SPRING is in the air. New buds are emerging, the birds are in full song and our sun-starved skin is sooking up vitamin D like it’s as tasty as a cold can of old recipe Irn-Bru.
The colour is coming back into the world and there is a real sense that things are only going to get better from here.
At Holyrood, things are changing too.
For some MSPs, the upcoming election is at the forefront of their minds, as they prepare to apply for their jobs all over again.
For others, retirement or a career change beckons and those MSPs are altogether more chilled than their electioneering colleagues.
In recent weeks, it has become clear that Ruth Davidson has already checked out. She’s there, but she’s not THERE-there. She has probably already been fitted for her new House of Lords robes. I imagine that once you’ve seen yourself cloaked in red velvet it is quite difficult to maintain motivation as you work out the remainder of your notice period.
READ MORE: Ruth Davidson to 'have unelected role in UK Government once in House of Lords'
If you were in any doubt that Ruth Davidson has already got her out-of-office message on, you need only look to FMQs where she has asked Nicola Sturgeon about the same issue for the last several weeks.
Yesterday, she once again went on the Scottish Government’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond.
“It has been alleged that a legal document had been deliberately withdrawn – in other words, suppressed – from being handed over to a court by government officials. Is that something the First Minister knows happened and isn’t that a summary dismissal offence?”
A few seconds into Davidson’s question, the First Minister could be seen shaking her head and saying to Ruth Davidson "I can’t believe you haven’t seen this!" Now, to be transparent – I had no idea what the First Minister meant. I had a complete news blackout on Wednesday because I was dressed as a mermaid, playing pass-the-parcel and celebrating my daughter’s seventh birthday.
So I didn’t know what Ruth Davidson didn’t know. Whatever she hadn’t seen, I hadn’t seen either. It might be the only thing we’ve ever had in common. But she’s the pretend Scottish Tory leader and I’m just an eejit with a laptop so I don’t think blame should be divided equally here.
"I’m actually quite astounded that Ruth Davidson hasn’t seen the position that has now been narrated about that,” replied the First Minster.
Yeah well some of us have been a bit busy, First Minister. So if you wouldn’t mind narrating the narration again, that would be grand.
“Having David Davis, a Tory MP, reading out – in the House of Commons, under the protection of parliamentary privilege – his old pal Alex Salmond’s conspiracy theories about the sexual harassment allegations against him, must be the very epitome of the old boys’ club.”
The glasses were off, but then the glasses were put back on: So we knew the narration was reaching its climax.
“Onto the specific question about the withheld document …” – NARRATION INCOMING! – “… that claim, as the Government confirmed yesterday, is just factually inaccurate. David Davis claimed that a document was withheld. In fact, once we tracked down exactly what document was being talked about, what we discovered was that document was NOT withheld. That document was handed over to the court on the 21st of November 2018. Production number: 7.79.”
Tune in next week for the final FMQs of this parliamentary session. Both me and Ruth Davidson are sure to be better prepared.
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