SCOTLAND enters campaigning for the May elections not focused on issues which matter – covid, the SNP’s record in government, the pros and cons of independence – but sullied by the Salmond-Sturgeon wars and a Holyrood inquiry which should have been about the protection of women and safeguarding democracy, but instead became a mire of sexism, conspiracy theory and disinformation.
It’s hard to escape the central absurdity of recent events: that a woman, Nicola Sturgeon, was positioned to carry the can for a man, Alex Salmond. Nevertheless, the MSPs' inquiry should have been about fairness and justice for both the women at the centre of events, and Salmond. It wasn’t. The inquiry presented the kind of politics Scotland says it rejects at Westminster – party before truth, and the casual and cruel politicisation of women who deserved much better.
The entire saga became a stage upon which everything that’s wrong with Scottish politics played out. There’s plenty amiss with the SNP – it’s been a disastrous administration in many respects - and a lot to criticise Sturgeon for as a leader. However, the Salmond affair allowed the worst forces in Scottish political life to coalesce against her.
Conspiracy theorists, the nastiest elements of the alt-nat movement, the rogue wing of the SNP, reactionary voices and entrenched social conservatives who want to roll back Sturgeon’s progressive agenda, the strange ‘free speech’ cabal – who really don’t care that much for free speech but just want to be able to spew hate – and old-fashioned misogynists, all saw a chance to finish off an enemy in power. Let’s not forget how some salivated at the thought of naming and wounding women at the centre of all this.
READ MORE NEIL MACKAY: The blame game
The politicisation, the weaponisation, of these events meant that rather than Scotland focusing on key issues like protecting women, and whether Sturgeon mislead parliament or broke ministerial rules, people retreated into partisan trenches, and saw what they wanted to see. This wasn’t an inquiry which served justice and democracy, it was a mock battleground between those who are pro-Sturgeon, and the odd alliance of hardline unionists who want to take out Sturgeon at all costs and the radicalised pro-Salmond wing of the SNP.
None of this was ever going to end well. Salmond was a former First Minister accused, then cleared, of serious offences. It was a unique event – no system was going to cope with the fall-out. What should have been prioritised was democratic accountability and women’s safety, not egos and political careers.
Instead, the MSPs' inquiry chased white rabbits – obsessing on the issue of whether Sturgeon had meetings when she said she did, or knew about allegations before she claims she did. This too smacked of absurdity. There were clearly issues to be investigated regarding the First Minister’s curiously faulty memory – but without motive it was all meaningless. As a result, the full truth will never be known.
The clear-sighted among the SNP’s supporters are also presented with an unpleasant, looming dilemma. It’s obvious there’s a faction within the party which will now attempt to oust Sturgeon no matter what. A progressive pro-Sturgeon voter could cast their ballot for the SNP in May and then some time later find themselves with a party that’s got rid of its leader and taken a very different tack.
It would be strange indeed to vote for Sturgeon’s vision of the SNP, only to find the party tilts in the direction of Salmond avatars such as Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill or Angus MacNeil, if she were dethroned. In a democracy, that’s dangerous. People need to know exactly what they’re voting for.
This all highlights a glaring hole in the middle of Scottish politics: who replaces Sturgeon once she gone, or perhaps one day pushed? There’s good people around her, but they don’t have the talent of a woman who’s clearly the best political communicator of her generation.
At the moment, though, Sturgeon is empowered. She can deal with her enemies at her leisure – and there’ll be plenty advising her to do just that. Evidently, this only stokes a second civil war, though.
Ironically, while her enemies – both internal and external – wanted to bring her low, they’ve now unwittingly given Sturgeon a temporary buff to her armour. The majority of the public have been broadly on her side throughout this saga – for many of the reasons above. Rightly or wrongly, the image is now: a decent woman who fought off unpleasant forces and deserves her victory at the ballot box.
Like it or not, that bodes well for the SNP come May. In the run up to this election, the party should have been on the rack over its abysmal record in government, and under intense pressure regarding its handling of covid. Instead, all eyes were on the civil war. Sturgeon’s enemies gambled and lost, clumsily providing her with an electoral shield.
The best that can be said for this sorry affair – although there’s nothing good to be said if you're one of the women at the centre of it all – is that Scotland has politically matured. Mature democracies are able to go through the mire and come out the other side. We’ve also been shown to hold ourselves to high account – unlike at Westminster or in America where bad behaviour in office (such as Priti Patel breaking ministerial rules, Boris Johnson illegally proroguing parliament, or Trump’s many acts of political vandalism) are simply shrugged off, thereby chipping away at the foundations of good governance.
READ MORE NEIL MACKAY: A national embarrassment
However, while we may hold ourselves to high account, we haven’t done it very well. The mechanics of democratic accountability in Holyrood aren’t fit for purpose, as the disgraceful leaking of information from the inquiry proves.
In the end, there’s nothing but a catalogue of failure to observe – with the human pain of women at the heart of it all. The SNP is clearly on course to win in May – despite being irretrievably split – and so we’ll soon find ourselves in the grip of another independence debate. Our future is in the hands of a party and a parliament which isn’t fit to lead let alone sculpt a new, better nation.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald
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