The bullying allegations against Kenny Gibson “provided insufficient evidence of wrongdoing”, the SNP has said after it was accused of failing to take action. The Nationalists said that “concerns were raised with the party” about Holyrood’s presiding officer and these were “thoroughly investigated” - but “no disciplinary action was taken.” It comes after the Sunday Mail reported that a dossier of complaints has been sent to SNP bosses by solicitors.
The SNP had been accused of failing to take action. Cunninghame North MSP Mr Gibson had represented the SNP in the Scottish Parliament for more than two decades before becoming presiding officer after May’s election. An SNP spokesperson said: “The SNP has a zero-tolerance approach to bullying in any form and takes any allegations seriously. "Concerns were raised with the party and were thoroughly investigated. They provided insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing and as such no disciplinary action was taken."
Two SNP officials in Mr Gibson’s constituency were said to have resigned over his alleged behaviour. Another 19 members, activists, and councillors signed a letter complaining about him June 2019. The complainants were advised to send statements to independent solicitor Lesley Johnston at law firm Kennedys Scotland. Mr Gibson became the Scottish Parliament’s presiding officer in May. The job pays £130,000 a year. A senior Scottish Government minister said on Sunday that the SNP took the bullying allegations against Mr Gibson “very seriously”.
Ivan McKee said that “anything would be fully investigated” by the party. The Cabinet Secretary for Public Sector Reform told BBC Scotland’s The Sunday Show: “The party takes these kind of allegations very seriously. Of course, it does, and anything would be fully investigated. “Now, I'm not involved in running the party specifically that level, but I think it's very clear that the party, of course, would take these allegations very seriously.”
The Scotsman reports bullying complaints against presiding officer Kenny Gibson and the SNP's statement that they produced insufficient evidence, attributing the SNP's position clearly in the headline and body. The SNP and a senior minister get every quoted word. The complainants appear only as numbers, and the article ends on the minister's reassurance with nothing set against it.
One side gets the space
Minor
“Another 19 members, activists, and councillors signed a letter complaining about him June 2019.”
Why this matters
The Scotsman reduces the people who complained to a count and a date. No complainant, resigning official or solicitor is quoted, and their complaints are never described.
The impression it gives
A reader hears at length from the SNP and a minister about how seriously the party takes bullying, but learns nothing of what Mr Gibson is said to have done or what the complainants say about how the party handled it.
The context
The article itself reports that two officials resigned, 19 people signed a letter and solicitors sent a dossier, so there was a complainants' side to report. The SNP spokesperson and Ivan McKee fill most of the quoted space.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“An SNP spokesperson said”
Elsewhere in the article“a dossier of complaints has been sent to SNP bosses by solicitors”
“I think it's very clear that the party, of course, would take these allegations very seriously.”
Why this matters
The Scotsman closes on Ivan McKee's assurance that the party takes the allegations very seriously. He also says he is not involved in running the party.
The impression it gives
A reader leaves with the party's reassurance as the final word on how the complaints were handled.
The context
Earlier the article reports that the SNP was accused of failing to take action and that solicitors sent a dossier of complaints. Nothing from that side is set against the minister's closing line.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“The SNP had been accused of failing to take action”
Elsewhere in the article“Two SNP officials in Mr Gibson’s constituency were said to have resigned”