Long before the notion was ever thought of, politicians existed within the "attention economy". It is, and always has been, most unfortunately, their ‘job’ to make us listen to them, and watch them.

That paradigm creates the angry, bitter, divisive, overblown engine which drives modern politics. To be heard, to be seen, politicians have always believed they must outrage, shock, scare, pander, mollify, woo: do anything necessary to make us pay attention to them. Sometimes they’ll play the hero, other times the victim. Most often, their true role is somewhere between narcissist and villain.

Cameras, headlines, press packs, rallies, photo shoots, these are all, to politicians, psychologically essential. Without it, they feel as if they don’t exist. I recently spoke to Ian Dommett, former director of Yes Scotland. Amid much criticism of the way the SNP handled the 2014 independence campaign, he said this: “Politicians can’t help jumping into the spotlight.”

Read more: Arrest: Good enough for Sturgeon? Then good enough for Johnson

Our former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has returned to the spotlight with quite a flourish of late, calling press conferences and protesting her innocence. She has every right to do so, but it is hard to escape the sense that this is entirely unnecessary.

Rather than keeping the flame under the cooking pot boiling at full tilt, surely a simple statement of innocence would suffice? Ms Sturgeon, however, says she felt compelled to call the press to her home and to Holyrood.

She said if she “had not called press conferences outside my house” and then at the Parliament, “it would not have been possible to go about my work”.

This needs some teasing out. Following the Leveson Inquiry into newspaper behaviour - a much-needed flushing of the Augean stables - the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) was set up to enforce the Editors’ Code of Practice. Clause Three Section One relates to harassment, and states journalists “must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit”. Section Two states journalists “must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them”.

There can, evidently, be exceptions in the public interest. However, in a story like the events surrounding Sturgeon and the SNP - which has effectively ceased to move in any discernible way since her arrest and release without charge - it would be hard to justify a public interest defence in "pursuing" the former First Minister should she simply put out a statement and then decline any further comment.

Rest assured all professional reporters and editors are deeply cautious about how they cover this story for fear of prejudice. Nor is IPSO slow to contact editors and warn them if there’s any perceived risk of harassment or intrusion in certain cases.

Ms Sturgeon could easily, if she wished, bring a firestorm down on the media if she made accusations of harassment.

Yes, she might get asked questions as she walks through the Parliament building, but that happens to all MSPs. They are public figures. If Ms Sturgeon doesn’t wish to be questioned, however, she could easily say "I’ve made my statement, I’ve nothing more to add. Please leave me alone. If you persist I’ll consider it harassment and act accordingly."

So, the notion that Ms Sturgeon "needs" to hold these press conferences doesn’t sound fully convincing. Though, clearly, she may legitimately feel otherwise.

Read more: SNP may be done, but independence is worth fighting for

Her claim that the events surrounding her aren’t a “distraction” for Humza Yousaf is harder to swallow however. Her recent press conference overshadowed his announcement about plans for a written Scottish constitution. Ms Sturgeon also pushed the vote of no confidence in Lorna Slater on to the second tier, for which the Green minister must be thankful.

Mr Yousaf has been forced to deny that he ordered SNP MSPs to back Ms Sturgeon or quit. He got caught up in the rather curdled tale of the party sending Ms Sturgeon flowers. Yousaf must also navigate the almost morally impossible terrain of explaining why the former FM allegedly ensured MP Michelle Thomson resigned the party whip after her name was linked to a police inquiry, while the same treatment is not meted out to MsvSturgeon. Ms Thomson was never a suspect, arrested or charged.

The sight of Ms Sturgeon arrayed before banks of mics doesn’t speak of a desire to avoid distraction.

There’s also something quite unpleasant developing amid this circus, something which smacks of "the ick factor". We’re starting to get a queasy, unasked for, glimpse into the Sturgeon-Murrell marriage. At her recent press conference, Ms Sturgeon refused to say if her husband was innocent, despite asserting her own innocence, as is her right.

Clearly, there’s no compulsion on couples to defend each other, but her position forces some questions into the public mind. It’s hard not to hear her comments and think "what would I do?" Would you go on television and defend yourself but not your partner? I had no desire to ponder this notion, but it’s impossible not to think "surely, if I held a press conference, I’d defend my wife as well as myself; surely if my wife held a press conference she’d defend me too? Either that or we’d both stay quiet."

Read more: SNP may be done, but independence is worth fighting for

Clearly, Ms Sturgeon is a lawyer by training and a politician by trade, so understandably may think very differently to ordinary members of the public.

However, it certainly feels unhealthy and unnecessary for Scotland to be made to almost peep through the net curtains of the Sturgeon-Murrell home.

Ms Sturgeon doesn’t need to stand down or resign as an MSP - though many evidently think she should. She remains at present an innocent woman. But what she does need to do - if she really cares as much about the SNP as she says she does - is to stay out of the spotlight. She is doing nobody any favours: not Mr Yousaf, not the party, and certainly not herself or her husband.

This entire saga may come to nothing in the end. If folk are innocent then perhaps the best strategy would be to state your case, let inquiries follow their course, and if/when it all blows over come out fighting. There are times when politicians really need to understand that thirsting for public attention is neither wise nor dignified.