PERHAPS it says something about Scotland and education but it is strange that two of the three formal motions of no confidence debated by the Scottish Parliament since its inception have been about the Scottish Qualifications Authority and exams.

Motions of no confidence are mercifully rare, not least because they are pretty horrible events. The minister suffers greatly because of the pressure which is unremitting from the moment a crisis starts, and too many politicians see the whole thing as an opportunity to kick an opponent whilst he or she is down.

By some mischance I have had to speak in both these debates and during them I have tried to suggest that there needs to be objective tests to measure alleged ministerial failure. They exist in almost every other job or profession, but not in politics which is destructively subjective and too often about making the best of intentions seem like the worst of motives.

I suggested three such tests 20 years ago in the first debate and proposed two more on Thursday. Not only do these tests completely exonerate John Swinney, dealing as they do with failures in policy, errors in management and refusals to take responsibility, but they would also allow us to avoid these unpleasant political set-pieces if we applied them impartially.

READ MORE: Michael Russell slaps down Michael Gove over ferry mismanagement claims

Moreover we can calibrate them by reference to actual events and people – in the case of management failures, to Lord Carrington when he resigned as foreign secretary during the Falklands crisis. In the matter of policy, to the refusal of Michael Howard to resign as home secretary over prison escapes – and in the case of responsibility, to Peter Mandelson who had to resign twice.

The “Swinney Test” – a new one since 2000 – relates to the speed and nature of the ministerial reaction. John also passed this one with flying colours, because within a week he had set the matter right. Moreover his accompanying and complete apology appears to have been graciously and enthusiastically accepted by those who had been wronged.

The fifth test is however the one most relevant for today’s and tomorrow’s Scotland.

On Tuesday night the Rev Neil Glover, the minister of Aberfeldy, tweeted this: “I want John Swinney to stay. Otherwise it’s a culture where if you lie and deny, you can stay, if you admit and address you must go.”

That tweet is, for me, the best comment I had heard not just on what was happening to John but what was in danger of happening to our parliament.

Angela Constance observed in her speech on Thursday that the biggest critic of John Swinney this week would have been John Swinney himself.

John is a thoroughly decent man. He knew that what had happened was wrong, he knew that he had the responsibility for the error and he knew that he alone had to sort it out. He did so not just in the Parliament but personally to some of those affected.

Leadership isn’t about mystical powers that make you right all the time. Still less is it about insisting on your own way even when you know you are going in the wrong way.

It is about showing by example and action that you have both the courage to step forward and the wisdom to step back. It is about listening to advice before judging the best things to do and correcting the worst things even at significant personal cost.

READ MORE: Michael Russell: Jackson Carlaw’s demise a sign of Scottish Tory death throes

As politicians we are all guilty of stridently playing to our galleries, bigging up our virtues and glossing over our faults. But we must also aspire to something better, kinder and more productive.

The “Glover Test” is about that process and John passed it too.

Both SQA motions of no confidence raised key issues about the exam system, some of which we still need to heed. But this one also raised deep questions about what we want from our politics and how politicians should serve Scotland and her people.

This week we saw a good man stand up to admit to error and work like a Trojan to get that error corrected.

That is what we should want in our leaders. Indeed we should demand it of them.

All those who fell short of it on Thursday – those who were consumed by bitterness, those who desperately claimed good motives as cover for bad actions and those who smeared – should learn that lesson.

Judging objectively whilst recognising our own faults would not only make us better politicians, it would make Scotland’s collective politics so much better too.