cleared of all 13 charges - all alleged to have happened while he was first minister - after a trial last March.
Ms Davidson talked of thousands of pounds being spent coaching civil servants over answers, ministers refusing to hand over evidence, and questions about "off-book" meetings and calls between Mr Salmond and the First Minister about the case.
But it was the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body's declaration that recent legal manoeuvres cleared the way for the release of Mr Salmond's testimony to the inquiry into the botched handling of complaints against him and the SNP's angry reaction to that, that drove Ms Davidson's latest column.
"The whole thing reeks of coverup and double-dealing," she wrote. "And at its black heart is the entire SNP leadership, culpable and responsible for failing women, tainting government and parliamentary processes, and a towering hubris that they simply don't have to answer for their own actions.
"The idea that the SPCB - an all-party panel of members charged with leaving their political allegiances at the door - is in some way acting irregularly by its straight appraisal of a court ruling is desperate and offensive. This isn't Sturgeon vs Salmond or the complainers vs the system. This is the SNP up to its neck in sleaze, throwing mud at anyone else it sees and using the women that they have already failed as a human shield.
"It is disgusting. It is pathetic. It is immoral. But from what we've seen already in this case, it is utterly true to form."
The Sunday Times
Political columnist Alex Massie argued that complainants in the fall out over dismissed sexual misconduct claims made against Alex Salmond have have become "pawns" and have been hit by a "toxic" political cross-fire.
Mr Massie wrote that opposition MSPs and Sturgeon loyalists alike have "every incentive" to use the women who made the complaints and the Scottish government's "failure" to do right by them as weapons in a "broader political struggle".
"For their part, however, the first minister and her allies seem happy to hide behind the women," he said. "They are to be used as human shields protecting Sturgeon against potential embarrassment. There are real issues surrounding the possibility of inadvertently publishing information that might lead to the complainers' identification, but there are also real reasons for demanding transparency. There is a clash of competing public interests, here. It is hard to banish the suspicion the government has used the women's rights to anonymity as means of parrying legitimate inquiry. Here, too, the women are only pawns.
"There is enough blame here for almost everyone to own a piece of it. The Scottish government failed the women who put their trust in it to investigate their complaints competently, and now they have been failed anew by the Scottish parliament, whose committee process is abundantly incapable of fulfilling its remit. More than that, however, they have been let down by a culture that is both vindictive and censorious. Amid everything else here, that is something which should not be forgotten."
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