HAVING heard the James Hamilton verdict and some of the commentary afterwards, I was struck by the contrast in conduct between this independent inquiry and that of the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, and would echo some of Patrick Harvie’s thoughts on the matter.
Sadly, certain members of the committee have knowingly compromised not only its own integrity but by extension that of our parliament. This is completely unacceptable.
Some members have blatantly engaged in politicking to the point of pre-judging outcomes, blatant politically biased formal questioning (I watched in full both the questioning of the First Minister and Mr Salmond, with at times toe curling not experienced since episodes of The Office); public expression of opinions during periods of what should be a confidential deliberation of fact; and to top it all, selective, anonymous, leaking of findings. All of which makes any findings they do reach to be of comparative inconsequence to those of James Hamilton, undermined as they are by such shenanigans.
READ MORE: MSPs who showed 'contempt' in Salmond inquiry should resign, Harvie says
The logical way forward in all of this – to re-establish the integrity of our parliament fully, and to ensure such undermining is never repeated – is to find out which members of the committee have engaged in such wholly inappropriate behaviour. We owe this, too, to exonerate those committee members who have acted with integrity and been so badly let down by association.
Continued anonymity is not acceptable. Those members found to have compromised the committee must be forced to resign forthwith for such an egregious breach of the trust placed in them by our parliament. They have demonstrably no place in our public life, and have fundamentally failed us as representatives of our democracy. Whilst a long hard look in the mirror is necessary, it is also insufficient.
Naturally, in context, such an inquiry should be independent of the parliament, so we can have confidence in its findings to the same extent we can today in those of James Hamilton, and sadly are unable to do in those of this kangaroo court of a committee.
G Stuart
Renfrewshire
DESPITE the independent report by James Hamilton finding that Nicola Sturgeon had not breached the Ministerial Code, it comes as no surprise that opponents of the First Minister and the Scottish Government should continue their attacks on them using the tarnished report of the parliamentary committee on harassment as their political vehicle.
As Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, observed, certain members of the committee were determined to follow their own malicious politically driven agenda against the First Minister and turn the parliamentary process into “third-rate political theatre.” By ill-judged showboating on social media and leaking final details of the report to the press, some of the committee destroyed their own credibility and must surely now reflect on their own positions within our parliament.
Even by their own admission, the Hamilton report was a deal-breaker that would have a decisive influence on the future of the First Minister. Clause 716 of the harassment report reads: “...the committee believes that James Hamilton’s report is the most appropriate place to address the question of whether or not the First Minister has breached the Scottish Ministerial code.”
The Hamilton report has totally exonerated the First Minister and has left the somewhat exasperated members of the committee, their political leaders and their allies in the media with the unrewarding task of trying to convince themselves and the Scottish public that Ms Sturgeon’s resignation is still a live issue. The palpable desperation we witnessed in the scurrilously jaundiced reporting of BBC hacks like Glenn Campbell and Sarah Smith was risible.
We have been treated to a claim by the SNP’s leader in Westminster, Ian Blackford, that Sky News presenter Niall Paterson was overheard saying he would give Mr Blackford “a kicking” prior to the commencement of his interview – a demonstration, if there was any doubt whatsoever, of the unashamed hostility of the UK media in general towards the SNP and those who espouse Scottish independence.
The so-called Salmond inquiry has tainted the Scottish Government and its parliamentary procedures, of that there is no doubt. By historical standards it is still a nascent assembly and has many processes and procedures to develop in the future, hopefully in an independent state. As we seek to draw a line under this most public of internecine disputes, it may be prudent to recall that committee member Andy Wightman asked Alex Salmond if he had confidence that the Hamilton report would be reliable during the former First Minister’s testimony to the committee. Mr Salmond reminded his audience that he had in fact appointed James Hamilton in the first place and that he regarded him as a man of great experience and integrity.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
I JUST watched the Jeremy Whine show again “discuss” independence. I really must ask the wife for a shot of the remote. Drew Hendry of the SNP was against three English natterers and Jeremy asking stupid questions, plus only one viewer allowed to phone/rant in.
Drew was excellent, as usual. Why oh why can’t we have someone give a correct answer to the hoary seven-year-old, parroted, stock in phrase, substitute for debate, “once in a life time” Union Jack hackery? Nowhere was it shown to be SNP or the Yes campaign’s policy. It became just a stairheid excuse to stall for time and deflect from any real debate by the Unionist meejah and their talking airheids. Why do they not quote anything else that actually was said by the Yes campaigners? Whit aboot aw the broken vows that moved so many No persons to Yes?
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
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