In the increasingly acrimonious, or to speak plainly, vicious battle between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, there may be little that is not hotly disputed. There is, however, one point that is now uncontestable: that this has become the greatest scandal of the devolutionary era.
To say so isn’t to make any judgment about the rights and wrongs of this issue. Indeed, the reluctance of both camps to make information available is the very thing that makes it makes it difficult for anyone to make judgments. But the magnitude of the row, and the extraordinary spectacle of two successive First Ministers and leaders of the SNP now openly calling each other liars, is certainly without precedent.
IT is a crisis that matters not just to the two combatants, nor to internal turf wars within the SNP, nor even to the clash between opposition parties and government, but to the ability of the Scottish Parliament to hold the Government up to scrutiny.
And by extension, since Holyrood and its committees are supposed to do so in the public interest, to the people of Scotland, justice, ministerial accountability and the truth. The scandal lies as much in the fact that the apparatus and procedures designed to ensure that have failed as it does in the (increasingly wild) allegations from both camps.
Indeed, the central question for the credibility of Scotland’s governance is not now what the two inquiries were designed to elicit – whether the Government mishandled the allegations against Mr Salmond, why it pursued the judicial review case at great cost when it was advised it would lose, and whether Ms Sturgeon misled the parliament. It is whether parliament’s inability, so far, to do so is caused by some structural imbalance in the devolutionary set-up.
If the executive is able to ignore direct instructions given to it by the parliament, that is a significant flaw in the system of checks and balances and an obvious danger to democratic norms. That is true whether or not the Government has done anything improper in this instance. And if there are good reasons for, for example, failing to produce evidence requested, there has to be transparency in offering some way of ensuring they are justified.
There are clear failings there. Even those who maintain that refusing to produce material demanded by the committee, or the redaction of evidence already published both in the media and by the parliament itself, are required in order to comply with the legal process would have to acknowledge that as an impediment to parliament’s ability – and duty – to do its job.
The ambiguous position of the Crown Office, expected to offer impartial advice, but ultimately answering to the First Minister, may be problematic, or at least appear so – again, a claim that can be made without making a judgment on its conduct in this particular instance. The absence of a secondary chamber to supervise the integrity of legislation and block executive overreach means that, if the parliament is frustrated in performing this role by ministers, there seems to be no redress.
That should be acknowledged, even if, as the First Minister increasingly implausibly maintains, there’s nothing to see here. You don’t have to believe in a conspiracy, or even to think she has been, at the least, evasive, to identify a serious problem. The one thing that can clearly be seen here is that too much of what the Government does can remain unseen, not just by the media and the public, but even by those in parliament whose whole purpose is to ensure it is held to account. That remains shiningly clear, and would be even if ministers had never put a foot out of line.
It would be dangerous to rush through changes to devolution without careful consideration: the likely outcome would be similar structural flaws. But if it is not to give the appearance that abuses and corruption are possible – whether there have actually been any or not – the parliament must take a long hard look at how to prevent a mess like this ever recurring.
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