AT the end of every superhero movie it is customary, once the enemy is vanquished, for the victors to take stock. Though the city has been left a smouldering pile of rubble, there is always time for a “Well done, everybody,” speech by the leader of the Lycra-clad saviours.
The sceptical viewer thinks, "What have they got to congratulate themselves about? That mess is going to take more than a couple of buckets of sand to fix."
For mangled Manhattan and a smug Captain America, substitute Holyrood and Nicola Sturgeon this week following the publication of two reports on her conduct during the Salmond saga. If that is success, First Minister, I would hate to see what failure looks like.
The Hamilton report, it is true, said Ms Sturgeon did not breach the ministerial code. But there was that memory lapse about a key meeting; there was scope for political criticism of the way the allegations against the former First Minister Alex Salmond were handled; and the claim that a complainer’s name was leaked by one of Ms Sturgeon’s staff was termed “credible”. Hardly the most glowing report card.
The second report, from a Scottish Parliament committee, was openly critical of the First Minister and officials for creating a fatally flawed complaints process, misleading parliament, obstructing and delaying the inquiry’s investigation, and wasting public money by carrying on with a legal battle that was clearly lost early on.
READ MORE: Case closed but damage done
That last error cost well in excess of half a million pounds of your money and mine. But let us not forget, as the committee’s report concluded: “This is not just about procedures or public money. It is about ensuring that, in the future, anyone complaining about sexual harassment is not let down in the way these women have been.”
Exactly. At the centre of all this should be the two women civil servants who originally brought forward complaints against Mr Salmond. From then until now they have been treated almost as an afterthought. Collateral damage in the many battles waged between parties and among former friends. That says a lot about the woeful conduct of the Scottish Government, and the goings on at the committee itself, with the final insult to the two women the leaking of their evidence to a Sunday newspaper.
The women’s evidence says even more. First is the matter of where it is positioned. It takes until page 133 of a 192-page report to reach the testimony of Ms A and Ms B. They were the last to give evidence, so chronologically speaking it was correct to have them just before the annexes, but as a metaphor it is unfortunate to say the least.
The evidence of Ms A and Ms B is also well worth exploring for what they have to say about the workings of a Government, and a civil service, in which the leading figures were, in the latter stages of events, women.
READ MORE: Verdict to trust most is that of Sturgeon's peers
It is ironic but true that the main mistakes took place on the watch of Ms Sturgeon as First Minister and Leslie Evans as the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, the nation’s most senior civil servant no less.
This could simply be one of those coincidences that history delights in. It is certainly something that has not merited much, if any, discussion, despite the hundreds of thousands of words expended on this saga.
As the committee says earlier on in its report, it was right for the Scottish Government to review its procedures in light of the #MeToo movement, and crucial to get the process right.
“These were the first complaints to be taken forward under this new procedure and they were significant in terms of the person being complained about. It was imperative that everything was done to make sure that the procedure was robust and fair and, just as importantly, seen to be robust and fair.”
Robust and fair – remember that.
Ms A and Ms B were highly critical of the culture that had been allowed to grow up and operate at the time of the alleged incidents. One said: “Leslie Evans, as permanent secretary, talked about the concept that what you permit, you promote. I have always thought that that is quite a nice encapsulation of this, and I think that it is a sad indictment of what happened at that time that such behaviour was permitted and a blind eye was turned to it.”
What you permit you promote – remember that.
READ MORE: David Leask - this is a disinformation event
As for what happened later, one witness said: “I was quite taken aback by the lack of contact and support from the Scottish Government after the conclusion of its process. We were given regular updates over the period of the judicial review, but after that we were basically just dropped.”
Dropped – remember that.
Now, it could just as well have been men at the head of Government and the civil service when these things happened. Moreover, women should never be blamed, or have to apologise for, the actions of men. But equally when they get things wrong they should accept responsibility.
Ms Sturgeon has indeed said sorry to the two women who came forward, and to the wider Scottish public, when she gave evidence to the Holyrood committee. Yet her contrition amounts to little in comparison to the way she has reacted to criticism in general. In parliament this week she accused opponents of trying to bully her out of office. How do you bully the head of a Government? Holding a Minister to account is not bullying.
Sometimes the best thing for a leader to do is own their mistakes and move on. Yet I do not think we are about to see that idea in action as the election campaign takes hold, which is a pity.
From the start of this business I have worried about its impact on girls and women thinking of coming into politics or seeking high office. Scottish politics has been left looking a gladiatorial arena in which only the strong survive, and where might ultimately poses as right, even when it is wrong.
For the record, I believe that Ms Sturgeon and Ms Evans acted with the best of intentions. But mistakes were made. Huge, costly, hurtful mistakes. Yet everyone keeps their job, their high salaries, and their gold-plated pensions. Whether it was women in charge, or men, that cannot be right or fair.
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