Peeling the Bill Walker onion

There are so many layers to the Bill Walker story, it’s like peeling an onion.

Of course, he should never have been a parliamentary candidate, never mind an MSP. But somehow he got through. That should give the SNP and the other political parties pause to consider the rigour of their selection procedures, so that they might be certain that they do all they can to minimise the risk of future Bill Walkers. Given what we know now about his behaviour and refusal to accept responsibility for his actions, a modicum of value-based interviewing, of setting up scenarios to test the approach and attitude of aspiring parliamentarians would surely have found him out. A little less focus on the party credentials of putative candidates and a dollop more on the person and their characteristics before them might result in quite different people coming forward and being chosen to stand.

There are suggestions that some folk in the SNP knew about him much earlier than when he came to the attention of the Sunday Herald and subsequently, the police. There’s already an indication that journalists intend to pursue this line of enquiry, as well they might. The Sunday Herald’s Tom Gordon is already on to it, though his twitter- and door-stepping of someone who had just lost their mother was unedifying. I’m not sure Bernstein would have approved.

But if it is to avoid a witch-hunt led by the slavering political pack, roared on by opportunist opposition MSPs, the SNP needs to take ownership of the situation. The party needs to announce an internal inquiry, investigate every nook and cranny, uncover every layer of who knew what and when. And be seen to do so.

At the very least, it owes the women whom Bill Walker abused physically and emotionally, one while still in her teens, an explanation. The party does not need to lay bare its findings for media edification but if it finds itself wanting, to own up and say what it is doing to change that. And put the onus back on other parties to do likewise: after all, they all have their own bodies they’d like to remain buried.

We must not allow the media to become Witchfinder General as a result of the Bill Walker situation.  Unless we want the parliamentary equivalent of the Stepford Wives. Because Holyrood comprises people, there are bound to be others with stuff in their past, they’d rather we all didn’t know. They are, after all, just like the rest of us. Many of us have life experiences we work hard to forget but those experiences tend to make us who we are, if we have bothered to learn from them.  We are all fallible and gullible;  we can all be vulnerable to the most venal of emotions and actions and actually, we need a legislature which reflects life’s rich tapestry. The alternative is too awful;  indeed, many of us already bemoan just how many professional politicians with no experience of life outside the party presently occupy the parliamentary benches here and in that other place.

The issue is whether there are some like Bill Walker in denial about their current behaviour.  Had the man showed any remorse and responsibility for his actions, had he talked openly about his abusive nature and what he had done since – anger management classes, mediation, therapy – to control his behaviour and create different relationships, had he even pled guilty and spared his abused ex-wives the pain and trauma of having to relive their experience in open court, then our reaction might have been different.  Yet, right to the last, he has continued to blame others for his actions: he is resigning not because he is a convicted abuser of women and children but because the media onslaught made it impossible to continue.

His offensive behaviour continues in the present and he has no place in parliament.  Just as there might well be others whose antics in their personal life run contrary to the grain of public policy and what society has deemed to be acceptable.  Clearly this is tricky territory but the parties are duty bound to have a long hard look at their current crop of parliamentarians and assure themselves – and us – that there are no more Bill Walkers in their midst.  Not for what they might have done before and atoned for, but for what they are doing presently.

That might sound and seem harsh but the Scottish Parliament too requires to provide for anyone struggling with demons. Does it offer a confidential counselling service which MSPs might use?  Does it acknowledge that it has a duty of care to members and their staff?  Is there even a whistle-blowing service for staff who because of the nature of their work might uncover stuff about their bosses they don’t know what to do with and might not feel able to share with their parties?

What duty of care does the Scottish Parliament recognise to Bill Walker’s staff? They will lose their jobs from this;  chances are, given his refusal to acknowledge wrong-doing, that he wasn’t the most pleasant of bosses to work for. He possibly verbally abused and bullied them. Is someone somewhere offering and providing them with support if they need it?

The same applies to the women who bravely came forward to relive their experiences in court, to see justice done. Those who work in this sphere know from what women and children tell them, that the experience of giving evidence in court can be like being abused all over again. Until court proceedings are concluded, there is a sense of life on hold and afterwards, they are all too often left on their own to pick up the pieces. That’s where organisations like Scottish Women’s Aid and the Rape Crisis Centre come in – one hopes that someone has put the women involved in touch with them.

There is always the potential for good to come from a terrible situation like this.  We haven’t had a focus on domestic abuse and violence in the home for a while. It’s there or thereabouts but in recent years, Holyrood has got rather good at congratulating itself at how well we address and respond to this social ill. Yet, the statistics suggest we’re not doing nearly enough. Cases are rising, and worryingly, there are increasing numbers of young people affected, but convictions remain stubbornly low.  A parliamentary inquiry seems timely to explore the issues, what we are doing and what we might want to do differently.

There is great work out there focusing on prevention, to encourage the next generation in particular, to form healthier relationships – it would be good to showcase this and ensure that it is adequately resourced. But as with alcohol, there’s a need for Scotland to tell itself a few home truths, and that is that there are far too many families across the spectrum in Scotland where violence – in deed and discourse – is the norm.  Until we are prepared to acknowledge collectively that we have a problem, we are still far from finding a solution.

In the meantime, there’s a by-election to be prepared for. For the anoraks, the jockeying has already begun with speculation over who might be candidates. There is a suggestion that Labour will field an all-woman shortlist and at least one woman’s name is circulating as a possible SNP contender. Who knows, might the Lib Dems tempt Sarah Teather to come northwards?

Already some are agreed that it would make for a powerful symbol for all the candidates in this contest to be women. And already, this suggestion has been met with the tedious response that the candidates should be the best people for the job.  Just as Bill Walker clearly was, then.

But this by-election allows our political system to say something meaningful to the people of Dunfermline in particular and to Scotland more generally, that there is no place for violent abusers in our Parliament or indeed, anywhere in our society,  but plenty of room for more strong, impressive women. Indeed, some of us are even prepared to campaign across party lines to achieve such an outcome.

7 thoughts on “Peeling the Bill Walker onion

  1. An all women by-election would really piss off Bill Walker – for that reason alone, it’s a splendid proposal!

  2. Whilst I’d like to believe that better selection procedures could prevent abusive individuals like this getting into positions of power, I think, in reality, the most they could do is reduce the risk. After all, three more women married Mr Walker after he had taken to abusing the women in his life – presumably they didn’t believe he had a history of violence. Whilst he is not the subtlest of individuals, many abusers show no outward sign of what they do behind closed doors and are very good at hiding it. This said, I would venture that the important thing is simply to remove them when we find them. It’s only after they are identified that there is a risk of others been perceived as condoning their behaviour, and that it becomes impossible for vulnerable constituents to have as much faith in them as in the average member of society.

  3. I thought the party had already done an enquiry? Ian Hudghton reviewed the process and they changed it so that all information is put to the Election Committee in future.

    That obviously allows for more malicious complaints which is the downside but there isn’t any other way around the situation where someone is just a liar and doesn’t own up to things.

    All the focus on trying to pin blame on individuals is misguided in my view. I don’t think anybody did anything ‘wrong’ although clearly the process was wrong. You can’t blame any one individual for a bad process. Technically it is the responsibility of the National Secretary I suppose whoever that was at the time – or indeed the entire NEC since they have oversight of everything. But clearly nobody would have intended for this to happen. If they had known how things would turn out they’d have booted him off the approved list of candidates without a second’s hesitation.

    We just need to be a lot more rigorous in future. I agree that a role playing scenario would be good. Even leaving aside the criminal aspect of his behaviour Walker’s evident homophobia made him completely unsuitable as an MSP. He should never have passed vetting. My personal opinion – and it’s only that – is that things like homophobia and sexism and so on are all linked. If you’re against one group you’re likely to be against another. And if you’re a judgemental person you also probably don’t like being judged yourself. Maybe some psychlogical profiling might be in order or is that going too far?

    • I agree. no one is to blame here, and I had forgotten about Ian Hudghton’s inquiry so that’s one aspect done and dusted.

      Psychological profiling is probably too much but value based interviewing is illuminating when practised appropriately. The wider point is that the SNP can’t just put this one to bed, there are too many loose ends which have potential to cause a stushie if not tackled head on.

      • Yes fair point but there is too much point scoring around it which gets in the way. I think the people the SNP are accountable to on this are 1. Walker’s victims. 2. The people of Dunfermline. 3. Other MSPs & staff. 4. the SNP membership 5. other parties and the press. In that order.

  4. Why were these charges not brought against him 30 years,and every year since? almost like a sleeping dog that was awakened to bark loud and long.Again Holyrood cant boot him out because lack of power.

    • Charles, that great unanswered question. Why was he not convicted at the time? Why now? You cannot bar someone from politics unless he has a criminal record showing he was not fit to be a MSP. Other wise no one would get through. Lrd Watson sits comfortably in the HOL, drawing over £300 a day for what? He tried to murder people in their sleep. Why is that OK? It all smells a wee bit of.

Comments are closed.