Now’s not the time for SNP leadership ambitions, Joanna

Nicola Sturgeon is the adult in the room amid furore over Joanna Cherry bullying claims, writes Laura Waddell

Imagine you are a politician with leadership ambitions. A number of staffers have made complaints about bullying in your office. Do you a) react with dignity, respect for due process, and confidence in your exoneration or b) have an ongoing, very public reaction on social media rallying support over several days?

Now imagine you were a worker, considering reporting a superior. You have witnessed high-profile Twitter users publicly backing those facing complaints, engaging with suggestions of smears. Extremely visible, well-connected judgment of private workplace matters is unlikely to encourage that person to come forward. In any normal office, it would be deeply inappropriate to take a stance on a dispute. Politics is an unusual environment, but when it comes to staff treatment and procedural resources, there should be no lowering of standards.

Last week, news emerged that four former staff members of Joanna Cherry’s office have raised claims of bullying, subsequently spreading online like a rash.

In a statement to the Sunday National, Cherry said: “It is not for SNP employees, paid for by the party, or parliamentary staff, paid for by the public purse, to take to Twitter to air their grievances or to go to the newspapers. They should use proper procedures and behave in a professional fashion.” She added: “I am confident I will survive the attempts to smear my reputation.”

It should go without saying that, like any other workplace dispute, nobody not directly involved really knows what the situation is. Not other politicians and not the public. Not you, and not I. It’s not for public judgment, but for House of Commons inquiry. In the spirit

of fairness, healthy workplace culture and general common sense, some politicians weighing in might have voiced views more responsibly. No matter how close to the accused, or what the outcome will be, prematurely declaring sides is not only foolish but deeply disrespecting of individuals’ right to seek recourse against those in positions of superiority.

“It’s like the Crucible,” a source declared, referencing the witch trial play beloved by amateur dramatic societies. Really? When it comes to letting workplace human resources grievance inquiries run their course, not at all.

A “we stand with Joanna Cherry” graphic floats around as though this were campaign season, and not for looming European elections, an important moment for the party to brandish pro-eu credentials.

Some have disappointing lack of judgment in a rush to engage. Speculation runs rampant that complaints are linked to any number of enemy factors, among them state interference, internal jealousy, retaliation for Cherry speaking on the Gender Reform Act (GRA), or more vaguely, “speaking up for women”. Cherry recently received police protection after facing online abuse. But it seems unhelpful to conflate the incident with a workplace complaint. Mixed messages, to say the least.

The GRA discussion is notably divisive with a history of attracting extremists. What it needs now is de-escalation. Cherry was one of several signatories of a related open letter, published in the days leading up to the SNP spring conference. If the ethics weren’t enough of a reason to build consensus, division isn’t very good for political parties either: it’s often taken advantage of by opportunists seeking