Righteous indignation is defined as profound anger triggered by a perceived injustice, immorality, or unfair treatment of others.

That is what we witnessed from John Swinney in Holyrood last week.

His fury exploded after both the Tories and Labour attacked the Scottish Government’s chief law officer, Dorothy Bain, who sits alongside the First Minister in her Cabinet role of Lord Advocate.

The opposition parties effectively said she and the Scottish Government are corrupt because she wrote a note to the FM as part of her job.

She was letting him know about a significant development – the serving of an indictment – in the Cown’s case against former SNP Chief Executive Peter Murrell.

This case is of the highest public interest, so she reminded him that he and fellow ministers should be aware of contempt of court while including the detail that Murrell is accused of embezzling £460k.

Her note was sent on January 19, with details of the indictment becoming public on February 13. According to both Anas Sarwar and Russell Findlay, those 25 days handed “a significant political advantage” to the SNP ahead of May’s election.

John Swinney was told accurate ballpark figure

Like poundshop Perry Masons they claimed this was proof of corruption.

Now skip to this week, when we learned that Bain had previously written to the FM detailing the £460k figure nearly a year earlier in March 2025.

But even that is not the whole story because John Swinney was told an accurate ballpark figure shortly after he became SNP leader in May 2024.

It is blindingly obvious that the SNP, the potential victims of an alleged embezzlement, would be aware of police lines of inquiry and pieced together the figure.

The FM’s long-standing knowledge kills stone dead the hysterical claims of political advantage and corruption.

This compounds the cynicism of Sarwar and Findlay’s behaviour: they must surely have worked out that the FM would know but they couldn’t resist calling his government corrupt anyway.

Incidentally, they embellished their claims of grand conspiracy because the FM passed Bain’s note to special advisers. Well, of course he did. The clue is in the word advisers.

Now, you may be wondering why the SNP leader did not reveal his prior knowledge at some point. And the explanation for that says everything about the contrasting behaviours of the SNP and the opposition.

SNP response to Operation Branchform was consistent

From the very beginning of Operation Branchform, the SNP has been unwaveringly consistent in its position that “the party is fully cooperating with the police and it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

That is an entirely appropriate response from the party of government, whose responsibilities include protecting the integrity of our justice system.

To say otherwise would have resulted in the SNP being accused of seeking to influence the police or the Crown Office. Or worse, causing a substantial risk of serious prejudice and the possibility of the case being abandoned and justice denied.

For five years that SNP response has held firm – despite the intense provocation of scurrilous innuendo from an increasingly febrile opposition.

To serve in Government means recognising that, for your term of office, you are merely guardians of the country’s institutions.

Now contrast John Swinney’s restraint with the behaviour of Labour and the Tories, who have rushed to judgment based on half-baked theories.

For the avoidance of doubt, Dorothy Bain was appointed partly because she is universally renowned and trusted in legal circles for unimpeachable integrity.

It says much about our opposition parties that they would deliberately impugn the reputation of an exemplary public servant, treating her as collateral damage in their pursuit of political advantage.

Blinded by bitterness

As an aside, the dual role of the Lord Advocate as both a Cabinet Minister and head of the prosecuting authority in Scotland is certainly worth reconsidering. But let’s not forget that the conflict exists because it was written into the original devolution settlement created by the Labour Party at Westminster.

Politics, as they say, is a contact sport and the opposition holding government to account is an essential part of that. But there are limits and I believe the opposition have strayed well beyond acceptable boundaries.

Blinded by bitterness that the SNP is in power, I doubt there is a Scottish institution they would not denigrate if they believed it would nudge them closer to government?

And while Scotland expects nothing more from the Tories, many voters still cling to the hope that Labour is better than that. Yet, once again, the red mist of their own ambitions clouded their judgment.

In the pressure cooker environment of government, considered and reliable judgment is a basic requirement for the job. So, ask yourself this: Does the behaviour of Sarwar and Findlay suggest they have the temperament to govern?

I don’t think so, but I’ll have to wait 10 weeks to see if Scotland’s voters agree.

© The Courier