Nicola Sturgeon’s legacy will be decided by bereaved families

“Nicola Sturgeon’s crowing about being better than London has come back to hit her.” – Times Radio.

And “the former FM used a burner phone” – Scottish Daily Express. (Like lots of Holyrood staff suddenly working from home due to the pandemic.)

Jings.

Rarely has one woman and one event generated more advance hostility than Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance at the Covid inquiry yesterday – “in the dock” as one radio presenter revealingly described it.

READ MORE: Unionist media didn't get a Nicola Sturgeon 'gotcha' moment

There was even closet hostility from the UK Covid-19 Inquiry itself – its Twitter/X account was following just one other called “DownWithTheSNP”.

That naked bias probably didn’t infect the questioning of Jamie Dawson KC. But fa kens? It was hardly a good look.

To be fair though, there were advance pelters directed towards the former first minster from other sources – including SNP members and independence supporters. So many old scores are waiting to be settled that the inquiry positively jangled with nervous energy and the testimony of a “mere” former FM jostled for headlines with PMQs and the long-awaited deal to restore Stormont.

A government inquiry session doesn’t get any more dramatic than Nicola Sturgeon’s – for a whole stack of reasons. Some relevant, some irrelevant but all grimly inevitable.

There’s the unresolved scandal surrounding SNP finances and the ongoing police inquiry.

There’s the scent of blood animating political opponents who’ve seen SNP support tumble since her surprise resignation.

There’s the fact this former FM has put many noses out of joint during her time at the top – especially over gender recognition.

And the fact her governing style has always been autocratic/tightly controlled. Thus a text from national clinical director Professor Jason Leitch was quoted at the inquiry: “She wants none of us in the room”. To which Nicola Sturgeon vigorously responded: “I didn’t exclude anyone. I didn’t want a cast of thousands. I didn’t have the patience for that.”

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon's mammoth session at the Covid Inquiry: What we learned

Was that secretive and controlling or single-minded and determined? It’s up to voters to decide – as it always has been.

There was also the unusual sight of this controlled and professional politician becoming emotional. “I was First Minister when Covid struck – sometimes I wish I hadn’t been.”

The broken voice and brief show of emotion by the former FM provided a rare human note in these technocratic and often evasive evidence sessions (looking at you Boris and Rishi) and constituted a new relatable level of honesty about the terror-inducing task of managing a pandemic – or a new level of performance, according to your pre-existing point of view.

But I’d imagine most folk watching this section of Ms Sturgeon’s evidence would see a compulsively hard-working, well-briefed, instinctively controlling politician finally facing herself, warts and all.

And basically, she tells us, she’d do it again. “The buck stops with me. I was ultimately accountable.”

And most tellingly, in response to a suggestion she had an “over firm” grip of decision making – “I hope I did”.

Of course, this hypervigilance/control freakery contrasts dramatically with the couldn’t give a toss, blustering nonsense delivered habitually by Boris Johnson. Listening to Ms Sturgeon’s evidence on everything from genomic sequencing to viral lineage, I was reminded of her tremendous attention to detail during the Covid years.

Ms Sturgeon wished that one text revealing her own uncertainty “hadn’t been made public”. Was that a desire for secrecy or her instinct for staying in charge with a reassuring appearance of calm?

READ MORE: Rachel Reeves rules out reinstating cap on bankers' bonuses

Folk will likely decide for a small stack of reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence.

And relatives of the bereaved may well feel Ms Sturgeon’s frankness at the inquiry was overshadowed by the revelation she habitually deleted WhatsApp messages despite promising to hand them over in 2021.

The former FM said she wasn’t a member of WhatsApp groups, which may be hard for WhatsApp-dependent voters to believe. But if she really didn’t use this ultra-convenient way to chat to close colleagues during an ever-changing pandemic, folk might wonder if that avoidance was really driven by worry over phone security as professed or by a determination to stop embarrassing and shameful details emerging at a later date.

Indeed, the Alba Party contends the deletion of text and WhatsApp messages by Nicola Sturgeon helped prevent the revelation of other such exchanges about Alex Salmond.

Even indy-supporting Aamer Anwar, the lawyer representing Covid-bereaved families in Scotland, says the deletion of messages “can only be described as a cynical and pre-meditated decision,” and that Sturgeon and others “must answer as to their motivation”.

READ MORE: The Netherlands shows up Westminster's ‘tough on crime’ mantra 

Will such critics be impressed – could they be impressed – by anything Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday? Probably not.

But others will be reminded of the precision and straight-forwardness that characterised Ms Sturgeon’s daily briefings. And the sight of Unionists and “neutral” broadcasters prematurely dancing on her political grave might prompt a backlash.

Because whatever divides Yessers, we know there was no equivalence between the conduct of the Scottish and UK governments during Covid. And we know that instead of deliberately deviating from Westminster norms for “political” reasons as the inquiry repeatedly suggested, Ms Sturgeon readily concedes she didn’t deviate quickly or dramatically enough – mostly because the ability to produce furlough payments remained at Westminster, so all the devolved governments were stuck.

My blood boiled to hear Nicola Sturgeon questioned over Michael Gove’s jibe that she “jumped the gun” and “broke confidentiality” with a ban on mass gatherings of more than 500 people on 12 March 2020. Ms Sturgeon said she regretted only acting too late.

The same day, Boris Johnson allowed the Cheltenham Races to go ahead and after that “super-spreading” event, Covid cases in the UK doubled.

Yet, Westminster’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, insisted that the chances of contracting the disease in a crowd were slim even though it was “eye-catching” to cancel mass gatherings. Really.

According to former chief scientific adviser Sir David King, the UK Government’s advisory groups went for herd immunity. “They opted for ‘behavioural nudges’, a light-touch gamble, saying: ‘Wash your hands, stay at home if you feel ill.’ Every other country was taking a different view.”

Every other country including Scotland.

You’d also have to admire the former FM’s calm response to her characterisation by Jamie Dawson KC as a raving nationalist determined to stoke dissent.

READ MORE: Did Nicola Sturgeon and Jeane Freeman buy pandemic 'burner' phones?

Many of us will remember the former FM attracting fierce criticism for trying to achieve a better Brexit deal for the whole UK instead of just walking away and failing to produce more than cursory nods towards independence during the long Covid years.

I can’t recall if Johnson was asked whether his lifelong commitment to Unionism encouraged him to ignore the devolved nations throughout Covid, whilst pressing on with his own political project of delivering Brexit.

But hey – comparisons with Boris are pointless.

Virtually the whole of Scotland priced him in as a “fucking clown” from the minute they clapped eyes on him. The Scottish Government has always been held to higher standards. It won’t feel like it, but that’s a backhanded compliment.

So, what’s the verdict on Nicola’s day of evidence?

I’d say she sounded as reasonable and articulate as ever. That may not wipe the slate clean on the other vexed issues that plague independence supporters – but these were not the focus of the Covid inquiry yesterday.

Nicola Sturgeon may have made wrong decisions on some key Covid issues. But she has shared her thinking on all of them – uniquely amongst Scottish and UK politicians.

So, is her reputation retrieved or “further diminished”? Ultimately, that judgement rests with the Covid bereaved relatives.