ALTHOUGH Mark McDonald is in this case simply the current name, as the SNP was the current party, in years past, other names and party affiliations have come and gone, who can remember them all?
What’s happened is set, but what’s to happen – that we still have some control over. It’s unlikely we’ll eradicate such behaviour, but we can at least take measures to both deter it and provide the victims with some small protection.
In our lives, in our times, no elected politician should be able to continue with relative impunity after harassment allegations are found to be substantiated. That this is allowed to happen, it really is a matter of national shame, one requiring immediate redress.
The man is correct in one respect, that once “rehabilitated” no individual should be required to bear a burden for past transgressions through the entirety of their future life.
The issue in the McDonald case is twofold. We’re expected to believe he’s “rehabilitated” because he stated he is, in just a few months, and the individuals he created issues for must now interact with him on what will possibly be a daily basis. Essentially, we’re victimising the victims once again. In no sane world can this be considered appropriate.
We also live in a society where society effectively makes the rules.
Perhaps then, society should be the judge, and Holyrood should endorse cross-party legislation to ensure that it does.
All that need be tabled is that any elected individual found responsible for such acts by appropriate internal investigations should be required to resign or be terminated. Resignation gives the option to re-run and allow society to decide if rehabilitation has been both implemented and effective. Termination forever bars the individual from holding elected office again.
It could be additionally suggested that repeat or multiple offenders not be permitted the resignation option, that in cases of termination such as these, all ongoing rights from their elected responsibility are stripped.
Anytime there is a victim, society pays – we pay in psychological costs, lost time, replacement labour and real health costs. It would seem appropriate to allow our society to choose if the costs have been balanced.
Surely failure to act under such circumstances places our entire parliament into what might best be described as a state of disgrace?
A MacGregor
East Kilbride
DONALD Trump and Kim Jong-un should have their summit on the golf course in Aberdeenshire, with Theresa May and David Mundell as caddies. Allfour stuck in the bunker – which is where many of us feared we would be after the antics of the US and North Korea in recent months.
Denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula is not an event. It must be the start of a process that ends with the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. Just like the chemical weapons ban.
Scotland would be the best place for such a summit. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon could bang some heads together. Scotland has long been in the front line. The door has been opened – however slightly – and the opportunity must be seized.
The South Korean Winter Olympics showed that global sporting events have the capacity to do a lot of good. Had the Scotland-Ireland joint bid to co-host the 2008 European football championship succeeded, we might not be facing the Brexit bourach.
Andrew JT Kerr
Surrey
THERESA May claims it is “highly likely” that the nerve agent came from ... where? Russia, the Kremlin or where? There is a danger that assumptions coalesce into facts without objective corroboration. The Gadarene rush to issue ultimatums is reminiscent of 1914. The equally supportive statements from other individuals and “allies” given the lack of evidence so far to substantiate “claims”.
In the immoral world of espionage, counter-espionage, double agents and so-called traitors, it is wise to wait. Any headlong rush to condemn without corroboration is dangerous to say the least. Nothing like a wee spy story or hysterical Zinoviev-letter style to deflect from inner political chaos over Brexit and the like. Let us ca’ canny!
John Edgar
Stewarton
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 here