Who does the Guardian pick to 'umpire' for readers the latest embarrassing revelations about Nicola Sturgeon's dealings with Alex Salmond? Yes, Dani Garavelli – whose reporting of the SNP's 'civil war' has been discredited by those very revelations https://www.dumptheguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/14/salmond-inquiry-nicola-sturgeon

Garavelli falsely argues that the SNP civil war 'exploded' into the limelight because of ‘briefings’ by Salmond supporters. But it's Sturgeon supporters, including Garavelli, who have long been briefing against Salmond – after they were infuriated by his earlier jury acquittal

Garavelli suggests that the Scottish government's failure to hand over documents to a parliamentary inquiry, stalling the hearings, reinforces ‘a longstanding perception of the SNP administration as lacking in transparency’.

No, it suggests much more: a cover-up

Garavelli says texts from Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and SNP boss, calling for ‘pressurising’ police and advising ‘the more fronts [Salmond] is having to firefight on the better’, are ‘grist to the conspiracy-theory mill’.

No, they're prima facie evidence of a conspiracy

Garavelli and her supporters have attacked those like Britain's ex-ambassador @CraigMurrayOrg precisely for trying to highlight that conspiracy. Murray is now facing a contempt case led by Scottish prosecutors to silence him

The fact that Sturgeon’s claimed timeline of events cannot be right is presented by Garavelli as an ‘attack’ on Sturgeon’s ‘probity’ – rather than very strong evidence that her claims are, to put it kindly, implausible

Garavelli calls hers ‘a broad perspective’ – one that prefers to defame parts of the independence movement as colluding with the opposition rather than joining it in demanding government transparency and the exposure of corruption

Garavelli can imagine no possible motive for Sturgeon to lie – apparently forgetting it’s her first job as a journalist not to prejudge the matter but to call for the release of those documents the SNP has refused to hand over, documents that might settle the matter of motive

Instead of demanding transparency, Garavelli gushes out her own, Sturgeon-supporting theories about ‘injudicious’ behaviour and ‘good intentions gone awry’ – as though she’s gunning for a job as the first minister’s press secretary

Garavelli concludes with a push for #MeToo solidarity with Sturgeon – let’s just ignore all that ‘injudiciousness’ – presumably knowing that it’ll play well with the Guardian's liberal audience

But the real problem isn't with Garavelli. It's with the Guardian for allowing an unabashed Sturgeon courtier to present her cheerleading as a judicious weighing of evidence rather than what it is: a craven effort to shore up a discredited narrative