Aye, well, here we go again, eh? Just when ye think ye’ve got a handle on things in Scottish politics, another layer of the onion peels back, leaving ye mibbe a wee bit teary-eyed and certainly none the wiser. I’m talking about these newly revealed documents concerning James Hamilton’s investigation into Nicola Sturgeon and the ministerial code. It’s a right fankle, if you ask me, and it leaves a sour taste.
What really sticks in my craw is the independent adviser himself, Mr. Hamilton, admitting he was worried his report would be “dishonest.” Dishonest! That’s a strong word, especially coming from someone tasked with impartiality and getting to the bottom of things. He was looking into whether the First Minister had broken the ministerial code over her meetings with Alex Salmond, a saga that’s kept the nation gripped, or mibbe just utterly baffled, for years.
It turns out Mr. Hamilton had the bulk of his findings drafted for weeks, but couldn’t finalise it. The sticking point, apparently, was the thorny issue of anonymity and identification. He explained that a central part of his report referred to contacts between Ms. Sturgeon and Mr. Salmond, and his attempts to anonymise these passages just weren’t working. He tried his best, he said, but it proved “futile.”
This is where it gets really galling. Mr. Hamilton was left in a position where he felt he couldn’t tell the whole story. He said, and I quote him directly:
“I am left in a position where if I write a report which excludes these matters it will not tell the full truth. It would be a dishonest report and I am not prepared to put my name to such a document.”
He even went further in a later draft, stating:
“I was left in the position where if I write a report which excludes these matters it will not only not tell the full truth but could even be misleading. It would not be an honest report. I am not prepared to see such a document issued over my name.”
Now, I understand there are legal reasons for redactions. Court orders from Mr. Salmond’s criminal case and his successful judicial review, plus wider legal risks around privacy and defamation, all played a part. Fair enough, the law is the law. But when the man investigating the conduct of our First Minister can’t even put his full name to a report without feeling it’s dishonest, what does that say about the transparency we, the Scottish public, are actually getting?
It feeds into a growing cynicism, doesn’t it? We’re often told we live in a transparent democracy, but then these kinds of revelations surface, and it feels like we’re being fobbed off with half a story. It’s hard to have full faith in the system when the independent arbiters themselves are struggling with the constraints placed upon them. This whole episode just adds to the feeling that Scottish Politics: Power, Policy, and the Path Forward is often more about what’s hidden than what’s openly discussed.
Mr. Hamilton himself suggested an “obvious solution” would be for an individual to waive objections to being identified. He couldn’t complete his task unless circumstances changed. This begs the question, why didn’t that happen? Who decided that the legal risks outweighed the public’s right to the full, unvarnished truth? It leaves a big, gaping hole in the narrative, a hole that the Scottish people are expected to just accept.
It’s not just about this specific incident either. This pattern of partial information, of reports that can’t quite say everything, it chips away at public trust. When ordinary folk see their councils struggling, as discussed in Local Councils Are Running Out of Money: What Happens Next?, and then hear about high-level political inquiries being constrained by legal wrangling, it creates a disconnect. It feels like one rule for some, another for the rest of us.
I believe that true accountability requires full transparency, or as close to it as legally possible. When the lead investigator feels his report might be dishonest, that should be a huge red flag for everyone involved. It’s not just about the individuals in question, but about the integrity of our political processes and the trust we place in those who govern us. The current climate, where the Holyrood Election 2026: SNP Lead Polling as May Vote Approaches, demands that our leaders are seen to be beyond reproach, and that means being open.
We deserve to know the full story, not just the bits that are deemed legally palatable. What does it say about our democratic health if the truth has to be sanitised to such an extent that the person writing it feels it’s not honest? It’s a question that should keep every politician at The Scottish Parliament awake at night, wondering if they’re truly serving the people or just serving themselves and their legal teams. The public deserves better than reports that are, by their own author’s admission, less than the full truth.
Source reference: Herald Scotland
