Why Aitken had to go
He had to go. Bill Aitken, that is.
The issue, that of rape, demanded his departure. Even those who tonight are reflecting upon Mr Aitken's hitherto distinguished political career recognise that there was and is a greater imperative.
That is, no woman should have to wonder whether there is even the scintilla of a suspicion that our lawmakers might adhere to the view that rape victims are, to any extent, responsible for attacks upon them.
In his statement tonight, Mr Aitken insists that rape in any circumstances is "an abhorrent, vile violation".
He insists that the comments made to the Sunday Herald with reference to a particular case in Glasgow city centre have been taken out of context and misrepresented.
In the course of a conversation with a reporter, Mr Aitken had raised the issue of the location of the incident, noting in passing that it had been associated in the past with prostitution - while adding that such a comment might be irrelevant to the particular case.
'Entirely unacceptable'
As Mr Aitken put it, this comment "left open" the prospect of misunderstanding. His critics put it rather more bluntly.
Patrick Harvie of the Greens tabled a motion for him to quit the committee, describing his comments as "entirely unacceptable".
The level of criticism rose substantially as Labour's deputy leader Johann Lamont said that Mr Aitken's reported comments were "appalling".
She noted further that nothing must be said which might deter women from coming forward with complaints of rape and sexual assault.
Tonight she said he had done the right thing by resigning. So did the SNP. So did the Liberal Democrats. They are correct.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.