THERE are lots of layers to the Alex Salmond affair and, like Ralph Fiennes in The Dig, we’re trying to work our way through them. Right at the top, on the first layer, is the original case against the former First Minister, and his acquittal. But underneath that is the falling-out between Salmond and Sturgeon – former friends and comrades – and underneath that is Salmond’s claims of a conspiracy against him, and underneath that, even deeper, is what the First Minister did or did not know, and when. We are still digging.

It was particularly gratifying to see that one of the layers exposed by Mr Salmond’s submission was what we should probably call The Scottish Problem because it’s a problem of devolution. Mr Salmond said it was “perhaps the most serious issue of all”. There’s been a breakdown, he claimed, of the barriers between government, party, and prosecutors. He also said the committee’s success or failure would affect public confidence in the ability of Holyrood to expose government failures.

READ MORE MARK SMITH: Civil war in the SNP won’t damage the cause of independence 

In a way, I was a bit surprised that Mr Salmond chose to make this one of his points because, like many nationalists, he himself has been guilty of seeing government and party and country as one and the same. The Scottish Government is still at it with slogans like “We Are Scotland” (who’s “we”?) but the problem was encouraged by the rhetoric of Mr Salmond. So, in some ways, it’s a bit rich of him to complain about a lack of separation now.

But we also know that the problem is built into Holyrood, and that it’s been made worse by the domination of one party. On the point about a lack of separation between government and the prosecution authorities, Mr Salmond acknowledged the issue years ago as First Minister when he decided the Lord Advocate would no longer attend cabinet meetings. It was an attempt to keep him or her distanced from political discussions, but it wasn’t enough.

The Herald: James WolffeJames Wolffe

The problem may be systemic, rather than individual. The Lord Advocate himself, James Wolffe, is hugely experienced, but he’s in a strange and conflicted job and, I have to say, when I met him, I got the impression he was not obviously well suited to such a high profile role. He struck me as shy and awkward although I was impressed by what he told me about his commitment to the rule of law. I believe and hope he will have proceeded this week from what he thought was legally right.

The impression it creates, though, is horrendous: a member of the government appearing to intervene to edit evidence relating to the actions and honesty of that government. I would have thought the obvious solution, when we get out of this, is to split the Lord Advocate’s job, and have a separate director of prosecutions, like they do in England and Wales (although as that would involve taking the lead from Westminster, I wouldn’t hold your breath).

READ MORE MARK SMITH: Uncomfortable truths exposed by Salmond inquiry

But it goes much deeper, doesn’t it? Mr Salmond questioned the ability of Holyrood to scrutinise the executive and you only have to look at the mostly pathetic committee system to see he’s right. Perhaps the convenors could be elected, as they are at Westminster, but really it comes down to nationalist MSPs being more independent and robust rather than protective of the party line.

Perhaps at this point I should quote the SNP’s own John Mason. Speaking about the committee problem, Mr Mason said the answer lay with MSPs, and particularly SNP ones. “There needs to be a realisation,” he said, “amongst backbench members in the same party as the government that part of their role is to scrutinise legislation and policy and hold the government to account.”

All I would say to that is: I agree with John. But the problem is it requires something which Mr Salmond called for in his submission: a separation between government, party, and parliament. It would also require separation at an even deeper level. The SNP, and parliament, and government, and Nicola Sturgeon, and Scotland, and the electorate, are all different things. But can nationalists get their heads round that?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.