Nothing but the truth will do if Purcell is to rise from the ashes

LESS than a month ago, one of Scotland's most senior politicians was facing allegations so serious that they appeared to be career threatening.

Faced with a growing storm over her intervention in a court case involving a serial fraudster, Nicola Sturgeon at first said nothing, but after a period of reflection made a contrite apology to the Scottish Parliament, with the result that her reputation was enhanced.

In Northern Ireland recently the province's First Minister, Peter Robinson, found himself embroiled in a scandal involving both his wife's infidelity and financial arrangements, which threatened not only his position but also the peace process itself.

Faced with this, Mr Robinson stepped down for a period while the matter was investigated, emerging eventually with his political standing restored and able to resume his duties at the heart of the power-sharing administration.

The reason these cases are important is that they should serve as a lesson to other politicians who face difficulties, as they prove that if they conduct themselves properly and admit to failings, they can come through to continue a political life.

There are lessons here that Steven Purcell would do well to learn from as he and his advisers fight to salvage what is left of a career which promised so much, but which has been tainted by his refusal to spell out the nature of the problems that forced him to step down from his post as leader of Glasgow City Council.

Yesterday, we reported that Mr Purcell's advisers at the council had prepared a statement to explain his shock resignation in which they would have cited a "chemical dependence".

However, for reasons that are not clear, Mr Purcell decided to take the counsel of his lawyer and a public relations expert, saying merely that he was standing down due to the stress of his job leading Scotland's largest local authority.

Yet the more that emerges in the case, the more inadequate this explanation is, with Mr Purcell now facing calls from within his party to explain fully the circumstances of his resignation if he is to stand any chance of reviving his political career.

But it is not just the Scottish Labour Party which deserves an answer. The public who voted for Mr Purcell, and to whom he is still answerable as an elected councillor, also has a right to know the reason for his decision which, lest we forget, left Scotland's biggest city with a crisis of leadership.

There might be those, like his advisers, who argue that a politician's personal life is a matter for him and that they have a right to privacy.

But given the impact on his city, and indeed Scottish politics more widely, an explanation of Mr Purcell's actions must be given. It is clearly in the public interest that it should be.

Scotland needs modernising, visionary politicians like Steven Purcell, but he and his advisers must accept that the public will be forgiving of human frailty and forgive – and in time, perhaps forget – if they are told the truth, the unvarnished truth, and nothing but the truth.