WHEN the smoke cleared after this week’s titanic political struggle there was one casualty left bleeding on the battleground … Holyrood’s committee system.

On the face of it the importance of that system is dwarfed when you consider careers, an election and potentially the fate of a second independence referendum hung in the balance as the battle raged and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon emerged exonerated and vindicated.

But the Scottish Parliament’s reliance on its committee structure is an essential element in what was supposed to make it different from the archaic, undemocratic traditions of Westminster.

Few would argue that it was a mistake to rule out the Scottish version of the House of Lords when structures were being put in place for the Scottish Parliament after a majority had voted in favour of its creation in the second devolution referendum in 1997. An unelected second chamber would have seemed out of step with the ambition to forge a new legislature to reflect the modern Scotland.

The fact that former leader of the Scottish Tories Ruth Davidson is heading to the Lords simply underlines that feeling and her attempt to lecture Holyrood on scrutiny and accountability was but one of a mountain of ironies which threatened to overwhelm us.

Nevertheless, Holyrood needed some structure to provide oversight of MSPs’ decisions and hold the government of the day to account.

The creation of committees seemed an attractive alternative to the Lords. The committees would be balanced according to the political make-up of the Parliament. They would not include government ministers but would have the power to call them to give evidence. They would pass judgment on the actions of the government in a way that eschewed partisan party politics. They would represent a different, grown-up style of politics which would provide a stark contrast to the baying mob on the benches of the Commons.

Those claims seem empty now. There have, of course, been challenges to that grand ambition over the years. A dispute over the creation of a single Scottish police force broke out in 2010, for instance, when the fact that only five SNP members on the nine-strong committee backed a report which opposition MSPs said tried to put “a flattering interpretation on the actions of the Government”.

But nothing has made the case for reforming the system as forcibly and obviously as the actions of some members of the committee established to investigate the Government’s handling of the allegations levelled against Alex Salmond.

When the committee was set up in the different universe of 2019 its remit was described as: “To consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s ‘handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers’ procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish ministerial code.”

There was certainly a lot to consider. The Scottish Government had initially vowed to “defend its position vigorously” when Alex Salmond took legal action against it on the grounds that its investigation into the allegations against him had been “unfair and unjust”. Instead the Government’s defence collapsed and it accepted there had been a failure in following the complaints process – costing the taxpayer substantially more than the £500,000 it paid to cover Salmon’s fees.

There were certainly grounds for an investigation to be set up and legitimate questions to be asked. And indeed the incredibly detailed committee report deals with many important issues: the need for a new system to investigate complaints in the light of #MeToo, the principle of allowing historic allegations to be investigated, the difficulty in getting essential information from the Government and Alex Salmond, the balancing of the need for information with the limitations on that information imposed by the civil service code and the ministerial code.

And, not least, the law. After all the former First Minister was charged with a range of offences and has been found guilty of none.

The committee’s report has much to commend it on certain fronts. Although to me it lacks sufficient recommendations which could improve the procedure, it certainly does a better job of detailing the many flaws.

But everything to do with the committee was overshadowed by the behaviour of opposition MSPs indulging in an unseemly and vicious blame game. They asked endless questions designed simply to allow them to claim the First Minister had broken the ministerial code. Indeed the report suggests she “potentially” did exactly that – although there is no suggestion she did so intentionally.

Yet the report also makes clear that it was not the committee’s job to establish the question of whether or not the First Minister has breached the Scottish ministerial code. James Hamilton’s report ruled this week that Nicola Sturgeon had not done so on any count.

Why then did the committee devote time to investigating that issue and why pontificate on her guilt or otherwise? There is only one reason … political advantage for opposition parties sniffing the blood of their primary opponent.

Then there was the shameful leaking of committee business which at a stroke broke the trust of anyone giving evidence to the committee in closed session. You don’t have to be a supporter of this government to come to the conclusion that increasingly desperate bids to claim a political scalp proved that the committee structure is itself unworthy of the trust placed in it.

Those charged with holding the Government to account have the responsibility to act in the best interests of the country rather than their party’s narrow political interests. In this case they abjectly failed to do so.