I’d like to think that the Scottish Parliament attracts the biggest brains in the country. The cleverest, the most able, the most talented. Men and women with the clear and obvious ability and experience to represent the voters, challenge the Government, stand up for Parliament, and impress us with their charisma, talent, and skill. The best of us representing the rest of us. That’s what I’d like to think.

Instead, what do we get? We get the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints. We get (with three notable exceptions) a gathering of MSPs who, in this hearing at least, demonstrated the opposite of all the qualities I mentioned. The fact that Alex Salmond was appearing before the committee meant there was a chance, at last, to open up the body of the case and diagnose the disease, to forensically examine the entrails and ask the right questions. It was an opportunity for some light, and detail, and truth, and we needed the right people in the right place to make it happen.

I wish I could say we got them, but no: we got a group of MSPs (with, as I say, a few exceptions) who were unfocused and incoherent. Some of them appeared to have a poor grasp of detail, the purpose of the committee, and even the principles of Parliament. Even worse, most of them seemed to lack the basic qualities we should expect of every MSP: an ability to form a coherent sentence, to ask a relevant question, and to put their loyalties aside to focus on a non-party-political job. It really was a disgraceful and deeply unimpressive performance, made more obvious by the fact they were sitting in the same room as Alex Salmond.

Read more: Salmond inquiry shines light on problem at heart of Holyrood

Let’s go through some of the worst examples and you’ll see what I mean. First, the LibDem Alex Cole-Hamilton. The stated purpose of the committee is to investigate how the First Minister, her officials and her advisers handled the complaints about Alex Salmond, and yet Mr Cole-Hamilton asked about Mr Salmond’s behaviour and whether the former first minister wished to apologise. What on earth was Cole-Hamilton doing? Does he understand the purpose of the committee he sits on? The convenor had to remind him several times, but even then, he didn’t appear to get it. It was embarrassing.

Even worse was the SNP member Alasdair Allan. At one stage, Mr Salmond made the point that accusations aren’t necessarily true and brought up comments made by the civil service union the FDA. He said the FDA had accused the committee of scapegoating individuals and in effect, of bullying behaviour. “In the committee’s defence,” said Mr Salmond, “I haven’t seen that. I’m merely saying that, because something is said to you, it doesn’t make it true.”

It’s a reasonable point, and yet in one of the most staggeringly stupid moments of the hearing – and there were a few – Alasdair Allan accused Mr Salmond of “turning on” the committee. Was Mr Allan listening properly? Did he understand what Mr Salmond said? And why am I having to ask these questions of a member of a vitally important parliamentary committee?

Sadly, there was worse to come from Mr Allan. Charged with discovering the truth about the Government’s actions, he asked why Scotland’s Parliament shouldn’t be subject to the same court orders as everyone else. I have to say I couldn’t see Mr Salmond’s face when Mr Allan was talking, but I’d like to think the former first minister struggled to conceal his contempt because it was one of the most jaw-droppingly dumb moments of the hearing.

As it was, Mr Salmond said this: “There are good reasons for Parliament having privilege. Without it, some of the major scandals of the age would never have been revealed.” He also said MSPs had to accept the responsibility to be able to do things other people can’t. “The reason privilege is given,” he said, “is because this Parliament is to represent the people who are the ultimate authority.”

Read more: The secretive behaviour of the Ten Percenters

The fact Mr Allan was prepared to ask the question in the first place may explain why this wretched committee has appeared unable, or unwilling, to defend parliamentary privilege and unable, or unwilling, to obtain the evidence it needs. It may also reveal the fact that the SNP members appear to be more concerned with defending the Government than investigating it. Stuart McMillan, for example, asked Mr Salmond if he accepted that the Government conceded the judicial review on “one ground”. Is that really how Mr McMillan sees it? The judicial review was a catastrophic defeat and the committee, of which Mr McMillan is a member, was set up to get to the bottom of why it happened. And yet that was the line of questioning he chose.

Which leads us to Maureen Watt. Oh dear, oh dear. Her low point, in a thoroughly thin-lipped and unimpressive performance, was when she tried to challenge Mr Salmond over the Government’s policy on harassment complaints. Mediation or arbitration, she said, were totally unsuitable in a sexual harassment case, but Mr Salmond pointed out that mediation is in the policy as regards current ministers. “It cannot be thought totally unsuitable Ms Watt,” he said, “because it’s actually in the policy.”

It’s moments like that one, I think, that demonstrate how able Alex Salmond is as a politician and how useless many of his contemporaries are. I mentioned three exceptions and they were Andy Wightman, Murdo Fraser and Jackie Baillie, but I’m afraid even they couldn’t shore up my confidence. The hearing was an embarrassment, and a disgrace, and a depressing demonstration of the quality of some of the people Parliament is attracting.

Having said all that, I hope, still, that the committee will get to the truth of the matter in the end. But if it does, we can see now that it will not be because of the talents, or persistence, or intelligence, of its members. It will be because of the man who could have been prevented from giving evidence to them. It will be because of the man who appeared before them on Friday.

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