SNP MP says she wouldn't have stood for election if she'd known about the abuse she would receive

The East Kilbride politician also said she would not have stood to be an MP if she’d known how much abuse she was going to face.

The clinical psychologist, who acts as her party’s Westminster spokesperson on mental health, made the claims to a House of Commons committee’s review into intimidation in public life. She said: “I wouldn’t have given up my job and stood for election if the abuse I would receive had been explained to me.

“I wouldn’t have. I believed I had something to contribute with lengthy experience in the NHS, but I have a young family and I wouldn’t have wanted to put them through it.

“Their wellbeing is the priority.”

Cameron, who worked as a consultant clinical psychologist in the NHS before becoming an MP, told the committee she wished her party had done more to support her.

“There were instances where I had to attend meetings as a candidate and I knew I would face abuse but I didn’t get a response from the party.

“When you think there is a high risk and you highlight it, you should get some support and guidance.”

The SNP declined to comment.

The committee report made for grim reading, with MPs, candidates, journalists, and campaign organisations all agreeing there had been a “sea-change” in the amount of abuse being dished out around elections — largely due to social media. One recommendation from the committee was the creation of a new criminal offence of “intimidating parliamentary candidates and campaigners”.

Another was to put change the law to make Facebook and Twitter more responsible for tackling “persistent” abuse aimed at politicians.

The social media giants don’t “consider themselves as publishers, responsible for reviewing and editing everything that others post on their sites” but they should no longer be regarded as “simply platforms for the content that others post, they play a role in shaping what users see,” the report said. Committee chairman Lord Bew said: “This level of vile and threatening behaviour, albeit by a minority of people, against those standing for public office is unacceptable in a healthy democracy. We cannot get to a point where people are put off standing, retreat from debate, and even fear for their lives as a result of their engagement in politics.

“This is not about protecting elites or stifling debate, it is about ensuring we have a vigorous democracy in which participants engage in a responsible way which recognises others’ rights to participate and to hold different points of view.”

The committee also called for political parties to do more to protect candidates, and to “stand together to oppose behaviour which threatens the integrity of public life.”

It added: “Political parties will need to work together to address intimidation in public life; they should not use this report and its recommendations for partisan purposes or political gain.”

Traditional media outlets too must think about how their coverage “might incite intimidation through delegitimising someone’s engagement in the political process, placing undue influence on their individual characteristics, or using threatening language”.