SCOTLAND never looks more bonny than when she is decorated with glittering snow. The last year has been like an endless snow day anyway, but now we actually have the good stuff to play in.
It brings a sense of calm too. There are fewer cars on the roads and the streets are quieter: their usual noises muffled by winter’s frosty blanket. It’s been just the tonic to see so many families out sledging and building snowmen. We needed something new to shake off the lockdown blues and mother nature played a blinder.
I expect MSPs who had to attend Holyrood for FMQs wished the usual session could have been replaced with a snowball fight.
You just know that Willie Rennie has an array of brightly coloured toboggans lined up in his hall standing ready for weather like this. Murdo Fraser is definitely a Waitrose bag over a baking tray kind of guy.
While the rest of us were out having fun, the mood in the chamber was sombre during the opening exchanges. Ruth Davidson asked the First Minister about the ongoing committee inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of complaints against former First Minister Alex Salmond.
She said: “SNP chief executive Peter Murrell may have committed perjury by changing his story, under oath, to a committee inquiry of this parliament. But he has been very clear about one thing: Nicola Sturgeon didn’t discuss the Alex Salmond meetings with him as her party chief executive.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon hits out at Union Unit for saying knowledge of Scotland isn't needed
“It’s just about the only thing he has given a straight answer on. He was certain that the meetings were government business. Did Peter Murrell tell the truth under oath?”
The First Minister replied that he did tell the truth, adding: “Of course, he’s perfectly capable of standing up for himself, he doesn’t need me to do it.”
Ruth Davidson continued: “There is a pattern here. Of a ruling party of government acting beyond reproach. A chief executive changing his story, a suddenly forgetful First Minister, votes of parliament ignored, promises of co-operation broken.”
As the two went back and forth on specific dates – of who knew what and when and in what capacity – things got even more heated. Who needs a combi boiler when you’ve got Sturgeon v Davidson. I wouldn’t be surprised if the snow around the parliament melted away to a giant puddle over the course of the session.
Sturgeon responded: “I want to sit in front of the committee. I have had accusations levelled at me for two years. I’ve not been able to answer those fully, firstly because of ongoing criminal proceedings and latterly out of respect for process of this committee.
“It’s not me that’s refusing to sit in front of the committee – I’m relishing the prospect of doing that. Then people can hear my account and they can make up their own minds.”
In closing, Ruth Davidson said “this whole thing stinks to high heaven”.
Jackie Baillie then picked up the baton from Davidson and asked the First Minister if she will resign if it is found that she has breached the ministerial code.
The First Minister said that – for somebody who had said they would wait to hear all the evidence – it sounded like the stand-in Labour leader had already made up her mind. She wouldn’t be drawn on what she intended to do if such a scenario arose. So Jackie Baillie asked again. And again. And again.
It wasn’t quite Jeremy Paxman’s infamous interview with Michael Howard, where he asked “did you threaten to overrule him?” 14 times in quick succession.
With Nicola Sturgeon due to appear before the committee on Tuesday, you can be sure that Jackie Baillie will have another go in the coming days and weeks.
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