John Swinney's attack on Standards Committee was straight out of Donald Trump's playbook – Scotsman comment

On being presented with the Holyrood Standards Committee’s verdict on former Health Secretary Michael Matheson – who claimed nearly £11,000 of taxpayers’ money for an iPad data roaming bill incurred during a holiday in Morocco – John Swinney could have graciously thanked the MSPs for their work in upholding parliamentary standards.

Our new First Minister could have made clear his SNP colleague had fallen short of those standards, urged Matheson to accept the recommended punishments – a 27-day suspension from Holyrood and the loss of his salary for 54 days – and asked all parliamentarians to reflect on the need to live up to the highest standards of honesty and probity.

Instead, Swinney’s actual response was straight out of Donald Trump’s playbook: “I think it's pretty clear that the process has become highly politicised, which has compromised the process and the fairness of the process. I also think the sanctions they've imposed are excessive and they are unfair.”

John Swinney's reaction to the Holyrood Standards Committee's report on Michael Matheson's expenses claim demeaned the office of First Minister, as Anas Sarwar said (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

£11,000 no trifling matter

Swinney cited remarks by Tory committee member Annie Wells, who had criticised Matheson’s efforts to justify his expenses claim, his lies and attempted cover-up prior to the committee’s deliberations. However it should be noted that the committee’s members – two SNP, two Conservative and one Labour – were unanimous on the salary recommendation, with the two SNP MSPs only dissenting over the suspension.

Get our weekly opinion newsletter for expert analysis from The Scotsman’s team of columnists

Furthermore, Wells’ remarks were spot on. Does Swinney think that only those who had failed to criticise a wrongful expenses claim could have sat in judgment on Matheson? Politicians who shared the Falkirk West MSP’s values?

Perhaps to Matheson and Swinney, £11,000 is a trifling matter. However it represents nearly 40 per cent of the median average salary in Scotland. So Matheson sought to relieve the Scottish taxpayer of the equivalent of 146 days’ labour by an average person. Yet, according to Swinney, his 27-day suspension and 54 days without salary represent an “excessive” and “unfair” punishment.

‘Party first – country second’

Matheson has said that, when he first became aware of the data roaming bill, he couldn’t understand how it could be so high, but he claimed the money anyway. Worse, when asked whether there had been any personal use of the iPad, he denied it, despite knowing his sons had used the device as a wifi hotspot to watch football – the explanation Matheson initially did so little to uncover. He should have realised the sum was excessive and could not have possibly be run up by normal internet usage.

Is this why Sunak did not take an umbrella for election announcement?

Anas Sarwar rightly said Swinney’s reaction to the committee’s judgment was “utterly unbelievable and embarrassing”. “Two weeks in and the pretence of a new kind of government is gone. Party first – country second,” the Scottish Labour leader added, before spelling out what should be obvious to all: “It's not the actions of a committee that should be judged, it's the actions of a member who attempted to wrongly claim £11,000 of public money.”

At Westminster, a 27-day suspension would have triggered the start of the recall process by which MPs can be ousted by their constituents. Indeed, Boris Johnson’s political career ended after a committee recommended he should be suspended for 90 days for misleading parliament about Partygate and he resigned rather than face voters’ wrath.

Fortunately for Matheson, there is no such process at Holyrood. Unfortunately for Matheson, Swinney and the SNP – whose honourable members must be tearing their hair out in frustration at the political mediocrities running their party – there’s an election in six weeks’ time, when the public will pass judgment on whether a party with such low ethical standards is in any way worthy of their trust.