RON Gould's report did not make comfortable reading for any party or person involved in the organisation of May's elections. He stated that "all political parties in Scotland were involved in the long-running debates, contributed to the final decisions and shared in the failure to prioritise the interests of the voters". The ballot paper design was a key issue, as Gould confirmed. How did we get to a place where 4% of votes cast were spoiled?
First the independent Arbuthnott Commission commended the use of a single ballot paper so that the second vote was given more prominence. The Scotland Office put that suggestion to public consultation, the replies to which showed general support from
the major parties. The Electoral Commission next tested it with the public and responded that "these conclusions point to the interests of the voter being best served by the design of ballot paper that incorporates both the regional and constituency ballot papers alongside each other on a single sheet".
As Secretary of State I drafted an order allowing a single ballot paper that was put to both Houses of Parliament - where it passed without opposition. These were decisions made in good faith, on the basis of consensus, but, as we now know, things did not turn out as we intended. Yet a bad report for politicians was made worse by how some reacted to it.
Some simply left the real world behind. Conservative Francis Maude told BBC's Question Time that I had put Labour above the SNP on the ballot paper - er, no Francis. For the Lib Dems, Nicol Stephen forgot he was Deputy First Minister and one of the ministers concerned when he blamed me and my colleagues.
And the SNP? Their decision to put 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' on the ballot paper was identified specifically by Gould and he wants the law changed "to minimise the possibility of confusing or misleading voters". Yet they chose to ignore this and instead lead the charge in questioning the integrity of the ministers involved.
In response, Ron Gould made clear: "I did not suggest in the report that specific actions were taken by ministers to advance their own party's interests but that all political parties were concerned with the potential political advantage that could be gained by certain decisions." Nicola Sturgeon called Gould "bizarre". Kenny MacAskill suggested he had been "nobbled". That is not the attitude of someone in government - it is the politics of the playground.
There was no pressure whatsoever put on Ron Gould, other than, I presume, by the media and other political parties who decided to interpret his report in a particular way. His letter was a complete surprise to me and my colleagues.
So where do we go from here? Ron Gould makes a number of recommendations about how we conduct future elections. My successor as Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated his desire to return to separate ballot papers for the constituency and list sections, and the rejection of electronic counting for those elections.
Not least so that no future Scottish Secretary or other elected politician finds himself in the position I was in, I believe immediate and serious consideration should also be given to creating a Chief Returning Officer for Scotland.
But, beyond these important specific actions, what else needs to change? Surely we all need to consider how we better ensure the public's voice is heard in our party debates and discussions. I believe that most MSPs and MPs of all parties came into politics for the right reasons - to try and make the world a better place. But it is difficult to convince a sceptical public of that when some politicians are more comfortable slinging mud at independent reviewers or at fellow politicians' integrity.
We can use the Gould report as the end of an episode we regret or the beginning of a process to try to change politics in this country. It will be a long road, given the level of cynicism towards all politicians these days, but I believe a useful first step would be for all us involved simply to say sorry.
I said back in May that if Gould found fault with my department's actions or decisions I would apologise. And, on reading the report, that is exactly what I did. Sorry shouldn't be the hardest word. Not in life and not in politics. Alex Salmond likes to see himself as a big man of Scottish politics. The question emerging from Ron Gould's view that "all political parties shared in the failure" is whether he is big enough now to apologise this afternoon in Aviemore.
After a bad week for Scotland's political class it would be a worthy contribution to our national conversation.
