As Purcell departs, questions remain

GIVEN the way events have unfolded since he announced that he was to relinquish his position as leader of Glasgow City Council, it was becoming inevitable that Steven Purcell would also have to stand down as a councillor.

After a series of revelations relating to his lifestyle while he was leader – including this newspaper's story that the council had been preparing to reveal he had a "chemical dependance" – his decision is therefore the right one: for him, the local authority, the city and Labour.

In stepping away completely from life as a public representative, Mr Purcell will have space to try to come to terms with his own personal demons, which he began to address this week at a clinic which specialises in helping those with alcohol and drug addictions.

Whether there will be other developments for Mr Purcell arising from this story, about which we still do not know the details, it is impossible to say, but he needs to realise that he must face the full consequences of his actions.

And while Mr Purcell's decision to leave elected politics is best for him personally, it still leaves many unanswered questions about his tenure as Glasgow's leader which will put the decisions made during that time under the microscope.

One such question is whether his ability to run the council impacted on its policies, its practices, and its duty to act properly in the interest of its citizens. Until we know the answers to this and other questions this affair is, unfortunately, far from over.