IT’S not been an edifying week for Westminster.
The Tory sleaze scandal rumbles on and Boris Johnson’s government is losing authority with every day that passes.
For the first time in his premiership, the Prime Minister looks like he could be in real danger.
For most, this would serve as a kick up the arse. They’d be determined to do better and be better. But for the famously thin-skinned Boris Johnson, it has triggered an unravelling of sorts.
At PMQs on Wednesday, the only thing that stopped him from screaming and shouting with rage was the fact that he was suffering from a sore throat. But you could tell he wanted to. He sparred with the Speaker, Keir Starmer and even a couple of his own backbenchers.
It was a noisy and ill-tempered session that didn’t show Westminster in a good light.
READ MORE: Embarrassment for Alex Cole-Hamilton as BBC makes FMQs gaffe
For as stiff and uninspired as debates in Holyrood sometimes are, at least our politicians – from all parties – know when to cool the temperature down and act like grown-ups.
We desperately needed that at FMQs on Thursday and, thankfully, that’s largely what we got.
Both of the main opposition leaders chose serious subjects to quiz the First Minister about and – while it was one of the toughest sessions she has faced in a while – she did at least try to answer their questions.
Douglas Ross raised the case of Esther Brown, a pensioner from Glasgow who was murdered by Jason Graham in May this year. He had previously been locked up for the rape of a woman, but was let out early on licence.
Douglas Ross told the First Minister that the 19-year sentence handed down to Jason Graham for the murder of Esther Brown was “not nearly enough for such a horrific crime”.
He asked about a consultation proposal that could see long-term prisoners be considered for release after serving one-third of their sentence, describing it as “a risk to public safety”.
In response, the First Minister said that the justice system must protect the public while also allowing for the rehabilitation of offenders. She also pointed out that the consultation proposal only refers to those serving short sentences.
It’s an issue we can expect to hear more about in the coming weeks and months, as we try and grapple with the problems arising from overcrowded prisons and the Covid backlog.
Anas Sarwar went with an equally harrowing story. He asked about newspaper reports regarding the death of Scottish Government official Andrew Slorance. His widow believes that the full details of his illness were concealed to protect the reputation of Glasgow’s troubled Queen Elizabeth University hospital.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: Tory MSP talking 'complete nonsense' on fossil fuels
Slorance had attended the hospital to receive cancer treatment a year ago, but his wife believes that he caught Covid there as well as another infection.
The health board said it had been "open and honest" but Anas Sarwar was scathing about what he described as a culture of "cover up, denial and families being failed". The First Minister said it was important to let the public inquiry to do its work and told Anas Sarwar that the health board was engaging with the family to answer their questions.
It was a hard exchange to watch. Both because of the awful tragedy being discussed and the fact that the First Minister knew Slorance personally.
It was a serious session of FMQs with heavy topics being discussed and few easy answers to be found.
Over the last few weeks, you could be forgiven for forgetting that’s what politics should be about.
The reminder we got on Thursday might not have been enjoyable but at least it was productive.
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