A TORY MSP and SNP MP clashed during an episode of BBC's Debate Night, with John Nicolson accusing the Tory of a lack of "consistency" in calls for resignation between Holyrood and Westminster.
The Scottish Tory representative, whose party has been calling for Nicola Sturgeon's resignation, refused to say if she felt Boris Johnson should resign for "misleading parliament" over Covid-19 contracts.
The panellists were asked if the SNP government could be trusted following its delayed publication of documents relating to the Holyrood harassment committee.
The inquiry is looking into the Government’s botched handling of allegations made against former First Minister Alex Salmond. A judicial review found the Scottish Government had acted unlawfully while investigating the complaints.
Salmond was cleared of all charges at the High Court last year.
Yesterday Tories brought a no-confidence motion against the deputy first minister John Swinney after he failed to release legal advice given to ministers during the legal action.
However the effort to oust Swinney fell, with the Greens rejecting it and branding the action “opportunistic political theatre”.
Outside of the Holyrood inquiry, James Hamilton QC is looking into claims that the First Minister breached the ministerial code.
READ MORE: James Hamilton QC: Who is the man who could decide Nicola Sturgeon's future?
Claims that Sturgeon did break the rules prompted the Scottish Tories to last week call for a no-confidence vote in the First Minister, before she had even given evidence before the committee.
Just days later a new court order appeared to show Boris Johnson had misled parliament over the publication of coronavirus contracts.
The PM said contracts relating to the pandemic, which have been challenged in court, were "there on the record for everybody to see".
But a final court order handed down by the High Court said only "608 out of 708 relevant contracts" have been published by the UK Government. Calls for Johnson’s resignation have not made the headlines.
During Debate Night, John Nicolson challenged Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton on the lack of “consistency”.
READ MORE: Tory MP Andrew Bowie makes stunning admission about Brexit's impact on young people
“Rachael says that she’s not being opportunistic or party political so I wonder therefore, in terms of consistency, and I’ll happily answer the other questions, given that the High Court has ruled that Boris Johnson misled parliament and withheld 100 pages of documents over Covid, Rachael are you now calling for Boris Johnson to appear before parliament and explain himself – and would you support a motion of no-confidence in him if you’re being consistent and not party political?”
Hamilton, the MSP for Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire, replied: “John you know perfectly well that I’m not a representative in Westminster. I am here to represent my constituents who’ve elected me into the Scottish Parliament and I’m in opposition to your government, your party, who’ve wasted £500,000 and counting of taxpayers’ money despite legal advice and they planned on at any cost –“
Nicolson cut in: “Rachael, I think it’s fair to say you don’t want to answer the question because of course you’re perfectly entitled to express a view regardless of which parliament you sit in.
She replied: “Well why don’t you answer the question yourself about your own government?”
Hamilton (above) shouted over Nicolson’s responses, prompting the MP to tell her: “Rachael don’t shout at me. I can hear you.”
Nicolson went on to answer the original question, saying the opposition tactic is to “fly a lot flack up into the air and hope that some of it will stick”.
He defended the Government’s slow release of legal advice, saying it is a matter of standard practice for ministers not to release these documents.
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