Andrew Parrott and S Beck (Letters, 14 June) just do not seem to get what was “inappropriate” about the actions of Campbell Gunn in his e-mail attack on Clare Lally.
Mr Gunn’s “misjudgment was in believing that drawing attention in an e-mail to someone’s Labour Party connections was an appropriate thing to do”. These are the words of Alex Salmond (your report June 13).
It is argued that the content of the e-mail was not “inappropriate”, which is presumably meant to be understood as “abusive” or “vile” in the manner of the response of the cybernats. But that is simply not the point – though the content is, indeed, relevant.
Had Mr Gunn been commenting on an article in the gardening section, then perhaps it would not have raised such a furore. But the content was of a political nature. It is standard practice for SNP politicians to attempt to discredit the messenger when they disapprove of the message. Mr Gunn, however, is not an SNP politician but a civil servant. It is no part of his remit to engage in SNP campaign tactics. He therefore breached the code.
As to Ms Lally’s political connections – to describe her as if she is a partisan political activist is surely nonsense. She is just an ordinary mum with extraordinary experience and expertise in one single area – and that is why she sits on the Labour shadow cabinet as a “carer’s champion”. Incidentally, perhaps the SNP should be glad that this issue has diverted attention from an even bigger embarrassment - the fact that it hasn’t got a clue about the set-up costs of an independent Scotland!
Braid Hills Avenue