A few weeks ago I praised Holyrood and its elected representatives for their consideration of equal marriage.
It was impressive to see our MSPs really raising their game for such an important matter. A similar sense of pride for the Scottish Parliament was felt when the budget was passed. Reasoned and firm debate, with party politics put aside in favour of doing what politicians felt was right.
Another important topic was discussed this week. Corroboration, the centuries old Scottish legal requirement for two pieces of evidence before an accused person can be brought to trial, is a contentious issue.
Victims’ groups, the police and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill all reckon scrapping corroboration would bring a higher percentage of rapists and domestic abusers to court.
Legal experts and groups such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission have expressed concerns about the legal safeguards and potential for miscarriages of justice.
That led to the Tories tabling an amendment asking for the plans to be taken out of the Criminal Justice Bill at least for now, which was backed by Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens.
This was a debate to get right. It was always going to be contentious. SNP MSP Gil Paterson showed how to deliver a moving, powerful speech, regardless of whether or not you agree with his conclusion that corroboration should go.
It’s a pity his Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, decided not to carry himself with the same dignity.
Despite knowing he had won a close vote the Conservative amendment was defeated by just three votes he chose to turn it into a bloody boxing match where he taunted his soon-to-be defeated opponents.
He even brought the independence referendum into proceedings by suggesting the opposition to corroboration was a Better Together conspiracy.
Yes supporters Patrick Harvie and John Finnie reacted angrily in the chamber hardly surprising, given the matter at hand had absolutely nothing to do with September’s vote.
Some SNP members also expressed their surprise and concern at the Justice Secretary’s conduct. This Bill still has to go through Justice Committee again, where the party is in a minority, so perhaps slightly more conciliatory language would have been advisable.
After one of many occasions where the chamber erupted with anger during Mr MacAskill’s speech, Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick was moved to say: “I recognise that this is a very heated debate, but people are watching the debate and members are not doing the Scottish Parliament any favours by their behaviour.”
She was quite right – it was embarrassing. I know I was not alone in feeling shame and anger at how Scotland’s democratic process was treated.