... And she could be in line for a payout BEFORE victims

SADLY, today’s revelations will only add to the mistrust of government and authority figures that survivors already feel.

Many did not understand why Ministers were prepared to get rid of Susan O’Brien in the first place.

The Scottish Government assumed that survivors were offended by her comments.But the truth is – and this is typical of the way the Government treats them – the survivors were never asked.

I know that it was Ms O’Brien’s choice to walk away, but it certainly appeared as though the Government pushed her to the door. This also raises another troubling possibility.

If the courts find in her favour, she could receive compensation before the survivors, who have been waiting decades for justice.

Of course, if the Government has treated her unfairly, then it is fair enough that she should seek redress. But people will ask why justice is so speedy for her, when it has taken so long for them.

Some people are on the brink of walking away from the whole process. There are all sorts of mixed emotions. Many are very angry with the authorities. Some of them say they are just being treated like children again – not taken seriously, not consulted.

A lot ask why they should go through this again. Telling their story is very distressing for survivors. What are they going to get out of it in the end? People want to go ahead. They sense this is our last chance for justice. But they are not convinced that is going to happen. And this is not a new experience.

In Scotland, the survivors are happy with the inquiry team itself, which is carrying out preliminary investigations. We have asked them to prioritise the sick and elderly, and we’ve been happy with the response.

But the same cannot be said of the Scottish Government. We have fought tooth and nail for years for this inquiry. At one point we were told by a Minister that there would never be one. They have been forced into it. And even then they have tried to limit the scope and cost. They have a natural tendency to be obstructive, when they should be supporting us.

Even this week, we saw John Swinney refuse to broaden the remit of the inquiry. That means some survivors will not receive justice because the abuse they suffered falls outside the remit of this inquiry. That is unacceptable.

It could be that money is a factor. Perhaps the Government is frightened of what the total cost of redress might reach. But we feel they don’t have enough empathy for the feelings of survivors.

The average survivor has had a hard life and has not achieved what they would have liked. Because of the abuse they suffered, they find it hard to form relationships, suffer marriage breakdowns and drug and alcohol problems.

Authority figures have done this to them and now they fear authority figures are stopping them getting the justice that is reasonable. What they want is for abusers to be held to account.

And if organisations have failed them, they should be held to account, too.