Analysing Cambridge at FMQs
- Published
There is a powerful scene in Macbeth (aka, the Scottish Play) where the witches present the stricken king with a parade of eight successors to the throne of Scotland.
Alas, they instantly remind him of the slain Banquo - perhaps because his ghost follows the line. Macbeth moans: "What, will the line stretch out to th' crack of doom?"
Critics reckon this scene is partly a dose of strategic sycophancy by Shakespeare, reminding us of the ancient Stuart lineage of James VI and I who ascended to the throne of England during Will's life, making Stratford's finest both an Elizabethan and Jacobean playwright.
I could not help recalling this episode as I sat with the groundlings observing, with mute wonder, as the first minister faced questions (actually, I was in the garden lobby presenting the exchanges to an astonished nation but I couldn't resist continuing the Shakespearean theme).
The reason for this disconnect? Like Macbeth, Nicola Sturgeon seemed much taken with lists.
She listed all the questions which her Tory rival, Ruth Davidson, might have asked. Helpful things like the assistance provided to, among others, BiFab and farmers.
But, given that Ms Davidson chose another topic, Ms Sturgeon had another list. The topic? Cambridge Analytica. The list? Claimed contacts between that company and individual Tories and between CA's parent company and the UK government.
The list was very, very long indeed. Stretching indeed, Scottish Play style, to the crack of doom. Was Ms Davidson discombobulated? Friends, she was not.
Indeed, she and her deputy Jackson Carlaw sat on the front bench, grinning merrily throughout. With each fight-back barb from the FM, the laughter rose. As the list became longer than a gig by the late Ken Dodd, the two Tories chortled ever more vigorously.
For why? Because they felt that the FM was protesting too much. That she had been slightly thrown off balance by the controversy.
You remember the background, I feel sure. Cambridge Analytica provoked controversy with claims that they had harvested online personal data, including from Facebook, to use in the US Presidential election and, potentially, elsewhere.
Since which, SNP MPs have been pursuing the issue, asserting those Tory links which the FM listed today.
So it was that, earlier this week, Brendan O'Hara MP was questioning Brittany Kaiser, formerly of Cambridge Analytica. In response, Ms Kaiser said that the company had pitched to political parties, including the SNP, claiming there had been meetings in Edinburgh and London.
Cue the sound of a dropping jaw from our elected tribune. Still, he rallied splendidly. And, later, the SNP issued a statement saying there had indeed been one meeting between the company and a consultant representing the party.
The verdict from that encounter, repeated vigorously by the FM today, was that Cambridge Analytica were "a bunch of cowboys." There was, stressed Ms Sturgeon, no further contact of any kind. Importantly, the company had done no work whatsoever for the SNP.
Political opportunity
So why was Ruth Davidson not satisfied with that? Because the delicious political opportunity was too good not to sample. She said that, on such matters, the SNP had raised sanctimony to an art form. Implying plainly that they should now take the hit.
A plainly exasperated FM repeated her point - that the SNP had never used Cambridge Analytica. She challenged other parties to say likewise.
Ms Davidson had opened by insisting that no representative or consultant working for the Scottish Conservatives had met Cambridge Analytica.
But the Tory jeering and chortling rose to a higher pitch when the FM was asked to provide further details. When, exactly, was the meeting? February 2016. Where? No details. Who had represented the SNP? Ms Sturgeon declined to say, arguing that it was right to protect the individual concerned from a "witch hunt".
In all, not a happy exchange for the FM - although she insisted that there was zero substance and that the exchanges were founded on "baseless smears".
Ms Sturgeon then turned to face questions from Labour's Richard Leonard. There was a palpable sense of relief on the front bench when Mr Leonard sidestepped electoral machinations and concentrated on the provision of health care, in Tayside and elsewhere.
The FM duly thanked him for focusing upon a serious subject. Irony? No, I think this was intended to contrast directly with the preceding exchanges.
But the first minister was less chipper when facing Mr Leonard's rather effective follow up questions. He warned that the problems in NHS Tayside would lead to £200m in spending cuts - and demanded the resignation of the Health Secretary Shona Robison.
With Ms Robison sitting quietly at her side, the FM offered support - and stressed that everything possible was being done to ameliorate health provision in Dundee and its environs (Ms Robison is a Dundee MSP).
Without the opening salvo from Ms Davidson, there would have been a uniform health them in today's questions. Firstly, Willie Rennie of the Liberal Democrats broached the issue of mental health care for new mothers. It was, he said, woeful.
Mr Rennie declared that he had raised the topic of mental health in various forms pretty well every week at Holyrood. He had yet to be satisfied with the reply. Ms Sturgeon praised his persistence - and choice of topic - but urged him to concede that efforts at improvement were under way.
Then we heard from two SNP backbenchers about less than perfect NHS provision in their patch. Jenny Gilruth highlighted a lack of overnight GP provision in Glenrothes. Sandra White complained that minor injuries treatment was being shifted away from Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow.
Ms Sturgeon offered emollient replies in both cases. By her side, Ms Robison remained tactfully silent. Out, out brief candle.
- Published19 April 2018