NOBODY could describe Oliver Mundell’s ejection from the Holyrood chamber on Wednesday as explosive or entertaining, but it was at least mildly interesting: the highest of compliments when it comes to the Mundells.
After the Scottish Government refused to hand over legal papers to the committee looking at its handling of the botched investigation into harassment complaints against Alex Salmond, Mundell point-of-ordered the hell out of it and accused Nicola Sturgeon of lying to Parliament.
Both Holyrood and Westminster take a zero-tolerance approach to members accusing their colleagues of lying. There are few things that are certain to get you chucked out but that VERY BAD WORD is one of them. It’s about standards. Politicians have to treat each other with respect. If you want to get on the Sambuca before a key vote or scream abuse at your opponents while they are speaking, that is your prerogative. But you do not and impugn the good character of an elected member.
READ MORE: FMQs Sketch: Downbeat debate amid some dodgy Tory dealings
Mundell was oh-so-very sorry that he could not do as Zen Ken Macintosh asked and withdraw the Bad Word. Zen Ken, in turn, was ever so sorry he had to ask him to – if it wasn’t too much trouble – please leave the chamber.
Woah guys. Steady on. There’s a deadly virus on the loose, this is not the time for a brawl.
While Mundell might have gently dipped his toe in the shark-infested waters that surround the committee investigation, Ruth Davidson used FMQs yesterday to jump right in, saying the First Minister had said the committee “will be able to request whatever material they want and I undertake we will provide whatever material they request”. “The inquiry has requested material, the Government has rejected it: what has made the First Minister break her word?” Davidson asked.
Nicola Sturgeon replied that she takes these matters very seriously and that Davidson hadn’t given an “accurate characterisation” of the situation. She insisted the only material that hadn’t been provided was where there were legal reasons preventing its release.
The First Minister said: “There has been more than 1000 pages of material made available by the Government. Government officials have given more than 10 hours of oral evidence so far … I have recused myself from decision-making over the Scottish Government’s submissions … and the reason for that is very simple – part of the remit of this committee is looking at my conduct.
“And I think it would be wrong if I was the minister taking the decisions about the content of Scottish Government submissions.”
She went on to say she had submitted “substantive” written evidence more than two months ago, which has not been published, adding: “It’s a bit galling to hear, so often from members of the committee from the Conservative benches, somehow saying I’m not answering questions.”
Davidson sprang up from her seat: “I know that the Nicola Sturgeon who is First Minister likes to pretend that she’s not the Nicola Sturgeon that is leader of the SNP but I’m struggling to believe that the Nicola Sturgeon who committed to this chamber to give the inquiry whatever material it requested, from her Government 18 months ago, is NOT the same Nicola Sturgeon who stands here saying I’ve recused myself and it’s nothing to do with me, gov!”
READ MORE: FMQs Sketch: Rapid testing is the least of Richard Leonard's problems
These exchanges are nothing to do with me gov and I’m not either or any of the Nicola Sturgeons that Ruth Davidson refers to – can I recuse myself from FMQs?
At this point Davidson was so enthralled with her performance that she started doing that thumb-hiding jab that politicians love so much. Her backbenchers were enjoying the rammy too, showing signs of excitement usually reserved for when Boris takes a rare trip north. She could release the materials with a CLICK OF HER FINGERS said Davidson: “So why won’t she?”
Sturgeon said she would appear before the committee any time, anywhere. Davidson then brought up WhatsApp messages purportedly sent by SNP chief executive, Peter Murrell. “Are these messages genuine or not?” she asked.
“The obtaining of these messages is currently a matter, as I understand it, of a police investigation,” Sturgeon replied.
Davidson hit back by talking about “the shabby abuse of power this affair has revealed” before listing a series of instances where she says the Scottish Government has failed in its promise to co-operate with the committee.
It’s been a long time since the FM has looked so uncomfortable at FMQs. A feeling anybody who tunes in regularly can surely relate to.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel