When Henry McLeish resigned last week as First Minister the Scottish press were quickly blamed for precipitating his downfall. In the aftermath some claimed rather hysterically that a media witch-hunt had led to McLeish’s demise. This interpretation of events certainly bears little resemblance to the slow unfolding of the ‘Officegate’ drama. This story broke back on April the first when the Scottish Mail on Sunday revealed details of McLeish’s office sub-let to legal firm Digby Brown. However, the world weary press corps at Holyrood basically decided this was not news. Reviewing the sparing coverage of this story until a couple of weeks ago leaves the impression that there was nothing amiss, and that McLeish could at worst expect an embarrassing ticking off from the Westminster standards commissioner. The absence of any inquiry into the nature of McLeish’s relations with his tenants, or into the tenants themselves, is a striking feature of the few media reports there were. This is hardly the form of watchdogs, witch-finders, or indeed sleazebusters.

Nevertheless, this story refused to go away. On October 23, when McLeish was ordered by the Fees Office at Westminster to repay £9,000, the opposition and media began to take a serious interest in the matter. Then the Fife constabulary confirmed they were to investigate a fraud complaint regarding McLeish’s sub-lets. On November 1, in a bruising First Minister’s Questions, McLeish attempted to finally close the story down as he challenged his critics to ‘put up or shut up’.

Up until now the media had reported rather than made the news on ‘Officegate’. This changed dramatically when the First Minister appeared later that night on BBC’s Question Time in Glasgow. His very public confession that he didn’t know how much money was involved was political dynamite. In a stroke McLeish managed to undermine his own credibility and set the news agenda for the coming days.

For Team McLeish this was a public relations disaster largely of their own making. Failing to prevent McLeish’s humiliation on network television turned ‘Officegate’ into a crisis. The reaction to this broadcast was almost universally damning. The Holyrood press pack were highly critical of the First Minister and insisted, in the name of the parliament’s openness and transparency, upon full disclosure. As the bad press continued McLeish’s advisers set about establishing the basic facts of the expenses row. This would form the basis of McLeish’s defence before his party, the media, and parliament.

On November 6 the McLeish fightback was launched. The First Minister declared a further £27,000 in expenses and chose to characterise his oversight as a muddle rather than a fiddle. While this convinced the Labour Party, their Lib-Dem coalition partners, and the Record, other were less impressed. The Sun savaged McLeish, branding him a numpty, lampooning him as ‘Mr Muddle’and demanding his resignation. The Scotsman, Herald and Business AM were critical of McLeish’s conduct and openly questioned his judgement. Both the Guardian and Independent called on McLeish to quit. All agreed the First Minister was badly damaged and that the reputation of devolution was further tarnished.

For many media pundits the issue was not McLeish’s probity but his competence. He was expected to survive, but was now damaged goods. A Scottish television phone-in poll on November 7indicated the public wanted him to resign by a majority of three to one. As commentators lined up to attack McLeish only the Record offered a modicum of support. On November 8the Record advised on its front page ‘Go for it Henry’. This backing was the latest manifestation of the Record’s late love-in with the First Minister which had recently included a truly toe curling puff piece by Joan Burnie ‘celebrating’ his first anniversary at the top of Scottish politics. This close relationship with the Daily Record alienated other papers, notably the Sun, and virtually ensured that coverage of the saga would be vitriolic and vindictive. So when it emerged that McLeish had failed to declare yet another sublet he had little choice to resign, not because the media forced him to, but because he had managed to destroy his own credibility.

So, can the Scottish media be satisfied with their role in the ‘Officegate’ affair? Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that they belatedly fulfilled their scrutiny function, though it is worth considering that the really damaging and defining moment of ‘Officegate’ took place on live television rather than on the front pages of the national press. No in the sense that the press were largely and reactive and not curious.

Cronyism is again said to be rife throughout public life in Scotland. With the advent of the new parliament we now have more political hacks than ever before looking for news. Since they rarely appear in the Holyrood press gallery or at committee meetings, can we safely presuppose they are busy elsewhere unearthing scandal and exposing corruption? To date, there has been a dearth of investigative journalism at Holyrood. If we are to have a genuinely open and transparent polity we need an investment in news gathering and scrutiny that bypasses the spin culture of the Executive. McLeish’s supporters and detractors can surely agree that our new democracy can only benefit from such vigilance.