SSP tearing itself apart

by Colm Breathnach - ISN - personal capacity Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:19 breathc at hotmail dot com

Heres an interesting interview with Andy Mc Pake a member of the SSP and their youth wing SSY. Although the interview was given to the newspaper of the AWL, Andy is not a member of that organisation.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6569

by Saoirse - none Fri Jul 14, 2006 17:02

As a former member of the SSP when I lived in Glasgow, I've been following this case in the Daily Record with a growing sense of disgust. I don't care WHAT Tommy Sheridan did [since all admit it was between consenting adults] or what political differences there are within the SSP - it is a crying disgrace the way Alan McCombes [someone for whom I used to have a lot of respect] and other SSP 'leaders' have gone into court to back the News of the World. To be honest, I would go into any capitalist court and cheerfully lie through my teeth for any left-winger, whether they were part of the same party as me or not. What are these people about? Have they never heard of solidarity? Don't mind class solidarity? What about loyalty to friends or, in the case of Sheridan and McCombes, former friends? There's a very obvious settling of old scores going on here.

As for what the SSY guy says about the political differences within the SSP, I don't recognise them. First, he is completely exaggerating the influence of the SWP. I think this is probably to play to the anti-SWP line of the Workers Liberty people. Second, there are clear political differences between Sheridan and others in the SSP going back to before they dumped Sheridan [whern I believe they should have stood by him]. These political differences are about whether you have an outgoing, more activist based party that gets heavily involved in things like the protests against the G8 or one that is simply an electoral machine. Its true the SWP and Sheridan did not have much time for each other but both came together in the battle to get the SSP to throw itself into the G8 protests.

by Observer Fri Jul 14, 2006 18:00

Most of the left placed quite extravagent hopes in the SSP experiment. This was supposed to demonstrate that an alternative to New Labour could be built outside the Labour Party. In theory, it abandoned some of the worst 'sectism' of the far left and was striving for a more inclusive and broadly based approach.

Whatever the outcome of this court case, it is utterly clear that the SSP is finished. It has becoem a joke in Scotland. A mass party with a long tradition can afford some blood letting of this kind occasionally - it has many active members over decades, witrh intense loyalty, who will not let it drop. But the SSP is precariously positioned for this kind of madness. It also seems nonsense to think its ongoing collapse is all about personalities. Something more fundamental in its culture is driving it to where the far left always lands - splits, fragmentation, and collapse.

I think those who thought so highly of it need to reflect a little more on the politics behind this and come up with some kind of analysis.

by Shlyapnikov Fri Jul 14, 2006 18:24

It would have been better to remain a small insignificant sect taking instructions from London. "Lushche menshe da lushche"

by Splitter and proud Fri Jul 14, 2006 20:26

No, I don't think observer is loyal to a far-left sect, I think he would have preferred if all the Scottish activists had stayed inside Tony Blair's New Labour and wasted their time campaigning for a right-wing, Thatcherite party so it could privatise public services and attack foreign countries.

I'd be very interested to hear his analysis of what went wrong with the British Labour Party - he can shriek and denounce the SSP all he likes, but they're not the ones who have set about privatising the NHS and fought colonial wars in the Middle East. His sectarian attacks on the SSP have no credibility whatsoever.

by John Meehan Fri Jul 14, 2006 22:22

The International Socialist Group (ISG), Britain, has published this statement on the SSP Crisis :

http://internationalviewpoint.org/print_article.php3?id...=1084

The actions of the SWP and CWI Platforms in Scotland, on this matter, are grotesquely irresponsible.

It is time for SWP and CWI supporters outside Scotland to make themselves familiar with this dispute. Members and supporters of these organisations in Ireland should consider their options, and, hopefully, call on their gravely mistaken comrades in Scotland to pull back from a disastrous political mistake. They do not have to express their views publicly - but they do have a duty to take a position.

by Ralph Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:37

I don't know how any person considering themselves on the left can not defend Sheridan. You must be prudish moral conservatives. The State and Media should not be allowed invade a person's private life. If Sheridan was engaged in consentual sex acts with anyone or any group of people It's his business!!! Even if his wife did not know, it's still a private matter between him and his wife. Have the "no sex please we're British" ISG got a problem with consentual sex? Why should any person be attacked for it? This is the same hype that gay people faced in the past. It's disgusting that any socialist would attack Sheridan against a witchhunt from the capitalist press. Only reason why this is harming the SSP is because these conservatives (McCoombes et al) have their own personal ambitions and support capitalist press attacking Sheridan.

Defend Sheridan against Capitalist Press!
State/Media out of consentual sex!

by Saoirse - none Sat Jul 15, 2006 14:52

Obviously, most of you have not been following the court case as - if you had - you would know that those of his so-called friends and comrades who were called to the witness box to testify that he had used prostitutes ended up admitting that he hadn't, that he had attended a party where someone else was with a prostitute [not a pole-dancing club, but a 'swingers' club' held in a hotel room]. To be honest, I don't think that socialists should be part of these kind of alienated sexual activities but I don't think that there is ANYTHING wrong with orgies etc as long as they are all consenting adults [I wouldn't be into it, but that's a different matter].

by Eamon Sun Jul 16, 2006 22:07

There may be some elements in the SWP who are now trying to hide behind some notion of 'cabinet responsibility' as an explanation for the about-turn in their position of Nov 2004 (when they endorsed Tommy's removal) to that of now (organisers of his fan club)

Nothing would surprise me about this organisation

It won't wash.

I have spoken to three members of the SSP EC who attended all of the meetings in Nov 2004.

They inform me that the SWP reps had no difficulties with the decisions taken.

The decision of the SWP to do a 180 degree turn came not from Scotland, but from London, as all of their decisions do.

by Ralph Mon Jul 17, 2006 03:01

Saoirse wrote "To be honest, I don't think that socialists should be part of these kind of alienated sexual activities but I don't think that there is ANYTHING wrong with orgies etc as long as they are all consenting adults [I wouldn't be into it, but that's a different matter]. "

WHY do you say socialists shoudl not engage in these 'aliented' sex acts? Why are socialists different to other human beings? Do socialists take a pledge of chastity? I don't think so. Saoirse says he's ok with consenting adults doing what they like, but at the saem time he has problems with orgies and swingers clubs. This is exactly the kind of CONSERVATISM about sexual matters that shunned sex before marriage and gay people. This is the moralism that dominated the Dail when the Government recently increased age of consent. The only person to oppose that law was a socialist (Joe Higgins). OK, you may not be into orgies or swingers clubs. Neither would I. Fair enough, just don't get involved. But why do you label it as "alienated"? It could even be considered the opposite! The only sex act that socialists should oppose is non-consentual acts (which includes those that involve the exchange of money such as prostitution and lap-dancing clubs).

by Slugger Mckensey Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:05

Colm Brenach says to read the workers liberty interview. The interviewed says its not about TS its about a struggle 'between left and right!' Who is the left? The nationalists that love bomb Sinn Fein and the SNP or the SW Platform who want to dump the SSP for Respect or the CWI Platform who always wanted to smash the SSP anyway. Lastly, the 'Sheridan is the devil brigade', the ones that decided the SSP needed a 'useful fool' to be a disciplined 'working class hero' figurehead. They who fell in love with newspaper headlines and Tommy fitted the bill. But he got the 'wrong' headlines and upset the electoralists. They decided to shaft him,not because of his sexual behaviour everyone in the SSP leadership knew about his 'carry on' but they suddenly became overnight protestant puritans. The left in scotland is going to take a critical downturn. The SSP may not survive as the varied factions hate each other more than the right. I certainly dont think its as simple as right v left in the SSP.

by Observer Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:11

There seems a serious lack of analysis in this discussion. The view widely held by the left was that the SSP represented an historic opportunity to build support for radical ideas. It is clear that the whole project is now doomed to end in tears. I doubt that this can be satisfactorily explained by reference to the personal psychology of a few individuals. However, a pattern is evident. Far left party building projects always end like this - whatever their precise nature, whatever the 'objective' conditions, wherever the country, whatever the decade. When EVERY opportunity that the far left has ends up in splits, denunciations, internal rows it suggests that there may be something innately wrong with the fundamental analysis on offer. It is time for some serious reflection.

by Saoirse Mon Jul 17, 2006 13:46

Ralph, I agree with you that there's nothing un-socialist about orgies as long as everyone is a consenting adult. The alienated sexual activities I was talking about was even attending a lap dancing club or being in the company of people who use prostitutes. I would not be friends with someone who used prostitutes.

I don't have the time to refer whoever the determinedly anti-SWP comments are coming from to articles in the [London] Socialist Worker around the time of the EC in question. I read it on the web at the time. I'm sure anyone who is interested can google it themselves and see that there are what the cops would call "contemporaneous evidence" that they were saying back then that there was dreadful puritanism around and that their EC people [think there was only two of them then, but I couldn't swear to it] had opposed Sheridan's ousting. I remember it clearly because it echoed what I was thinking myself, i.e. don't care what he gets up to sexually etc.

by SP member - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Jul 17, 2006 14:43

For 'Slugger Mckensey'. The CWI did not, do not and never have wanted to 'smash' the SSP. The split with ex-members of the CWI in Scotland was over their desire to liqudate the CWI into the SSP. The CWI supported the establishment of the SSP as a broad left party but insisted that the CWI form a coherent Marxist current within the SSP. The CWI members in Scotland have consistantly worked to build the SSP and will continue to do so.

In relation to the dispute between the pro-and anti-Sheridan camps, the CWI has been consistant. The CWI opposed the removal of Sheridan as convenor. The CWI opposed the position of the leadership element around McCoombs on Sheridans legal case against the NOTW, and the political direction that McCoombs etc. want to take the SSP. While the CWI has political disagreements with Sheridan, and those in the leadership who support him, the CWI supports the campaign to change the direction of the SSP.

by tom eile Mon Jul 17, 2006 15:51

It's TS who is suing the News of the World for slander because it said he took part in these activities. By suing , he is saying ,as much as the NOTW is ,that the activities are immoral . If there is nothing wrong with swinging ,snorting cocaine and drinking champagne ,why doesn't he just say a big "so what" to the revelations instead of dragging the SSP into his hypocricies ?
I'm pleased that the membership SSP have stood up to Sheridan and am not in the least surprised that the SWP and CWI have come out in his support . The hiercarchial structures of these groups with their charismatic bureaucrats leading unquestioning paper -selling memberships reflect the class relations of society as a whole . Political groups ,even - especially! - the most left wing ones , don't exist in a class free bubble .
If the grass roots of the left doesn't get used to holding its own leadership to account it will never be able to challenge the capitalist system - it won't have the political or moral authority . The SSP should take the fight to Sheridan and his corrupt supporters and throw them out of the party .

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Jul 17, 2006 18:16

You really need to acquaint yourself with the facts of this story.
To start with Sheridan's case against the NOTW has shown so far that the NOTW are on very shaky ground. In fact the only people so far that have given any kind of concrete evidence against Sheridan have been other leading members of the SSP. In fact if you read some of the rubbish being posted on UK message boards it clearly indicates that a section of the leadership of the SSP are intent on shafting Sheridan irrespective of the consequences to the SSP.

Secondly far from the membership standing up to Sheridan, the rank and file have been solidly in support of Sheridan. At the recent NC meeting of the SSP, the rank and file of the party stood solidly behind Sheridan against opponents in the party leadership.

Those who need to be held to account in this situation is the leadership of the SSP who used this libel case as an opportunity to shaft Sheridan in order to shift the political direction of the party to the right. The shafting of Sheridan was vital in order to ensure reduced opposition among the membership. Something which has backfired incredibly and led to a situation whereby one by one the anti-Sheridanites are being paraded in court as witnesses FOR the NOTW.

by Saoirse Mon Jul 17, 2006 18:19

That's why Sheridan had to sue. In fact, the prostitute [who was paid by NOTW for her story] has now admitted under oath that it was the guy Sheridan was with that had paid her and had sex with her but the NOTW and the rest of the Tory press must be very happy to see the SSP tearing itself apart.

Think the problem is the McCombes lot was that they saw the opportunity to get rid of Sheridan and steer the SSP in the direction they wanted to...i.e. to be a new-Old Labour Party.

by Eamon Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:31

Your comment about how a desire to shift to the right by the SSP leadership lies behind their 'attack' on Tommy sheridan is right up there with the SWP's 'analysis' of the situation, namely that the SSP leaders want a 'narrow, sectish' Party as opposed to Tommy's supposed vision of a 'broad, pluralist party, and that of other assorted tubes who have tried to argue that it was Tommy's work in the military families against the war campaign that provoked it. ( a view that Rose Gentle herself rubbished last week)

In short, it is nonsense and tell us nothing about why the SSP is currently tearing itself apart.

To imply that Sheridan's politics--or those of the CWI or SWP for that matter--lie to the left of the SSP leaderships or the SSP United Left is laughable. Sheridan is far more capable of being swayed to the right than anyone in the SSP leadership, and the notion that he represents a left-faction is giving what is a pathetic and squalid little libel case greater meaning. Show me a statement or quote me a policy document that backs up your contention that the SSP leaders are moving the party to the right. If you can't do that, then stop peddling this nonsense.

As for the SSP 'rank and file' being solidly behind Tommy--not true. Maybe you hadn't noticed but the NC result in May was very close, with Sheridan defeating the leadership resolution by 82 votes to 67. That is evidence of a split party, not one that is fully behind anything.

The truth about the CWI position is that its based on a shameless opportunism. The CWI opposed the establishment of the SSP. They did everything to stop it and predicted it would fail (unlike the startling success of the SP under Taaffe in England). The present predicament of the SSP has given the CWI a chance to work towards the fulfillment of that prediction. The way that the SP has tried to justify its position with recourse to imaginary left-right divisions with the great Tommy heading up the Left is ridiculous.

Personally, I would care little if the SP left the SSP. They are tired old hacks for the most part and the SSP could well do wtihout them. Lets see how messrs Stevenson and co do out on their own up in Scotland. And the same applies to the SWP.

The truth is that the SSP represented a genuine attempt by ex members of Militant in Scotland to unify the left. In order to do that they made serious concessions, including the establishment of platforms and the entry of groups who were actually opposed to the setting up of the party.
The establishment of the SSP represented a challenge to all left groups in Scotland. Could they forego their sectish behaviour for the good of the struggle for socialism? Regrettably, recent events show that both the CWI and the SWP are not up to this challenge.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Tue Jul 18, 2006 16:15

What the SWP do is entirely up to themselves, they have flip-flopped all over the place on this issue.

Your obvious dislike of Sheridan as an individual has nothing to do with his politics. There are members of the SP that I don't get on with on a personal basis but that does not mean that I will refuse to work with them. McCoombs and co. have been consistantly trying to shift the SSP to the right. This has been even more evident since Sheridan's removal. A dog with mallet up his rear end could recognise this. Your failure to do so could be the result of your blind hatred of Sheridan.

With regards the NC vote, you have also come out with this rubbish before. The vote of 82 -67 in support of Sheridan has to be contrasted with the 22 votes opposing his removal in 2004. Along with this the 82 votes largely represented rank and file interests while the 67 opposing Sheridan represented the McCoombs leadership groups votes. The SSP could well split (I hope not) but the likelihood is that a large section of the rank and file will remain in the pro-Sheridan camp.

You continue to peddle this rubbish about the CWI's attitude to the SSP. The CWI DID NOT oppose the establishment of the SSP. Just because the ex-Militant group (including Sheridan I might add) said it does not make it true. The CWI opposed the liquidation of a marxist current into a broad formation. Read all the documents they are on the CWI website. The CWI did not predict the SSP would fail we suggested that by not having a coherent marxist current within it the likelihood is that the party would drift to the right (which is exactly what is happening). The CWI wants the SSP to succeed and have and will work to achieve that objective. Your inability to recognise that the SSP does feature political divisions shows how blind you are to political developments and your view of politics as solely about personalities.

Of course you would like to see the CWI out of the SSP. Just like the right-wing in the Labour Party you want the CWI gone so they cannot provide any opposition to any political move to the right. The SSP represented an attempt by former marxists to set up a broad party. Nothing wrong with that, but without a political framework to hold them together factions were inevitably going to form. This is what has seen the disintegration of the ISM. I had hoped, as did every member of the CWI, that our warnings about the political direction of the ISM, and the SSP for that matter, would prove unfounded. Unfortunately it appears we were correct. Hopefully the SSP can be salvaged, the CWI sincerely hope this is the case. But unless the pro-Sheridan camp win out in the current faction fight, the movement of the leadership group around McCoombs to the right will be accelerated.

by Non-SP member/non-CWI Tue Jul 18, 2006 21:02

"McCoombs and co. have been consistantly trying to shift the SSP to the right. This has been even more evident since Sheridan's removal. A dog with mallet up his rear end could recognise this. Your failure to do so could be the result of your blind hatred of Sheridan."

Eamon challenged you to quote statements that backed up the claim that the SSP leadership are trying to shift the party to the right. You haven't done so, just repeated the claim by saying "it's obvious, everyone knows, it's obvious". If you want to convince people, you're going to have to try harder than that.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Jul 18, 2006 21:28

I don't think it's as simple as a group around McCombes "trying" to move the SSP to the right. The entire leadership of the SSP has gradually shifted towards reformism and nationalism over the years. This involved abandoning the idea of having a seperate Marxist organisation within the party and has included all kinds of statements about the positive models that various Scandinavian countries provide. A particularly damaging move has been the "Independence Convention", which is actually an alliance of sorts with the right wing Scottish National Party.

The thing is though that it is too simplistic to portray that shift as being down to McCombes and his wing of the SSP leadership. It's a sad fact that Sheridan has gone along with or pushed for most of these changes too. I don't think it's accurate to portray the falling out amongst the SSP leaders as being over clear cut political issues. They were all, to a certain extent in it together.

I think it is right to defend Sheridan against the tut-tutting of various other SSP leadership figures, against their prurient attitudes and certainly its right to oppose people helping out the right wing press. But that doesn't mean pretending that Sheridan is politically better than he is.

by Non-SP member Tue Jul 18, 2006 21:34

"This involved abandoning the idea of having a seperate Marxist organisation within the party and has included all kinds of statements about the positive models that various Scandinavian countries provide."

Whatever about the "separate Marxist organisation" business, I remember the fuss about some things Sheridan said in the media about Scandinavia. I couldn't for the life of me see what was wrong with it, he didn't say that Denmark or Norway were models for socialism, he said that they were free-market, capitalist societies, but they showed that it was possible to have higher tax rates and more public ownership without economic meltdown. Not much to get hot under the collar about. The whole fuss seemed more like the CWI settling scores than anything else.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that there's no big political differences between Sheridan and McCombes. This is not what your party has been saying, however....

by Glasgae Lad Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:32

"I think it is right to defend Sheridan against the tut-tutting of various other SSP leadership figures, against their prurient attitudes and certainly its right to oppose people helping out the right wing press. "

Back up your lie that leadership figures in the SSP are tut-tutting and have prurient attitudes. There would have been full support from those figures that you talk about if Tommy had have come out and said to the NOTW 'well what about it. It's true, so what'. But Tommy didn't. He didn't lie to the EC but he is lying to his family and currently to the courts. And who exactly is helping the right wing press? Who brought the action against the NOTW? Is telling the truth, helping the right wing press? Would the CWI recommend lying in this instance? Better to save Tommy than the party?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Jul 19, 2006 15:28

The fact that the SSP executive held a meeting which discussed Tommy Sheridan's sex life and they went on to make a minute which purported to record things to do with his private life is evidence enough of a "prurient attitude" as far as I am concerned, Glegae Lad. They had no business discussing any of the above, still less did unknown individual members of the SSP leadership have any business leaking details of what this meeting allegedly discussed and of the supposed minutes to the right wing press.

That doesn't mean, by the way, that I think Sheridan was wise to respond to the News of the World allegations by sueing. But I think it is telling that the main evidence for the News of the World has been provided by SSP members.

by Glasgae Lad Wed Jul 19, 2006 16:24

"The fact that the SSP executive held a meeting which discussed Tommy Sheridan's sex life and they went on to make a minute which purported to record things to do with his private life is evidence enough of a "prurient attitude" as far as I am concerned, Glegae Lad. They had no business discussing any of the above, still less did unknown individual members of the SSP leadership have any business leaking details of what this meeting allegedly discussed and of the supposed minutes to the right wing press."

I think you are letting spin get to you and not facts. The SSP did not discuss Tommy's sex life. They discussed a NOTW article. They discussed how Tommy was going to deal with that article. Tommy admitted he had been involved in the activities mentioned but stated that he was going to brazen out an action against them. Now how discussing issues pertinent to the SSP are evidence of a prurient attitude is beyond me. You miss the point that if Tommy had come out and said 'well what about it' there is very little the party could have done. [Notwithstanding some of the SSP's postions] It is wrong that the NOTW are in the position to do what they did. But are you honestly saying that if a leading member of the SP in Ireland was to be in a similar position that no organ of your party would discuss the matter?

"That doesn't mean, by the way, that I think Sheridan was wise to respond to the News of the World allegations by sueing. But I think it is telling that the main evidence for the News of the World has been provided by SSP members."

How do you make this out? What do you think was going to happen once Tommy decided to sue the NOTW? That they would only call non-SSP witnesses. These are bourgeois courts. I am sure the SP in Ireland on more than one occasion have had to deal with the courts. I am sure depending on tactics that on some occasions they have refused to cooperate and taken the consequences. And I am equally sure that on other occasions you have had to deal with them and answer their questions and where needed to apologise for contempt or the like. The main evidence may be coming from SSP members who are honestly answering questions put to them. And why are they answering them? Because Tommy brought an action against the NOTW. I'll ask you again, what are you suggesting the comrades should do? Lie for Tommy?

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Wed Jul 19, 2006 18:24 breathc at hotmail dot com

Here's another interesting article on the issue, this time Carolyn Leckie MSP's (of the SSP) response to Tommy Sheridan's attack on the alleged 'gender pressure group' perspective of his opponents.

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/ssp_debat...2.htm

by Glesgae Lad Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:38

I think the sanest thing said in the courts so far in relation to this case was what Richie Venton said yesterday in court, the SSP's Glasgow regional organiser and national trade union organiser.

He said Mr Sheridan told the party executive he would deny the allegations.
He added: "It is one thing to lie to the News of the World, that is what they trade on, but it is another thing to lie to a court."
The case continues.

Still think the EC were discussing Tommy's sex life?

by Eamon Thu Jul 20, 2006 14:12

Sheridan in the Court of Session yesterday effectively said that Allan Green (SSP sec), as well as Alan McCombes, Keith Baldassarra and Richie Venton are all liars, and that he, Tommy, is the only one telling the truth. This is because they all recollect that Tommy did admit going to a swingers club in Manchester and that he did say he was prepared to lie about this and deny it publicly if necessary.

Sheridan's position now is that the minute of the EC of 9 November 2004 has been concocted by a hostile group of enemies within the EC and is at odds with what reallly happened.

This conveniently forgets that Tommy himself accepted it in November 2004.

I have also spoken to 3 SSP EC mems, including 1 who is not part of any platform; All believe Sheridan's current position to be outrageously dishonest and at odds with the meetings of November 2004. All are actually shocked at what he is doing.

But none of this seems to matter to the SP/CWI, or the SWP

Sheridan hasn't a shred of credibilty and neither has any grouping in the party who supports him.

As for SP member's comments about his party not opposing the establishment of the party. The CWI wanted a party that they would control from their HQ in London. Those who set up the SSP wanted a fully independent party, free of London control. Given the fundamental nature of that divide, it is proper to say that the CWI were opposed to the formation of the SSP.

And as for me wanting the CWI mems to leave the SSP, it has nothing to do with regarding them as lefts or a revolutionary tendency. Instead, it has more to do with the fact that they know that Sheridan has been telling lies and is an opportunist, but still they support him, for the most cynical reasons. Groups like that have nothing to offer the struggle for socialism in Scotland.

And also, to regard the 82 votes for TS at the NC as represntative of the rank-and-file is the biggest laugh of all. Many of that 82 were SWP mems, who do nothing in the party, and who you'll rarely see on the ground, carrying out public work on behalf of the SSP. Others included a certain former mouthpiece of multi-millionaire and former Celtic Fc owner Fergus McCann. This character informed the NC that Tommy Sheridan had 'always been his leader'!!!!

With such raw material, I doubt very much if the Tommy faction willl build anyhting of substance in Scotland.

by Glesgae Lad Thu Jul 20, 2006 14:57

Today in court Colin Fox said:

"Many people thought the best way to confront these allegations was in the court of public opinion rather than the law courts."
The witness was then reprimanded by the judge, Lord Turnbull, after he made a remark about completing his evidence quickly in order to resume his holiday.
Mr Fox told the court that if Mr Sheridan wanted to fight what he called "smears" he would have backed him.
Michael Jones QC, counsel for the News of the World, said: "Would you have felt quite happy with your own conscience if Mr Sheridan had gone public and denied he had visited the club?"
Mr Fox said: "It is a very difficult question to answer yes or no but I suppose if you are asking me about my conscience I would say yes."
He also told the court he wanted Mr Sheridan to "come clean", accept it was an indiscretion and move on.
The case continues.

by Eamon Thu Jul 20, 2006 19:12

Following on from Alan McCombes, Keith Baldassarra, Allan Green, Richie Venton and Colin Fox, Barbara Scott has become the latest SSP EC member to dispute Sheridan's recollection of the events of 9 November 2004. She took the minute of the EC meeting that night, the one where Sheridan admitted visiting Swingers clubs in Manchester, where he stated he would lie in public if necessary to deny this, and where his resignation was asked for.

Barbara Scott reiterated that this is what happened and that the minute taken was accurate

Sheridan in court today effecitvely called her and the rest of them all liars.

So they're all lying, Tommy, and its you who are telling the truth?

Apparently so, if you're a member of either the SP or SWP

by Socialist Thu Jul 20, 2006 20:03

that the only evidence the NOTW appear to have, comes from members of the SSP EC resulting from minutes that should never have been taken of a topic that should never have been discussed.

by Another socialist Thu Jul 20, 2006 21:17

That you keep on clutching at straws when the evidence against your position keeps stacking up. Only in Leninland...

by Glasgae Lad Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:34

You made a comment about the EC of the SSP giving evidence. I've asked Mark P without getting an answer. What would you have them do? Lie for Tommy? Why are they giving evidence? Who brought the action?

Below more evidence from Carolyn Leckie:
Ms Leckie said it "hadn't been about judging behaviour but about the most popular, most famous convener with a huge reputation for principle, honesty and integrity being shown to be a hypocrite and a liar".
Mr Sheridan put it to Ms Leckie that she had come to court in pursuit of a political faction fight and had never heard him making that admission.
She replied: "That's a fantasy of yours, Tommy. You just can't take responsibility for your actions."
The case continues.

by SSP Supporter Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:42

Delgates to the SSP NC are elected by the Branch with 2 delegates for the first 40 members, then 1 delegate for each additional 20 members or part of.

There were 3 motions carried at the NC meeting. Of the 2 not mentioned so far the first passed on a show of hands dealt with the member of the leadership who had given a sworn affidavit to a Sunday Herald jounalist.

The third motion below was carried by an 81 - 60 vote

This meeting recognises that the excellent vote achieved by the Scottish Socialist Party in the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary elections was due in no small part to the role played by comrade Tommy Sheridan both as sole MSP and as a campaigner for the working class in Scotland and internationally over the previous decade and a half.

This meeting recognises that the perceived failure by sections of the SSP leadership to support Tommy when he was attacked by the News of the World in 2004 and the subsequent perception of the Party as divided has been a major factor in the decline in support for the Party since then.

This meeting recognises and applauds the very positive role played by Colin Fox in trying to heal the Party's wounds and restore members' confidence since taking over as Convenor in 2005.

As a matter of socialist principle, this meeting fully supports Tommy's right to defend himself against the News of the World and the Murdoch press. Whilst Tommy Sheridan is pursuing his libel case as an individual, we offer him our full political support in his battle against one of the most vicious and anti-working class organs of the ruling class.

This meeting also recognises that in re-building our electoral base, Tommy Sheridan must play a leading role in the 2007 election campaign.

by tom eile Sat Jul 22, 2006 14:25

It isn't a matter of defending T Sheridan . He isn't on trial and never has been . This should be seen as a state orchestrated scheme to smash up the SSP. In bringing the case against the NOTW Sheridan was acting against the best interests of his party.He may have been doing that for hypocritical egotistical reasons at first , but the matter changed completely when it became clear that the NOTW lawyers were going to call for the minutes of the committee .That was an attempt to criminalise the SSP leadership on perjury charges - and Sheridan was preared to go along with it. His refusal to drop the case at that stage made him party to the stitch-up of the SSP.
The NOTW ,Sheridan and the state are making common cause against the SSP .

by Socialist Sat Jul 22, 2006 16:10

Firstly, the issue should never have been discussed at all at the EC of the SSP.

Secondly, if elements of the SSP were insisting on discussing it, no minute should have been taken.

Thirdly, once TS decided to pursue his libel action the minutes should have been immediately destroyed.

Forthly, McCoombs and others attempted to use the minutes to force Sheridan to drop his libel case. Remember, a prominent member of the SSP gave a sworn affadavit to the Scottish Hearld outlinging that a minute existed and what the minute said. What for the reason for this action and who in the leadership new about it?

Fifthly, if the minutes had been destroyed, the leadership could have denied any knowledge of the issue as there would have been no evidence that the meeting ever discussed the issue.

The SSP had an opportunity to become a mass force in Scottish politics. This whole issue has been a shambles. It is reasonable to argue that Sheridan should not have taken the libel case. But once he did, McCoombs and others should not have placed themselves in the position of giving evidence in support of the NOTW and against Sheridan. It either shows an enormous degree of naievity on behalf of these individuals or it was a calculated act to remove Sheridan from the SSP. Either way all that they have succeeded in doing is making the SSP look like an ass and the SSP will probably never recover.

by ssp supporter Sat Jul 22, 2006 19:59

Much of the so-called evidence to support the News Of The World case is based on members of the SSP executive who are supporters of the so-called United Left telling the News of the World QC of private conversations - outside of any meeting - that are supposed to have taken place one to one between them and Tommy.

by tom eile Sun Jul 23, 2006 15:16

Sheridan supporters think that an issue of considerable importance to the SSP should not have been discussed by the party’s EC ,but if it was discussed no minutes should have been taken. Once the minutes had been taken and there was the possibility of them being used in court they should have been destroyed - in which case exec members should be prepared to perjure themselves by denying that the minutes ever existed.
For the exec to do that would leave them wide open to conspiracy charges. If just one of its members broke ranks and gave an affidavit saying what had really happened the state would have been able to close the party down as a criminal conspiracy . T Sheridan could not have been unaware of the legal implications for the SSP , but was prepared to allow the case to go ahead . He was prepared to allow Mc Coombs go to prison and the exec liable to perjury charges - for the sake of what? What was the principle at stake ?
Socialists who defend TS should think of the implications for their own parties. Consider this scenario:
A plant in a Socialist Party or a SWP branch announces he is a drug dealer . The next day there’s a headline in the paper saying that the party is a front for drug dealing ,a charge which the party denies . The party exec takes the paper to court for slander . Minutes of the meeting are asked for by the newspaper’s defence counsel .The party exec refuses to hand them over and is imprisoned for contempt . Or the executive denies the minutes ever existed and is brought up on conspiracy charges.
I'm not suggesting that Sheridan was deliberately acting for the state when he launced his libel action. But the state will certainly be following this case with interest . It has exposed a gaping hole in the security of lett groups that the state will be able to exploit when it feels ready to .Left groups in Ireland as well as in Britain should review their security arrangements in the light of thiscase.

by Socialist Sun Jul 23, 2006 19:20

Your scenario is absurd. If a member of the SP or the SWP indicated that they were a drug dealer, I have absolutely no doubt they would be expelled on the spot. The different parties would not attempt to hide this fact as it would be political suicide. If a left party sued a newspaper on this basis I believe there would be no problem releasing the minutes as they would demonstrate swift action in dealing with the individual. There is one hell of a difference between dealing in drugs and engaging in consentual sex, if that is what Sheridan did.

The question that needs to be asked is why did the SSP EC discuss matters concerning the personal life of a member. If some individuals felt discussions were necessary they should have been conducted on a private basis not at an EC and most certainly minutes should not have been recorded.

One vitally important question that still awaits an answer is why did a prominent member of the SSP swear an affadavit for the Scottish Herald outlining that a minute of the meeting existed and what was contained in the minute. If you are looking for an individual acting for the state then you should look at this individual and not Sheridan.

The decision to actually record a minute was the decision that caused the problem. It is clear that it is this that the NOTW is now using to force McCoombs and others to testify against Sheridan. Recording the minute was stupid in the extreme if an innocent act, and directly designed to force Sheridan to drop his libel case and force him from any position of influence in the SSP, if a calculated act. I am of the opinion that it was the second and in reality the strategy has blown up in everybody's face.

by Glesgae Lad Mon Jul 24, 2006 13:21

I don't know whether 'Socialist' is deliberately trying to blur what happened/is happening but the facts are that at the EC of early November Tommy resigned from the postion of convenor. Minutes were kept because minutes are kept of all EC meetings. The constitution of the SSP calls for EC meetings to be minuted. Nothing untoward going on there. The minutes are taken by an elected minute taker. A minute was taken of the true reason as to why Tommy resigned as convenor. At the meeting Tommy outlined how he was going to deal with allegations (he hadn't been named at this stage) in the NOTW. If you think the EC of a poltical party hasn't a right to discuss a strategy which most people felt to be personally and politically disastrous for Tommy and the Party, we'll agree to disagree.
For the record Tommy informed nobody that his case had started. The party was unprepared to deal with the request for the discovery of the minutes which had been agreed would be kept confidential at EC and NC level. The party recently voted after the jailing of Alan McCombes to reverse that decision. Initiating proceedings agains the NOTW are what I consider to be the most stupid act in the extreme. At the end of the day Tommy is not the defendent in this case.

by tom eile Mon Jul 24, 2006 14:38

“There is one hell of a difference between dealing in drugs and engaging
In consensual sex, if that is what Sheridan did. “

There’s no disagreement on that point, Socialist, but it isn’t the one I’m trying to make. Sheridan was proposing to go to court and lie under oath – a criminal act. For a leading member of a socialist party that is not a personal matter The SSP executive had every right to know what he was up to and become involved. The NOTW story had all the hallmarks of state supported entrapment - the security of the SSP was at stake.
The Scottish Socialist Party was negligent - too trusting .There should have been something in its constitution to prevent Sheridan from pursuing this disastrous libel case that was obviously going to rebound on the party. Left wing parties used to have a condition in their constitutions that executive members entering into any type of litigation could only do so with the permission of the party . Socialists in Ireland should check their own constitutions to see if there are such safeguards in them .

by SSP supporter Mon Jul 24, 2006 16:24

"There should have been something in its constitution to prevent Sheridan from pursuing this disastrous libel case that was obviously going to rebound on the party."

There is. It's called recall. To the best of my knowledge it was being exercised.

by SSP Supporter Mon Jul 24, 2006 18:49

Sheridan calls comrade as witness

Rosemary Byrne was called by colleague Tommy Sheridan

A Scottish Socialist MSP has told the Court of Session in Edinburgh that she never heard colleague Tommy Sheridan admit going to a swingers' club.

Rosemary Byrne also said she had no recollection of minutes being ratified for a party meeting in 2004.

by Observer Mon Jul 24, 2006 19:38

There are two possibilities here. One is that the majority of the SSP leadership are, as Sheridan basically says, unprincipled bastards lying through their back teeth to do him down. If that is the case, how could any worker have any confidence in what the party does in the future?

The other explanation is that Sheridan (remember: essentially the founding leader of the SSP) is a lying bastard, willing to destroy the party to shore up his own reputation for fidelity. Again, If that is the case, how could any worker have any confidence in what the party does in the future? How could people take seriously a party which seems to produce morons as leaders?

I think this is the end for this group, and seome serious rethinking about the future is required.

by Observer observer Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:21

Rethinking eh? So we should all follow your advice and support Tony Blair's Labour Party?

by Observer Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:27

I don't recall saying anything about 'supporting Tony Blair's Labour Party' (although if anyone wants to argue that joining Labour with a a view to shifting it left is an option, that sounds a bit different to 'supporting Blair').... I am just suggesting that since the SSP has ended in fiasco some debate/ discussion about the underlying reasons, strategic alternatives and how to build socialist forces is a good idea..... Where it leads to or ends is a different matter. Attempts to rally support within Labour haven't been notably more succesful than attempts to build outside it, to be honest. But it would be foolish to look at a disaster of this magnitude and imagine that no rethinking is required. I personally have a fairly open mind about it.

by Eamon Tue Jul 25, 2006 15:01

Pat Smith (SWP member) has appeared in court today as a witness for Tommy Sheridan in his libel case against the NOTW. She has testified that Tommy did not state to a meeting of the SSP EC that he had visited swingers clubs, or that he would deny and lie about this in public if necessary.

Sheridan most certainly did say those things at a meeting of the SSP EC on 9 November 2004.

Maybe Pat Smith has a bad memory.

In that case, we should not expect an answer from her to the most obvious question: why if Sheridan did not do those things, did she, along with the rest of the SSP EC, call for his resignation at that meeting?

by tom eile Tue Jul 25, 2006 17:28

The SWP woman seems to be suggesting that the SSP minute taker - with executive approval - falsified minutes in order to discredit Sheridan .
Ms Smyth said in court today the ,'"minute of the meeting held to discuss allegations about the MSP's sex life may have been drafted for 'negative reasons'." (bbc)

Does the SWP in Ireland go along with Ms Smyth making this statement when they know it is a lie ? Grassroot SWP and Socialist Party members in this country should ask their leaderships why they are endorsing Sheridan's attack on the SSP . I know many committed socialists in both those parties who go out selling papers ,organizing meetings , canvassing - doing all the grunt work to build their parties for no reason or reward other than commitment to the cause. I'd like to ask them what they would do if one of their leaders came along and dragged their party into the dirt like Sheridan has done to the SSP. Would they be able to hold the leader to account or do they see themselves as the faithful flock of their leadership?

From today's BBC report of the trial .
"For many people, Tommy Sheridan was the Scottish Socialist Party," said Mr Jones. ( barrister for the NOTW)
"I think that is true", said Ms Smith.

by sp member Tue Jul 25, 2006 19:58

.

by Eamon Tue Jul 25, 2006 21:30

Graham McIver (SSP Organiser for the South of Scotland) gave contradictory evidence at the Court of Session today. Called by Tommy Sheridan, McIver first stated that he could not recall Alan McCombes saying at the EC meeting of November 9 2004, how in 2002 Sheridan had admitted going to swingers clubs. Later, under cross examination, McIver admitted that it might have happened.

McIver was then warned by the judge if he was aware of the type of prison sentence that perjury carries.

It is a question that the remainder of TS's witnesses should ponder on.

Far more serious, however, is the damage that they are doing to the struggle for socialism in Scotland. In order to back up Tommy's version of events--pure fantasy, it has to be said--they have been prepared to spread the most disgusting lies about their fellow SSP EC members.

The best outcome for socialism in Scotland remains a defeat for Sheridan, and his expulsion from the SSP at the special conference in October, along with those in his camp whose lies have ripped the party asunder

by Pro Tommy Wed Jul 26, 2006 00:43

How can so many Irish people who know very little about what actually happened apart from tabloid media lies and gossip they have heard from their trendy leftie mates speak with such authority about what happened at SSP executive meetings and about what Tommy Sheridan does in his spare time?

by SSP supporter Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:14

the person responsible (and there is only one) is a prominent member of the anti-Sheridan faction in the SSP. One particular individual, who's personal hatred for Sheridan knows no bounds, has been trolling left-wing forums spouting all kinds of stuff about Sheridan over the past 3 or 4 weeks.

The anti-Sheridan faction tried to use the existance of these 'minutes' to shaft Sheridan and the entire situation has now blown up in their collective faces. Irrespective of the outcome of Sheridan's libel case, these individuals are headed for political oblivion. The sole prospect for survival of the SSP is for Sheridan to win the case. If this happens there is some small chance that the SSP could ride out the whole debacle and survive.

by SSP Supporter Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:20

"How can so many Irish people who know very little about what actually happened apart from tabloid media lies and gossip they have heard from their trendy leftie mates speak with such authority about what happened at SSP executive meetings and about what Tommy Sheridan does in his spare time?"

And what give you an authorative voice to be a Tommy supporter? Bit stalinist that, isn't it? I'm a supporter of the SSP and class politics. And what's with the 'trendy leftie' comment? Nearly sounds like the cllr trolling.

by SSP Supporter (Non Stalinist) Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:30

"the person responsible (and there is only one) is a prominent member of the anti-Sheridan faction in the SSP. One particular individual, who's personal hatred for Sheridan knows no bounds, has been trolling left-wing forums spouting all kinds of stuff about Sheridan over the past 3 or 4 weeks."

Pure nonsense. What you are implying is that all the people on this thread who are supporting the majority of the EC memory are the one person. What nonsense. It is you who are the fantasist.
You could just as easily spin the other way. There is a group of people who have an intense hatred of Alan McCoombes and Frances Curran. Their personal hatred is the only thing that is seeing them support Tommy through this. The court case has shown that at least ten members of the EC have a clear recollection of what Tommy said at the EC meeting. That includes Colin Fox and Richie Venton. And I can't see any reason why they would lie.

by SSP supporter (survival for SSP) Wed Jul 26, 2006 13:29

Interestingly I get on with McCoombs and Curran far better on a personal level, than I ever have or would with Sheridan. That is not the issue.

Sheridan is not blameless in this whole situation, but the position the SSP now finds itself in is directly as a result of the antics of the majority on the SSP EC. I personally don't give a fiddlers anymore about what was said in 2004. The fact that a minute was taken and the existance of this leaked to the media has ensured that the only solid ( and conflicting) evidence that the NOTW has is the result of evidence by McCoombs etc.

Anyone who is under the illusion that the SSP will be saved by Sheridan losing his libel case is living in cloud cuckoo land. The ONLY hope for survival for the SSP is for Sheridan to win. Otherwise the entire SSP will be view by the Scottish working class as a joke.

by SSP supporter (Non-Stalinist) Wed Jul 26, 2006 14:00

"The fact that a minute was taken and the existance of this leaked to the media has ensured that the only solid ( and conflicting) evidence that the NOTW has is the result of evidence by McCoombs etc."

Minutes were/are taken at every EC meeting. Its demanded by the constitution. The only reason why the NOTW is hearing evidence is because Tommy took an action against the advice of the EC. He is not the defendant.

by Tommygun Wed Jul 26, 2006 16:40

Some interesting evidence emerges.

'Campaign to discredit' Sheridan

Tommy Sheridan has been the victim of a "fairly relentless campaign to discredit" him from within his own party, a jury has heard. The claim was made by Scottish Socialist Party member Professor Mike Gonzalez when asked if he was aware of anyone trying to undermine Mr Sheridan. Prof Gonzalez said: "I have certainly become aware, since all these events occurred, of a hostility towards you."

"I would hardly risk my hard-won professional reputation by telling a lie in court "

Prof Gonzalez,

On day 16 of the case Mr Sheridan, called the academic as a witness. Prof Gonzalez, 63, of the University of Glasgow, said the hostility had come from "a group of people on the executive committee". He also said he had never seen a four-page minute of an emergency meeting of the party's executive committee convened to discuss lurid claims about an unnamed MSP's sex life in the News of the World.

by SSP supporter (Non-Stalinist) Wed Jul 26, 2006 16:48

Your copy of the court record doesn't mention which platform Gonzalez belongs to. Care to mention which one?
Still beggars the question as to why Richie Venton and Colin Fox have staked their reputations on saying they are aware of what happened at the meeting. I'll stick to believing what they have to say, any day of the week.
When this all blows over. How long do you think the marriage of the SWP, the CWI and Tommy's misogynist army will last?

by Tommygun Wed Jul 26, 2006 17:00

No idea which faction the Prof belongs to. Just fed up of some posters drooling over the anti Sheridan evidence. Now its time to hear the other side. I'm not Scottish, not a Trot, not a Stalinist.

Having more than one partner does not make one a misogynist. Only a puritan would suggest that.

Hooray for Sex!
Hooray for Polyamory!
Down with the Leninist Puritans!

by tom eile Wed Jul 26, 2006 17:56

"The fact that a minute was taken and the existance of this leaked to themedia has ensured that the only solid ( and conflicting) evidence that the NOTW has is the result of evidence by McCoombs etc."

I don’t know what evidence the NOTW has – how could the executive or Sheridan know either ? What if they have photographic evidence ? When Sheridan was foolish enough to get caught in a NOTW trap, the executive of the SSP were duty bound to defend the interests of the party as a whole. To do that they needed Sheridan’s full cooperation ,but it was not forthcoming.
Instead of discussing how best to limit the damage to the party and allowing the party to decide the best course of action , Sheridan decided to up the ante ,go it alone and take the NOTW to court . This left the executive in a terrible situation. . They could not allow ,and had no right to allow one man to decide policy – that would have gone against the democratic decision making process that the SSP is dedicated to. Once Sheridan had admitted that he intended to lie his way out of accusations that were substantially true ,the executive could not keep that from the membership of the party . His supporters think the executive should have kept their mouths shut on the matter, but that would mean that the executive was holding secrets back from the membership as well as from the NOTW legal team . What right would they have to do that? Surely the rank and file of the party had a right to know that their leader was a champagne drinking coke snorting ,wife swapping liar ?
The NOTW could very well have more evidence against Tommy .Who knows , it could be in their interest to lose the case for now ,have costs awarded against them , then appeal with new evidence. That’s what happened in the Jeffery Archer trial . They could afford to drag this one out for years . Can the SSP afford to ? All Tommy Sheridan had to do was tell the truth and none of this would have happened .

by SSP supporter (Non-Stalinist) Wed Jul 26, 2006 18:07

In the cut and paste job that you did from the BBC you forgot to cut and paste this:
Prof Gonzalez did not attend the meeting on 9 November, 2004.

by Tommygun Wed Jul 26, 2006 18:08

"The NOTW could very well have more evidence against Tommy .Who knows , it could be in their interest to lose the case for now ,have costs awarded against them , then appeal with new evidence. That’s what happened in the Jeffery Archer trial . They could afford to drag this one out for years "

So that will be your line if Tommy wins. Mo matter what happens you are out to smear Tommy and impose a Puritan No Sex Outside Of Marriage Regime.

by Tommygun Wed Jul 26, 2006 18:11

It is standard Indymedia procedure to post the first few lines of an article and provide a link to the rest of it. Thats what I did. No conspiracy here. Try again.

by SSP supporter (Non-Stalinst) Wed Jul 26, 2006 18:15

Tommygun you are a bit behind. That was the smear used weeks ago by Tommy's supporters that this was about puritanism. They've moved on from that when it became obvious in the court case that it was not about that. The only one with a problem with admitting sex outside marriage is Tommy. If only he had been more honest with Gail than he had been with the EC on the 9th November.

by Tommygun Wed Jul 26, 2006 18:24

But its obvious that you have a problem with free and easy sexual relationships. You fear them. Otherwise why would keep raising the issue just as you did in your last comment. You cannot see or understand any sexual relationship other than in marriage.

Your type of "socialists" are no different than the various conservative churchs. You see everything in terms of the nuclear family.

Those days are gone. There are now many different forms of loving.

A woman loving a man.

A woman loving a woman.

A man loving a man.

A woman loving more than one man.

A woman loving more than one woman.

A man loving more than one man.

The only way you will be able to stop it is to put people in prison. Is that your idea of a Socialist Paradise?

by Wallace Wed Jul 26, 2006 19:01

You can't have it both ways Tommygun.

You say its all about free sexual relations i.e. that Tommy has every right to engage in any sexual relations outside marriage. Thats fine, but the problem is that Tommy denies he ever had sex outside marriage and insists he has always remained faithful to his wife.

So if how can you square that circle; on the one hand you claim his opponents are puritans attacking him for cheating on his wife and on the other you support the liars who claim he did'nt cheat. Which is it?

by Tommygun Wed Jul 26, 2006 19:05

I'm not having it both ways. I believe Tommy. You are the people who suggest there is something wrong with sex outside of marriage.

Its Tommys right to choose to remain monogamous if shouls so wish. He doesnt think theres anything wrong with others engaging in Free Love.

You fear Free Love.

by Eamon Wed Jul 26, 2006 19:10

The impeccably middle -class, and armchair Che Guevara, Mike Gonzalez, appeared at the court of session for Tommy today.

It is truly remarkable how TS is now in bed (It's a metaphor, Tommy--please don't sue me) with reps of an organisation that for 20 years criticised him as a populist and parliamentarian. What does that say about both him and his SWP fan club?

Anyway, looking at Gonzalez's evidence, he argued that there was a 'relentless' campaign against Tommy in the party from other Ec members. Actually, there was not. There was a great deal of dismay and sadness about the path Sheridan was taking and the damage that it would do the party, but this is not the same thing. Many people less well-known than Sheridan have spent the best part of their lives building up the socialist movement in Scotland and were and are desperately unhappy about his reckless strategy and the destruction it was causing within the party. Understandable, really.

Gonzalez was not at the EC meeting of 9 November 2004, but he did attend the next meeting held 2 weeks later. At that meeting he said nothing about the decision to call for TS's resignation, and did not oppose it in any way. Like fellow SWP member, Pat Smith, (who did attend the 9 November meeting and supported the call for Tommy to resign) perhaps he doesn't remember that.

Commenting on the minutes of the 9 November meeting today in court, Gonzalez said that he had never seen anything quite like them (not surprising, considering that the SWP is intensely undemocratic and would never dream of drawing up accurate, detailed minutes of its CC meetings). However, he was and is in no position to pass judgement on their authenticity.

As it stands now then, we have on the one hand, all of the leading members of the SSP EC (McCombes, Venton, Leckie, Fox, etc) arguing that Sheridan did make those admisssions, and only two fairly undistinguished members, one of whom has a vested interest in destroying the party in line with the hopes of her party's pin-up boy George galloway, saying that he didnt.

I know who I believe.

And it isn't Tommy's fan club

by SSP supporter Wed Jul 26, 2006 20:49

The NOTW has no other evidence on Tommy Sheridan. The NOTW's case is finished. The case they presented comprised of very weak innuendo without any solid evidence. The only concrete evidence they were able to use was the evidence from the anti-Sheridan faction on the SSP EC. This only existed because the SSP EC discussed an issue it should never have discussed, recorded a minute that should never have been recorded and then leaked to the media that the minute existed. There is an old saying among lawyers 'never ask a question you don't know the answer to'. The existance of the minute was made public in order to force Sheridan's hand. Big mistake and it is now destined to lead the SSP to political oblivion.

by SSP supporter Wed Jul 26, 2006 20:57

The NOTW actually argued in court that their article was 'substantially true'. In other words most of it is a pack of lies. The anti-Sheridan faction were the people who fell for the NOTW hook, line and sinker. The bottled it, and either felt the need or (more likely, saw an opportunity to shaft Sheridan, thereby playing into the hands of the NOTW. As I said before, it is possible to argue that Sheridan should not have taken legal action, but given the fact that he clearly indicated that he would, the interests of the SSP would have been best served by the SSP EC members not placing themselves in a situation whereby they would be brought to court to give evidence FOR the NOTW.

by Predictor Wed Jul 26, 2006 23:14

Heres my hunch. Tommy will lose the case. This won't alter the balance within the SSP which is slightly favourable to the pro-Tommy alliance. The October conference will see a showdown with the likelihood that the United Left grouping will lose by a small margin. They will probably then be purged or leave to form a new organisation. Thats when it gets interesting.

The pro-Tommy grouping is a cobbled together alliance of Tommy's personal friends and family, the small CWI and SW platforms and a number of old-fashioned regional organisers who control personal fiefdoms. Left to their own devices they face huge problems: the CWI and SWs hate each other and would immediately start pulling in opposite directions: SWs want to link up with RESPECT while the CWI would oppose this to the death. The pro-Tommy grouping is seriously lacking in capable activists, since most of the key figures in the SSP are associated with UL. Public opinion would probably turn against Tommy if he loses the case and it is likely that the SSP would soon fall apart under Tommys regime.

On the other hand, the UL has a number of advantages starting out: it has the support of the vast majority of SSP members in Glasgow, which is the heartland of SSP support. It also has some of the most experienced activists in the party. It is a fairly cohesive grouping unlike Tommys coalition. Although the UL is probably a minority in the SSP overall, it still has significant support in other key areas including Edinburgh. Although starting all over again would be tough, its chances of survival would be higher than what's left behind.

by Observer Thu Jul 27, 2006 00:57

Intercecine squabbling may be interesting, but the truth (obvious to anyobody not wedded to a factional platform) is that the SSP is finished. TNobody will take seriously a party whose leaders conduct themselves, one and all, in such a pathetic fashion. There will be nothing left to fight over when this case ends - at least, not after the next election. Thus, who said what to whom and why is pretty irrelevant.

Is there any chance of a slightly more sophisticated debate - eg what exactly is the way forward - post SSP - for the left in Scotland, and Britain as a whole for that matter?

by Eamon Thu Jul 27, 2006 01:03

Although I would be less confident than Predictor about the likely outcome of the October conference--the UL might still win the day--I do agree with his perspective regarding the likely fate of any ramshackle org led by Sheridan and his new-found allies in the SWP and CWI.

Any organisation led by the shallow Sheridan, and 'guided' politically by the likes of those jokers in the SWP, old hacks of the CWI, and talentless apparatchiks like Arnott and Penman is one that has no future. My money would be on the SWP outmanouevering the CWI (it is quite easy to do this to any org led by Peter Taaffe) and trying to link up with George 'I couldn't live on 3 worker's wages' Galloway. The CWI will be out in the cold (maybe that thought hasn't occurred to them yet; perhaps it's time that it did) and the ramshackle, I would guess, will fall apart within a year.

Whatever happens in the Court of Session, the United Left faction offers the only hope for the building of a socialist movement in Scotland.

by SSP supporter (Non-Stalinist) Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:43

"...the interests of the SSP would have been best served by the SSP EC members not placing themselves in a situation whereby they would be brought to court to give evidence FOR the NOTW."

No that would have only served Tommy's interests not the interests of the SSP. The SSP EC members by Tommy taking his actions were forced to attend court. What you are suggesting is that they should have lied for Tommy (of course one or two have decided to take that action. BTW its not just a coincidence that its those who have never be too fond of the what they consider the too democratic structures of the SSP). I still don't see why they should have done that. They told Tommy not to take the action. He didn't agree to their request and you suggest that they should have done his bidding. I don't think so.
Anyway they tried that strategy and Alan McCoombes spent a few nights in jail pursuing it. The NC of the party (including Tommy) voted to end that strategy.

by Wallace Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:48

Observer wants a real debate. Well to start with he reveals his own politics in the statement: ''There will be nothing left to fight over when this case ends - at least, not after the next election'' by which I take him to mean that he believes the SSP or any successor organisations will lose all or most seats currently held by the party in the Scottish parliament. Now this prediction may or may not come to pass but it shows where Observers politics lie: success or otherwise is to be judged solely by electoral victories. One of the problems with the SSP is precisely that: once seats were won in parliament the party became too focussed on parliamentary politics. Campaigning was focussed on bills being proposed. Too much work and responsibility was heaped onto MSPs. Now hopefully the UL grouping has learnt some lessons, i.e. that this crisis is not just about Tommy's blundering oppurtunism.

Now lets hear Observer tell us where he stands: whats your solution for the left in Scotland? It would'nt be as non-sensical as urging them to join the pro-war, pro-privatisation, anti-democratic party known as New Labour, would it?

by SSP Supporter Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:56

were forced by TS's libel action to attend court only because they discussed the issue at the SSP EC in the first place. The EC majority have stumbled from one bad decision to another on this issue.

by SSP supporter (Non-Stalinst) Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:34

"SSP EC members...were forced by TS's libel action to attend court."

The rest of your statement is superflous. Ifs, but and maybes don't change the fact that Tommy persisted with taking the action against the advice of the EC.

by Tommygun Thu Jul 27, 2006 14:05

"The rest of your statement is superflous. Ifs, but and maybes don't change the fact that Tommy persisted with taking the action against the advice of the EC."

Thats the crux point, it was advice. In the SSP "Democratic" Centralism does not operate. Tommy is free to make his own decisions.

by SSP supporter (Non-Stalinist) Thu Jul 27, 2006 14:24

"Thats the crux point, it was advice. In the SSP "Democratic" Centralism does not operate. Tommy is free to make his own decisions."

Agree 100%. And that is why the SSP EC (with the exception of 1 or 2) are not playing along with Tommy's charade. Once Tommy made his own free decision they didn't have to play to his tune about other free decisons he made. They were forced by Tommy's free choice to tell it as it is.

by Eamon Thu Jul 27, 2006 16:54

On the basis of conversations that I have had with people who are attending the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Sheridan's case has looked much weaker in court than has been reported. On 2 occasions, his supporters have been warned by the Judge about the penalties for perjury and have been offering confused and at times contradictory testimony. For example, McIver said that Alan McCombes, at the Nov 9 2004 EC meeting, made no mention of a 2002 conversation he had with Sheridan in which the latter admitted going to Cupids swingers club in Manchester. But under cross examination, he conceded that McCombes may well have done this.

Much worse was when Sheridan himself was cross-examining a witness in relation to the claims made by ex SSP member, Katrina Trolle, that she had sex with him in her house. Sheridan initially said that he had never visited her house, but in cross-examining a witness who was in the house earlier that evening, and who said Sheridan had sex with Trolle later, Tommy apparently said 'How do you know?. You left the house and went to the pub? At this point, the judge intervened and asked Tommy to reflect on whether his initial statement about never having been in the Trolle's house was in fact true.

Also, the fact that the supposedly dodgy minute of the Nov 9 2004 EC meeting was actually signed BY ALL EC members at the next meeting 2 weeks later has also been mentioned. This blows a hole in the testimony of EC members like Pat Smith and Mike Gonzalez. It shows that the minute is not, in fact, dodgy but a true account of what happened.

None of this is a surprise. The Sheridan faction is learning that if you tell enough lies, you'll eventually get caught out. But they had better watch out. Criminal proceedings against them for these acts of perjury cannot be ruled out.

by Delighted Fri Aug 04, 2006 17:56

All the above who joined in with the liars or raised major doubts about Tommy Sheridan's case should now issue apologies and retractions as Tommy has won his case and £200,000! Grovel oh ye who surcumbed to the lies and propaganda of the News of the World!

by Amused Fri Aug 04, 2006 18:22

Oh dear, another deluded Tommy follower. Oh well, go off now and follow him if you like. See where that takes you. Can't say I'm sorry to see the News of the World lose the case, always good when Murdoch's shower lose money. But anyone who believes Sheridan's version of events at this stage is living in a fantasy world. People like Colin Fox, Carolyn Leckie and Alan McCombes are infinitely more likely to take the Scottish left down the right path. It'll be funny now to see how the Sheridan/Galloway/SWP/CWI alliance develops - expect bitter clashes and egotripping aplenty!

by Delighted Fri Aug 04, 2006 18:41

All I can say to you Amused is that you must not know Tommy Sheridan. I have major political differences with him but I have know him for nearly 25 years and I do not believe the crap that was spewed out by the News of the World and those they paid. The political damage this has done to the SSP is because of the News of the World and those in the SSP who have tried to use these lies to damage Tommy Sheridan for their own political aims, some of whom you have mentioned. If Tommy had not taken this case then it would have been seen as him accepting the lies and slanders of the News of the World. The other leading members of the party should have backed him up.
Alan McCoombes, Alan Green and the rest who gave evidence against him should now resign from the SSP in shame.

by SSP Supporter Fri Aug 04, 2006 22:01

Statement on Tommy Sheridan's libel victory

All members of the Socialist Worker Platform offer their heartfelt congratulations to Tommy, Gail and Gabrielle Sheridan, their families and supporters on the success of Tommy's court case against the News of the World.

The Socialist Workers Party joined the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in 2001 and in doing so, helped to achieve the tremendous result in the May 2001 elections when five SSP MSPs joined Tommy Sheridan in the Scottish parliament. The Socialist Worker Platform of the SSP was absolutely appalled when the News of the World printed stories about Tommy Sheridan's private life in 2004. These stories were deliberately designed to destroy the most charistmatic socialist politician in Scotland.

We were not surprised that the Murdoch empire, which set out to smash the trade unions in the 1980s, were more than willing to do this. However, we were deeply saddened and dismayed to see other socialists and members of the SSP stand in court as News of the World witnesses. This has caused huge rifts in the SSP and has damaged the party's reputation amongst all those people who voted SSP in the 2001 Scottish parliamentary elections. We call on these News of the World witnesses to do the honourable thing and resign from the Scottish Socialist Party.

The court case was taking place at a time with war raging in the Middle East. The Socialist Worker Platform of the SSP call on all progressive forces in Scotland to unite against this war. Israel’s offensive against Hizbollah is perceived by the White House as an opportunity to eliminate a powerful anti-imperialist force that has close links with Iran. This is why Bush and his close accomplice, Blair, have blocked calls by the United Nations for an immediate ceasefire. Qana, where more than 30 children were killed, is the direct consequence of this imperialist offensive. We oppose Israel’s war against Lebanon, out of solidarity with the Lebanese people. We do not want to see another so-called ‘peacekeeping force’ in Lebanon because it will be a repeat of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, where foreign troops act as an army of occupation.

We are delighted that Tommy will be back on the streets campaigning against war and injustice and for peace and socialism.

Iain Ferguson, SW Platform spokesperson

by Eamon Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:18

Why should the SSP EC members who testified in court now resign from the party?

They were summonsed to court and had no choice but to attend. And then, having done so, all they did was tell the truth.

What does Mr Ferguson from the SWP--who embarrassed himself with a laughable article 2 months ago about a so-called divide twithin the SSP, between a faction who wanted a pure party (McCombes and co) and one that wanted a open, pluralist party ( Sheridan and his acolytes) --think that the SSP EC members should have done? Refuse to go to court (and end up in jail, for Tommy Sheridan) or tell lies (and treat the entire SSP membership with utter contempt, by offering a version of events different to that which actually occured in November 2004?)

They chose the only course of action open to them--telling the truth.

It is Sheridan who should resign from the SSP. He is a totally unscrupulous man, who has now endangered the liberty of people who were actually telling the truth in court. And in supporting him, the SWP, and their resident comedian, Ian Ferguson, have only confirmed what all serious activists on the Left have always known--that the SWP are a party with no principles

by Wallace Sat Aug 05, 2006 19:41

Here's the statement of the United Left platform on the outcome of the court case:
Please do not copy and paste information available online. Just write a short summary and add the URL in the "Related Link" box below the comment box. Cut and pastes are liable to be deleted in line with our Editorial Guidelines. Thanks - 1 of IMC ed

by Keith Sat Aug 05, 2006 20:31

Just for the record. I was born in England although whether I'm English is a
more complicated question. I am a member of the CWI.

Last night I socialised for the first time in a long time. Someone from work was
leaving and we all went for a meal.

Recenly I recruited a young woman who said she was pleased Tommy had won. She
said he came across really well on the news and mentioned his victory as a
victory for the working class. As her education in the socialist movement
develops her views may change. However they will be typical of a large number of
young people coming to socialist politics for the first time. The case was seen
as us against them and we won.

In the pub before the meal I meet up with someone who tried to recruit me to the
Militant in the 1980s. He had drifted away before I joined in1989. He also
mentioned the news and said he was really pleased Tommy had won.

Tommy has cost Murdoch's empire nearly £1 million and counting. This will be
seen by thousands of trade union activists and socialists as a victory.

Can any active socialist really believe that those print workers who were sacked
by Murdoch give a toss whether Tommy was lying or not? What about the miners and
other workers in struggle who have been savaged by Murdoch's press?

The only thing they will see is that someone has fought Murdoch and won.

Within significant sections of the working class Tommy's standing will have
increased.

Unfortunately I cannot understand the positions taken by the United Left.

Did any comrade expect Tommy not sue the News of the World? If the allegations
were false he had every right to take on Murdoch and get the support of all
socialists.

If the allegations were true how was he going to save his marriage and
reputation? Simple, by going to court and winning.

So whether the allegations were true or not Tommy was going to court.

The question then facing the United Left was simple, how to minimise the damage
to the Party.

It seems that their sole strategy was to persuade Tommy to do the impossible and
stop his court case. Presumably Alan was to stay in prison until Tommy did what
the United Left wanted. Presumably they didn't consider what would happen if the
Party decided to release the minutes to Murdoch.

After the decision to the release the minutes the United Left were faced with
the question of giving evidence in support of Murdoch's News of the World. If
Tommy lost they would be seen as sticking the knife in, espcially if it was
their evidence that was crucial in granting Murdoch victory. If Tommy won, they
would be seen as backing the wrong horse and in the process supporting Murdoch
in his attack on an innocent Tommy.

Which is what has happened. Immediately after the verdict they issue a statement
calling on Tommy to admit they were right all along, to let the News of the
World off the hook, declare himself a liar, go to prison and pay Murdoch's
costs. I would suggest this statement will get the same response as calling on
Murdoch to admit he was wrong, reinstate all the sacked print workers and pay
them over 20 years back pay.

The SSP was a huge step forward for the working class in Scotland, Britain and
internationally, despite our disagreements with the ex-CWI comrades. The
responsiblilty for any failure of the SSP in the near belongs to the United
Left. They were faced with difficult decisons regarding Tommy and their strategy
has failed miserably.

Perhaps it is asking too much for the United Left justify their strategy and
expalin how it would have strengthened the labour movement in Scotland, in
Britain and internationally.

Keith

by Eamon Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:47

The wilful ignorance of groups like the CWI and SWP on the Sheridan libel case is quite staggering.

What is it about this case that they don't understand?

Sheridan's whole case was based on the argument that around 13 or 14 members of the 18 strong SSP EC were engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to remove him as leader, and had lied about and fabricated the minutes of an EC meeting on 9 November 2004 where he admitted going to swingers clubs and indicated a desire to lie about this in public, and in a libel court if necessary.

The meeting itself--including Pat Smith of the SWP-- decided unanimously to recommend that Sheridan resign. Barbara Scott, the minutes sec, took a minute of the meeting in full view of everyone there, as per the constitution of the SSP--and was not challenged in any way, not even by Sheridan, not to do this. The minute was ratfied at the next EC meeting on 24 November. At this meeting, Mike Gonzalez of the SWP attended. He signed the minutes as well.

All of this is true. Sheridan's whole case was a monstrous lie and defamation of those who attended this meeting. How any socialist can stand over this type of slanderous behaviour is really quite remarkable. Had Sheridan simply lied about shagging all around him, and going to swingers clubs, then fair enough--who really cares? But he didn't. He traduced the reputations of honest socialists, solely to cover up the fact that he does indeed have a secret life--in fact, in Glasgow it isn't a secret--and one that is at odds with the image he presents to his wife and family.

It is surely unprecedented for a supposed socialist activist to behave like this. Nowhere else in the history of the socialist movement anywhere in the world has one individual acted in this fashion.

He should be run out of the socialist movement and shunned by everyone who considers themselves to be on the Left.

by Member of SP Sun Aug 06, 2006 17:28

What you don't understand is that the alliance which the CWI is involved in is not called the SSP Majority for no reason. Come the conference in October you will see that the majority of SSP members believe and support Tommy Sheridan and the friends of Ruprt Murdoch that you are defending will be cast aside.

by Topper Sun Aug 06, 2006 23:51

So on the one hand we have detailed, well-reasoned arguments, and on the other hand we have shrill, hysterical abuse ("traitors", "friends of Rupert Murdoch", yeah right, that's a good one!) and tall tales that strain credibility beyond endurance. This pattern has been repeated again and again in all the debates about this whole affair, and tells a story in itself. I know who I believe.

by party party Mon Aug 07, 2006 02:02

I’ve read a lot of comments about this case, and as a party member I really could not care less about who’s lied. For me the crucial factor is that at times you have to choose which side you’re on. I understand that peopled were called as witnesses by NoW, and maybe some were reluctant witnesses. But those party members who stood in court and handed that Murdoch rag such damning evidence, far beyond a yes, no, can’t remember answer have picked their side. They are intelligent experienced activists so it must be assumed they new exactly what they were doing. They sided with the NoW, shoot me down in flames for saying it, but they did. Sorry to say I could not now trust any single one of them. I won’t vote for them and if they remain in the party beyond October I certainly won’t have subs going toward paying any salaries of those who are full time officers.

by Eamon Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:53

You say that you couldn't care less who lied.

In so doing you reveal the dishonesty that lies at the heart of the Sheridanites position.

The reason that you don't care is because you know that it was Sheridan who lied.

That is, he traduced the reputations and integrity of honest SSP members, in order to cover up the truth about his personal life.

You mightn't care about that, but I, and most other decent socialists do.

by Saoirse Mon Aug 07, 2006 13:11

Don't know what your gripe with Sheridan is Eamon, but you just don't seem to get it that the only allegation against Sheridan that he may have lied about - according even to those of his "comrades" determined to take the side of Murdoch's NoW is that he visited this Swingers Club. But the NoW had said that he had ongoing and frequent affairs, including bringing someone into his bed at home and using a prostitute [these two allegations being the worst and the latter the end of his socialist credentials if it were true].

Under cross examination, it transpired that the prostitute admitted she had not slept with him but with his brother in law and the woman who said she had been to bed with him in his home also shown to be lying and in the pay of the NoW. So, maybe Sheridan wrong to lie about the Swingers club - which the famous EC minutes say he admitted to attending, but that this was the ONLY thing he admitted and vigorously denied the rest. Now, if I was him and wanting to defend myself against the NoW smears, I might think about denying that one bit of truth also. And the Jury obviously saw that 95% of the story was fabricated and ignored the evidence that the 5% bit about the swingers club was true.

Anyone who calls themselves a socialist has to be glad that Sheridan defeated Murdoch's NoW. Which side are you on?

by Eamon Mon Aug 07, 2006 14:43

Saoirse, Sheridan was asked to resign before the stories about Fiona McGuire were run in the NOTW. It was Anver Khan's story about visiting a swingers club with a married MSP member that provided the catalyst for his departure. At the 9 November 2004 meeting, Sherdian admitted to this, but said that he would lie in a libel court if necessary in order to deny it.

I have no way of knowing if the McGuire story was true or false. I do think, however, that the story about Sheridan and SSP member Katrine Trolle is authentic--she received no money from the NOTW, by the way.

In any case, Sheridan, in pursuing this case, was compelled to lie about the 9 Nov meeting and slander 14 members of the SSP EC.

For you, it is apparently ok for a socialist to slander and lie and defame his party colleagues, if it allows him to defeat the NOTW.

For me, it isn't.

It is far from ok.

Honest, decent socialists have been villified and abused by Sheridan.

It is an outrage that some so-called socialists think that this is ok.

Sheridans victory is a massive blow for those who wish to build a real socialist movement in Scotland

by party party Mon Aug 07, 2006 19:19

I have no idea who lied or if anyone was shagging anyone. How would I be expected to know that? And I couldn’t care less either way. All I know is I am totally opposed to NoW and their shitty tactics of much raking and destruction, they pull people down, that’s their living. They are dirt. You don’t help your enemy when you’re at war! I read the United Lefts statement and I am still not convinced, I still believe them to be wrong and the more they say the more I am convinced that theirs was a personal attack on one party member. Now what I’m about to say will really get shot down in flames but if I am being totally frank then seeing some of those party activists walk into court defiant and about to attempt to put the boot into Sheridan, for me they may as well have walked through every picket line I’ve ever stood on. That’s how I felt.

by Topper Mon Aug 07, 2006 21:55

"Party party", how do you expect people to take you seriously if you keep saying that you don't know what really happened and you don't care? If you believe the account given by Sheridan and his supporters, that's fair enough (although you'd have to explain why).

But to say that the actual facts of what happened are totally irrelevant is ridiculous. It's all very well to come up with a crude, Bush-style "you're either with Tommy or you're with the NOTW" line, but that's either very naive or very cynical. It seems to be a recurring theme, when people run out of rational arguments to defend Tommy Sheridan's behaviour in this whole affair, for someone to shout "scab!" or "traitor!" and prevent any kind of rational discussion of what happened from taking place.

by Paddy J Mon Aug 07, 2006 22:18

In summary,
A right wing rag tries to destroy the best known socialist in Scotland (just as similar forces went after Arthur Scargill, George Galloway, etc)
A member of the gang of Sheridan's opponents goes to the papers to help give them ammunition against him.
A minute said to be relevant to the NoTW's case is announced and after some theatricals is given to the NoTW people.
In court, Sheridan's allies support him and his opponents testify against him.
A jury finds for Sheridan.
The allegations which the jury has rejected are still put up here and elswhere by people who would have you think they are socialists.
Hopping mad that the NoTW hatchet job has been beaten, they now accuse Sheridan of damaging the SSP and not they who have helped the NoTW at every turn. They further demand Sheridan be booted out of the SSP.
They tell those of us who have no interest in Sheridan's private life -- but know a state inspired NoTW attempt to damage a left wing party when we see one -- that we are stupid or malign.
And they still expect to be taken seriously when they call themselves socialists.
Come off it.

by party party Tue Aug 08, 2006 00:41

Topper, you’re missing my point. If you’ve read what I’ve said you’ll see that I’m not putting forward any argument in defending Tommy Sheridan. My point is that I was sickened to see some party activist’s side with Murdochs NoW, I would be tempted to say work with but they seemed to have been willing volunteers as opposed to the paid witnesses. I’m sure in the coming months we will see just how many party members who have watched this feel the same. It really has no bearing on me as to whether you take me seriously or not. If you think that siding with a rag like that is acceptable in any circumstances then that’s up to you.

by Eamon Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:31

It doesn't look like it, because if you had, you'd realise that your summary is tosh. TS made it easy for the NOTW to print the stories about him, because of the way he lives his life. TS decided to seek legal action--even though he had already admitted to an SSP EC meeting that he had been to swingers clubs--and as a result was asked to stand down as leader. Had he been innocent, the party would have backed him to the hilt, but he wasn't innocent, and so the party could not do this.

What is key is that Sheridan knew that in fighting his libel case, he'd have to deny that he admitted going to such clubs, and would have to slander and defame his fellow-SSP EC members. He also knew that there is no way that those party members would come into court and give a version of events that suited in with his. In other words, he knew that there was no chance that SSP members would come into court and admit to being part of a conspiracy to destroy him. He knew this because he knows that it isn;t true and that there has never been any conspiracy to do him down

But Sheridan went ahead with his court case anyway.

Sheridan is not a class warrior, and his squalid little libel case had nothing to do with class politics. Instead, it represented the actions of a sad, vain man, who, unable to take responsibility for his own actions, decided to disrupt and destroy a socialist party in order to hide the truth about his personal life from his family.

by Topper Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:39

"My point is that I was sickened to see some party activist’s side with Murdochs NoW, I would be tempted to say work with but they seemed to have been willing volunteers as opposed to the paid witnesses."

That's why I can't take what u say seriously, when you insist on posing the question in such a misleading way. The facts are clear enough - the court was in possession of the minutes from the EC meeting in 2004. Alan McCombes went to jail at first rather than hand over the minutes, but it was decided soon enough that defying the court's order wasn't viable (Sheridan agreed).

So when people who were at that meeting were called as witnesses, they had a simple choice. They could lie through their teeth and say "those minutes are totally inaccurate, Sheridan never said anything about his private life, it's a fabrication". Everyone, including the woman who took the notes, would have had to say this. Or else they could tell the truth.

As you may be aware, perjury is a crime that can get you a prison sentence. So why do you think people are obliged to tell lies and risk going to jail so Sheridan could win his case? Why should the woman who took the minutes, who is known to have taken the minutes, gone into court and said "I made it all up, it's all lies"? Why is her reputation (and potentially, her freedom) less valuable than Sheridan's?

I've been following the rows about this case, and it seems like the goalposts keep shifting for the pro-Sheridan camp. One minute we're told that Tommy Sheridan is a clean-living family man who's never put a foot wrong. The next minute, we're told that his opponents in the SSP forced him out because they're all sexual puritans who didn't like his private life - which tends to suggest that all the stories are true.

The same goes for the now-legendary EC meeting. One minute we're told that the minutes of that meeting are false. The next minute, we're told that "there should never have been minutes taken at that meeting at all", which tends to suggest that the minutes are accurate.

We're told that Sheridan didn't admit anything at that meeting, then we're told that his personal life should never have been discussed at all, so the others were to blame. Not only is this completely illogical (if the leader of a small left-wing party is taking a libel case, the party is entitled to express its views and know whether the case is well-founded), but it's a back-handed admission that the account of that meeting given by everyone but Sheridan is perfectly true.

I was keeping an open mind about this whole affair until the case came to court, but I've made my mind up now, and it's the contradictory, muddle-headed and often downright dishonest arguments put forward by Sheridan's defenders that have convinced me.

When you look at the facts of the whole affair with a cool, dispassionate eye, it doesn't look good for Sheridan, he comes out of the whole thing looking very, very badly. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't looking at things that way - they're letting their heart over-rule their head, seeing what they want to see and ignoring the difficult parts of the story.

I said earlier your approach, reducing the whole thing to "you're either with Tommy or with the NOTW" was either very naive or very cynical. I don't know you, so I can't say which it is. But either way, it's an obstacle to understanding.

I've no idea how things are going to pan out in the SSP. But I'd have far more confidence in the people involved in the United Left group than I'd have in Sheridan and his allies, as far as the future of the Scottish left is concerned.

by SP member Tue Aug 08, 2006 13:26

The Scottish Section of the CWI have released a statement on the Sheridan Libel Victory

"All SSP members have now received a lengthy “SSP members bulletin” written by Alan McCombes entitled “the fight for the truth” that puts the case for the EC members and also contains the minutes of the meeting of November 9th 2004 that voted to ask for Tommy Sheridan to resign as national convenor following a discussion about his private life.....

This unbelievably destructive policy will not rehabilitate them, but will instead increase their political isolation among SSP members and especially the working class across Scotland. And given the prominent role that some of them have played in the socialist movement in the past, will ruin their reputations forever. But in doing so they will inevitably force a split in the SSP and could destroy any chance the party has of recovering from the crisis."

Read full statement at following link:

by Eamon Tue Aug 08, 2006 14:05

In contrast to the detailed account of events from November 2004 onwards offered by the SSP EC, the CWI offer to us a limp, half-baked rhetoric-laden piece of propaganda that is notable for its studious avoidance of any discussion on any of the issues raised by the EC. Standards sure have fallen since I was a member of Militant.

The reason for this is that the CWI, although critical of the actions of the EC , also know that they are telling the truth on what has taken place in the party over the last 18 months. The corollary of this, of course, is that Tommy Sheridan lied, lied, and lied again in court during his libel case 'victory' over the NOTW. Admitting the former is tantamount to accepting the latter in this case, and that is something that the CWI, as a result of their own selfish perceived party interests, are not willing to do.

The CWI and the SWP (who will prove as impossible to work with in any SSP headed by Sheridan as they are in every other group they get involved in) are in denial over what has happened in the SSP since Nov 2004, and particularly, in relation to Sheridan's libel case. Unless they live in some type of Alice-in-Wonderland society, where fantasy has become reality, they know that Sheridan has lied about what took place at the EC meeting in Nov 2004. They know that he told a barrow-load of porkies in the Court of Session, and that he slandered, traduced, and defamed his own colleagues in order to prevent the truth emerging about his personal life.

But still they won't admit it.

Even though I left the CWI many years ago, I retained a great deal of respect for the integrity of the organisation and its activists.

Not any more.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Tue Aug 08, 2006 15:36

on the contrary the CWI has consistantly pointed out that the SSP EC majority were making blunder after blunder in their handling of this issue. Sheridan was always going to take his case to court. The United left group made serious tactical errors believing that it would force Sheridan to drop the case (the biggest being leaking the minutes to the Scottish Herald), and showed extreme naivety in thinking that the NOTW wouldn't put them in a position that they would have to give evidence FOR the NOTW and AGAINST Sheridan.

Is Sheridan a saint? of course not. Remember, he was a member of the CWI for many years, as was McCoombs, Fox, Curran, Venton etc. The CWI is well aware of all the faults and failings of each of these individuals.

Who lied and who didn't lie is as irrelevent to the CWI as it is to the working class of Scotland. The situation would never have arisen if the United Left hadn't been stupid enough to discuss the issue at the EC in the first place, record minutes (be they fabricated or not) of that discussion and finally leak their existance and contents to the media.

The holier than thou attitude of the United Left is irrelevent to the attitude of the working class of Scotland. McCoombs members bulletin is only compounding their stupidity even further. They are political dead ducks. None of the MSP's will be re-elected (with the possible exception - and I stress possible - of Sheridan). The United left, despite the obvious abilities of many of its supporters is unfortunately destined for political oblivion. Sheridan's group of supporters could also be headed in the same direction, only time will tell.

The sad thing about this - is that this court case could have given renewed vigour to the SSP. Without the evidence given by the SSP 11, Sheridan would have hammered the NOTW. If the minutes were never an issue then the SSP would have been seen as those who hammered Murdoch and it would have significantly enhanced its position and profile in Scotland. Unfortunately the opposite has happened for all the wrong reasons, and the responsibility for that lies with the United Left.

by Topper Tue Aug 08, 2006 16:30

Just had a look at the News of the World's own take on the whole case. Apparently they have no problem seeing that McCombes et al are no friends of theirs and didn't want to testify in court:

"Let's look at a few more things that were already said in court.
One of those senior SSP people, Alan McCombes, went to jail to try to protect the confidentiality of the November 9 minutes.
The minutes, as you will see in today's paper, contain seriously damaging statements about Sheridan's private life.
McCombes went to jail to keep this secret and protect his long-time friend.
In court Sheridan claimed he was a liar and the minutes were fake.
Several SSP witnesses, including McCombes, made speeches from the witness box about how much they disliked the News of the World and they had been cited to appear under duress.
But then, under oath, they testified that Sheridan HAD admitted going to Cupids and the minutes WERE a true record of what he said at the meeting. "

by Fishy Tue Aug 08, 2006 16:33

minutes that sort of information?

by ... Tue Aug 08, 2006 16:40

not to protect his friend but to attempt to force him to drop his libel case. Just another blunder made by McCoombs. A pro-Sheridan branch proposed at the NC of the SSP that the minutes be released to the NOTW, with the united left attempting to hold the high moral ground by opposing this. The entire strategy of the united left was designed to force Sheridan to drop his case, something Sheridan was never and, in reality, could never do. Not for one moment did they think that they would end up giving evidence for the NOTW. This show increadible stupidity on their part.

by Only Codding Tue Aug 08, 2006 16:45

Indeed imagaine detailed minutes. What a travesty. You are probably much more used to minutes that go like this:
After talking with London Kevin proposed a list of things. After a brief discussion, the list of things were agreed without any dissent. Meeting ended.

by .... Tue Aug 08, 2006 18:32

about this issue or not destroying it when a court case is pending is the kind of stupidity that sees you end up giving evidence for the NOTW. The existance of the minute was leaked in order to try and force Sheridan to drop his libel case. Stupid tactic, and with Sheridan winning, the interpretation is that the jury did not believe the SSP 11. What is happening now, from them and Sheridan, is not about politics but about sour grapes.

by Topper Tue Aug 08, 2006 18:59

It's hard to keep track of what Sheridan's opponents in the SSP are being accused of here, the goalposts keep shifting from one moment to the next.

One thing stands out - just about everyone who has been defending Sheridan on this thread has said "it doesn't matter what was said at the meeting", "I don't care who's lying and who isn't", or words to that effect - which is a pretty obvious confession that Sheridan's version of events doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Anyone who has an interest in the whole affair should look up the SSP website and see the document that was put up. It seems to me a lot more convincing than the mixed-up, illogical, contradictory version of events put forward by Sheridan's defenders, but people are free to make their own minds up.

I don't expect much constructive discussion to come out of this thread, one side of the debate is just barking out slogans and ignoring facts that undermine their case. I'm signing off on it anyway...

by Eamon Tue Aug 08, 2006 19:26

The issue being a very simple question: is it legitimate for a socialist to lie and traduce his fellow-party members in order to prevent the truth about his personal life from becoming public?

I note SP that you state that it doesn't matter if Sheridan told the truth or not and that its irrelevant to the working class of Scotland. If ever there was a comment that sums up the bankruptcy and opportunism of the CWI on this issue, that is it, SP. But don't try and invoke the working class of Scotland as an alibi for your own opportunism. Leave them out of it please.

The rest of your contribution repeats the same half-truths characteristic of the CWI throughout this debate. Firstly, Sheridan himself did not object to a minute being taken at the 9 November meeting. He might be doing so now, but he didn't then. Equally, the minute was signed at the next meeting, on 24 November. Two of the signatories were mems of the SWP--the same ones who are now decrying those minutes as bogus. it is indeed unfortuntate, if not surprising, that the CWI have now begun doing this also. The minute was accurate and it is right and proper that it was taken, given that it led to the departure of the-then national convenor.

As for the United Left giving over a copy of the minute to the press--not true. The UL was formed in June this year. It was said that a copy of the minute was given to the Sunday herald about 18 months ago. I don;'t know who did that and I condemn it but it was not, as you suggest, an official decision or one that was supported by the EC of that time.

Sheridan has disgraced himself and the cause of socialism by the way that he has lied and slandered honest socialists over this issue. Such a character can never again be trusted to lead any worthwhile socialist movement. Unfortunately, courtesy of their opportunism and cyncism, the same must be said about the CWI.

by Just A Member Tue Aug 08, 2006 20:04

Today I got my copy of the bulletin put out in the name of truth. I felt so insulted by its tone and lack of some facts i.e. why not tell who leaked the minutes to the Herald? It’s been discussed here and elsewhere yet the EC are keeping quiet about that aspect of this whole farce. Surely if the members deserve the truth we deserve the whole truth and then we can make up our minds and take it from there. As I understand it the bulletin represents the majority of the party EC and as such I am resigning. As a member I had thought the party was about fighting for the working classes, it now seems it just wants to fight each other and bring us all into it but without the honesty to put all the facts to us. Where to now who knows but I do hope all concerned take time to sit back and reflect and find a way forward that can leave all this bitterness and fighting behind.

by .... Tue Aug 08, 2006 22:58

I never claimed Sheridan was smarter than any of these other individuals. Sheridan should have refused to discuss the issue at the SSP EC meeting - he should have objected to a minute being taken, he didn't. The problem was that this minute should have been destroyed as soon as Sheridan went ahead with his libel case, but instead McCoombs etc. used it to try and get Sheridan to drop the case and landed themselves in a large pile of the soft smelly stuff as a result.

You have to ask yourself this question. What was the purpose of the NOTW article? Was it to have a go at Sheridan or was it designed to shaft the SSP? As far as I am concerned the target was the SSP. On this basis the tactics employed by the SSP EC should have been to protect the SSP and the best way of doing this was by not discussing this issue. Once the NOTW published the article Sheridan was always going to go to court. The SSP 11 should have ensured that they did not have anything on paper that the NOTW could use to ensure that they would have to give evidence against Sheridan. The strategy they persued blew up in their faces - big time - and the sole strategy they now have is to get Sheridan jailed for perjury in order to vindicate themselves. In order to do this they have to line up four square behind the NOTW. They are delusional if they seriously think that this will save their collective political bacon. This whole situation at this point has bugger all to do with who did what, who lied who didn't, were the minutes real or doctored etc. etc., nobody outside a handful of individuals in either camp cares. It is interesting that a recent vox pop on the BBC showed that the working class people the BBC interviewed in the main supported Sheridan and were delighted he shafted the NOTW. This is more like reality than the low ratings soap opera that the United Left are now engaged in.

As for the leaking of the minutes to the Scottish Herald, the individual involved is a well known leading member of the United Left. I know who it is (and I'm not even in Scotland) and if you don't your head must be buried very deep in the sand. Indeed this individual has been threatening all and sundry on discussion forums with legal action if his name is directly linked to any comment about the leaking of the minutes (ironic really given the condemnation that has been dished out to Sheridan over his decision to go to the courts).

by Eamon Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:48

I can only assume from your steadfast refusal, or inability to answer the question that I put to you that, yes, you do think that it is ok for a socialist (so-called) to lie about, slander, and defame fellow-party members in order to prevent the truth about his personal life from coming out.

I'm glad we've got that sorted out.

by Glesgae Lad Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:03

Does it matter that she was a member of the SSP? Does it matter that she was an ex-candidate fof the party? Does it matter that Tommy lied and tried to destroy her? Was she to lie for Tommy?
It's funny that a person who not long ago was a 'mixed economy loving, nationalist stalinist' is now suddenly transformed into a working class hero. And we're to believe that he is a working class hero because he took on the bourgeois press and won. And not a word about garnering a contract the next day with another outlet of that bourgeois press.
Anyway the funny thing to watch for now is how the CWI IS deals with Tommy's nomination for the leadership. Cannae wait to see their statements on that.

by SU-31 Wed Aug 09, 2006 13:11

70% of SSP membership now back Tommy Sheridan....
Majority of those polled (general public) support Tommy Sheridan for leader of SSP...

Eamon it doesn't matter what you think you won't have a say in making any decisions about the SSP which is just as well considering you support the political scabs.

By any means necessary.....

by Tommygunners Wed Aug 09, 2006 13:57

"By any means necessary....."

Ah, so they should be killed, have I got that right? Or at least threatened with violence? After all, they are "political scabs", and when people talk about "any means necessary", they don't mean collecting signatures on a petition.

After assassinating someone's character with shameless lies, it's not much of a leap to actual, physical violence. The bullying, Stalinist mentality of the pro-Sheridan camp becomes more and more obvious every time they open their mouths.

If Sheridan does take over the SSP, it'll shrivel up into an authoritarian sect like Scargill's SLP in a few years. If that's what you want, good luck to you - but spare us the lies and threats directed at people who don't buy into your Stalinist personality cult.

by ... Wed Aug 09, 2006 20:43

After consistantly accusing Tommy Sheridan of lying in court, information is now emerging that several of the individuals who gave evidence on behalf of the NOTW and claimed they had told the truth actually lied in court.

Alan McCoombs (SSP policy co-ordinator) claimed that the only copy of the minutes of the SSP EC meeting on Nov 9th 2004 were in his possession. Barbara Scott (SSP EC minutes secretary) told court that she had handed the only copy of her hand written notes to Allan Green (SSP national Secretary). Allan Green claimed in court that he had 'probably' destroyed these hand written notes.

However within hours of Lothian police issuing a statement that they had received a complaint about possible perjury by witnesses during the court case, Barbara Scott arrived at the police station to hand over her hand written notes.

This raises the following questions:

1) Why did Alan McCoombs say under oath that he held the only copy of the minutes when a second copy were in the possession of Allan Green?

2) Why did Allan Green claim that he had 'probably' destroyed the hand-written notes he had received from Barbara Scott, only for them to re-appear within hours of the launching of an investigation into perjury at the court case?

3) Did Barbara Scott actually have another copy of the hand-written notes from the 2004 meeting that she kept in her own possession, or did Allan Green return these notes that were 'probably' destroyed at some stage during or immediately after the court case?

4) Who took the decision to hand these notes over to the police?

Given the severity of the impact of this case on the SSP and the fact that all three individuals were called as witnesses on behalf of the NOTW, it is reasonable to surmise that all three and others discussed every aspect of the court case and the questions they were likely to be asked. Why then did Alan McCoombs, Allan Green and Barbara Scott make statements in court which the evidence not shows to be false. Was this an intended act?

One can only draw the conclusion that at least one, if not all three individuals lied in court about the existance of a copy or copies of the hand written notes taken at the SSP EC meeting on 9th Nov. 2004 by Barbara Scott.

Given all the accusation that have been made by the United Left that Tommy Sheridan lied - perhaps these individuals could shed some light on this evidence that contradicts statements made by these individuals under oath at the court case.

by Observer Wed Aug 09, 2006 20:51

Intense debate about who lied, or who lied the most, in this case are beside the point. Either variant spells doom for the SSP project. Either Sheridan is a lying bastard - in which case, who could or should have confidence in a party under his leadership? Or all the others are lying - in which case the same conclusion holds. The SSP does not have the deep traditions, the thousands of activists with tens of years of commitment behind them, to weather a storm of this magnitude. Its future is going to be characterised by factionalised in-fighting, and it will be short. The argument unfolding is over the cinders that remain.

The real issue is therefore different: what does this experience teach in terms of lessons about how to build an alternative to the present system? How could it have happened? How come the far left seems to always end as a fractious rabble, no matter how promising the omens? I haven't seen this seriously considered on this thread, or elsewhere either, which suggests that many socialists are in complete denial about the scale of the catastrophe that this represents.

I argue only that the starting point of seriosu discussion has to be that there are greater issues than who lied in this case, and that we have to also begin by recognising the end of the SSP as anything other than a pile of rubble is imminent.

by !!! (if punctuation can be a name, why not me?) Wed Aug 09, 2006 21:29

"..." really is a master of diversion. Reminds me of the old Jewish joke: "why does a Jew always answer a question with a question?" "why should a Jew not answer a question with a question?" Just replace "Jew" with "Trotskyist". I'd be more interested in the questions asked by "..." if he had come up with convincing answers to any of the questions posed to his/her three-dotted self.

by Butting In Wed Aug 09, 2006 21:33

It’s hardly surprising that the SSP11 would have spent time discussing what they were going to say prior to going into the witness box on behalf of NOTW. I would imagine it’s all they would have been talking about as they knew that on the day they did they would be judged not only by the jury but by every socialist in Scotland.

The all member bulletin can only have served to alienate the majority of members - and I don’t mean in any faction sense. In it Alan has called on Tommy to publicly apologize, well if he thinks that would help fair enough. First let’s have some sort of understanding if not apology coming from the 11 to acknowledge how members feel about them testifying for NOTW over a comrade. Not once have they taken responsibility for their part in ending up in court. They knew from the start there was every chance Tommy would end up in court against the paper, they knew early on the minutes or an account of them had been given to the press. Why are they not publicly denouncing the individual who did that? That single act pretty much ensured they would be called as witnesses.

I look forward to a proper all members bulletin that seeks to mend rather than divide.

by Glesgae Lad Thu Aug 10, 2006 14:12

"First let’s have some sort of understanding if not apology coming from the 11 to acknowledge how members feel about them testifying for NOTW over a comrade. Not once have they taken responsibility for their part in ending up in court. They knew from the start there was every chance Tommy would end up in court against the paper, they knew early on the minutes or an account of them had been given to the press. Why are they not publicly denouncing the individual who did that? That single act pretty much ensured they would be called as witnesses."

The comrades don't have to apologise. They didn't testify for the NOTW. They were instructed by an EC resolution on the 18th June to not risk imprisonment for contempt of court and to tell the truth. The resolution was passed by 17 votes to 2 with one abstention. Their responsibility for ending up in court lies with the person who took the action. Namely Tommy Sheridan. You don't mention the fact that the court was in receipt of forged minutes. You don't mention how they got to the court. You don't mention that on foot of the dodgy minutes the court was able to name who attended the EC meeting and therefore issued subpeonas to those people. You don't mention it because it would get in the way of the cult of personality that you are pursuing. Was there anything socialist in attempting to destroy the life of Katrina Trolle?

by Glasgow dear boy Thu Aug 10, 2006 16:16

The comrades don't have to apologise. They didn't testify for the NOTW.
- They did testify for the NOTW

They were instructed by an EC resolution on the 18th June to not risk imprisonment for contempt of court and to tell the truth. The resolution was passed by 17 votes to 2 with one abstention.
- Those who gave the evidence instructed themselves at the EC to do it and then went on to lie in court.

Their responsibility for ending up in court lies with the person who took the action. Namely Tommy Sheridan.
- The responsibility lies with the NOTW not Tommy.

You don't mention the fact that the court was in receipt of forged minutes. You don't mention how they got to the court. You don't mention that on foot of the dodgy minutes the court was able to name who attended the EC meeting and therefore issued subpeonas to those people.
- Minutes and names were supplied by the United Left

Was there anything socialist in attempting to destroy the life of Katrina Trolle?
- She is the architect of her own downfall.

by Glesgae Lad Thu Aug 10, 2006 17:05

"Was there anything socialist in attempting to destroy the life of Katrina Trolle?
- She is the architect of her own downfall."

No need for a reply to that - it speaks for itself.

by Topper Thu Aug 10, 2006 17:28

Observer makes some points that are worth responding to:

"Intense debate about who lied, or who lied the most, in this case are beside the point."

I can understand your point of view - there are clearly more pressing things to be arguing about at the moment (the small matter of a war in Lebanon, the new social partnership deal, how the left in Britain can be rebuilt as Blair's reign fizzles out). And if we were going to discuss the SSP in particular, I'd much rather discuss what lessons we can learn about organisational forms for left-wing parties, about the balance that should be struck between grassroots activism and parliamentary politics, and that sort of thing.

But I don't think you can just glide over the circumstances of this whole mess as if they were irrelevant. Before you get into an argument about what should or shouldn't have been done, you need to establish (as far as is possible) what actually happened. At the moment there's two conflicting versions of the facts.

On the one hand, we have the official version put about by Sheridan and his supporters. In this version, Sheridan is a clean-living family man, whose only vice is scrabble (I'm not exaggerating for comic effect, this is what he said in court). All the claims made by the NOTW were lies, all of their sources were liars and fantasists. There was a conspiracy against Sheridan by the rest of the SSP leadership, who were jealous of his position. They took advantage of the NOTW story to force him out of the leadership, then fabricated the minutes of the EC meeting and lied in court to hurt Sheridan.

If this version of events was true, there'd be no argument about who was right and who was wrong. Sheridan would be totally vindicated, and his opponents would be disgraced, and should be run out of the party and indeed the Left in general.

However, I don't find this version of events plausible, not even slightly, I think it's a shameless pack of lies. And I suspect many of Sheridan's defenders know this. Judging by their contributions to this thread anyway - people keep falling back on a second line of argument, saying that the whole business should never have been discussed at the EC, or if it was discussed minutes should never have been taken, or if they were taken they should have been destroyed.

Now you can argue the toss about these possible courses of action. But before you get into those arguments at all, you have to be honest and say "of course Sheridan is lying, there was no conspiracy, the record of the minutes was totally accurate and the SSP members called to give evidence told the truth in court". Otherwise you can't have any kind of serious argument (and you'll still get deluded loyalists like one of the most recent posters on this thread, telling us that McCombes, Curran, Fox etc were all lying - as long as people deny the bleedin' obvious facts, it's impossible to have any kind of discussion at all).

So that's why it is necessary, tedious as it is, for people to establish who lied and who was telling the truth.

"What does this experience teach in terms of lessons about how to build an alternative to the present system? How could it have happened?"

Now as far as the bigger picture is concerned - what does this tell us about the SSP? If Sheridan is telling the truth, then it's pretty alarming. It would mean that a large chunk of the most senior, experienced activists in the party were prepared to destroy it, simply to satisfy their jealous vendetta against Sheridan. This would suggest that there was something pathological about the whole culture of the party.

If, on the other hand, Sheridan is lying, it's still pretty bad, but not as alarming. The lion's share of the blame would lie on the shoulders of one man. And when you're talking about one person, it's quite possible that personal character flaws were the main cause. You don't have to come up with grand political theories to explain it.

This would still have bigger implications, of course - it suggests that the SSP were too dependent on the personality of Sheridan when they were building the party. Reliance on charismatic leadership is always dangerous. Looking back on the development of the SSP, people who were involved might be able to suggest ways this danger could have been minimised. I'd like to hear what they have to say about this anyway.

"How come the far left seems to always end as a fractious rabble, no matter how promising the omens?"

We could be here a long time discussing that. But I'd say a huge part of the problem has been the lack of democracy in most far-left groups (which I reckon is largely due to the influence of Leninism, but that's a long argument in itself).

This is a bad thing in itself, but it's also disastrous because it leads to organisational splits over tactical differences - the idea that people can agree on basic principles, while having sharp debates about the right tactical approach, is alien to most far-left parties. This leads to endless factionalism, wasted energies, and means that the various sects are worth much less than the potential sum of their
parts.

One thing that many people found attractive about the SSP was the fact that it had gone beyond this model - it was an open, democratic, pluralist organisation that contained different currents of opinion and didn't just transmit the party line from the top to the base. There haven't been too many examples of parties like this. The circumstances that have led the SSP to this crisis are unique, so far as I'm aware - while we may be able to draw some general lessons from them, it certainly doesn't mean that any attempt to build an organisation of the radical left is bound to fail.

Remember, the radical left was dominated by the official Communist movement for most of the twentieth century. The last time the Left was on the up in the developed world, from the late 60s to the early 80s, the Communists were still the main pole of attraction for people who wanted an alternative to social democracy in most countries. It's far too early to say what the prospects are for non-Communist, democratic socialist organisations that stand to the left of social democracy.

"We have to also begin by recognising the end of the SSP as anything other than a pile of rubble is imminent."

It's hard to see the SSP surviving in its present form for much longer, that's true. And no matter what happens, it seems likely that many party activists will drop out altogether because they're demoralised by the factional division. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that nothing will come out of the SSP more substantial than "a pile of rubble".

Anyway, whatever happens, the SSP model of a party with different currents or platforms is still a useful one to bear in mind for the future (certainly much better than the narrow Leninist model).

by Eamon Thu Aug 10, 2006 17:31

Please stop. You're making an absolute fool of yourself.

Firstly, the 11 SSP members who went to court had to do so; failure to turn up would have meant contempt of court proceedings and jail sentences. And for what? To assist TS in his lies and deceit about his own tawdry personal life?
I think not.

Second--they did not lie in court. They told the truth about what took place at an SSp EC on 9 November 2004. Missing from throughout this debate is a credible explanation as to why 15 people (Carolyn Leckie, Jo Harvie, Felicity Garvie, Colin Fox, Catriona Grant, Rosie Kane, Keith Baldassara, Allan Green, Frances Curran, Richie Venton, Steven Nimmo, Alan McCombes, Barbara Scott, Alison Kane and kevin McVey) who were at this meeting would deliberately offer a version of events at odds with what took place. There were no personality clashes in the SSP, no grudges or jealousies in relation to TS.

In fact, I happen to know about 8 or 9 of the people who were at that EC. At least three were in tears after the meeting, so upset were they about the position that TS had put himself in. But all three were of the view that TS had to go. There was no choice about for them. But this doesn't mean that they were happy about it. Their after-meeting behaviour and manner would have been completely different had they been 'out to get' Tommy, as he and his brain-dead acolytes are now suggesting.

And to those at the EC who are now denying that Sheridan did make these admissions--specifically, Pat Smith, Rosemary Byrne
Graham mcIver and Jock Penman--why, if Sheridan did not make these admissions, did they vote that he should resign? the decision, after all, was UNANIMOUS. And that this was the case cannot be denied, because the subsequent NC informed all of the delegates that a unanimous decision had in fact been reached on the matter. No EC member challenged this. All agreed with it. So why did those 4 vote in favour of TS resigning, if he hadn't made those admissions?

As for the court hearing--of course the responsibility lies with TS. Of all the SSP members in court over the last 5 weeks, there was only one there voluntarily. And that of course was TS. And for what? To challenge stories about his personal life which for the most part were actually true. And of course in order to do this, he had to lie and defame other members of the SSP. But that's ok, apparently, according to the TS fan club.

As for the minutes--a dodgy set of minutes was given 'anonymously' to the NOTW in May. These omitted Sheridan's admissions about going to Swingers' clubs. It was Sheridan who did this. And it was as a result of being named on these minutes that the 11 EC members were called to testify by the NOTW. That this must be the case can be seen by the fact that on the real minutes there are the names of three people who were not called by the NOTW. These 3 names were not on the dodgy minutes given in by Sheridan. A coincidence? I think not. So, it was a result of TS and his machinations, that the 11 were called to court. He acted the part of a scab, at a time when the party was trying to keep its minutes out of the court's hands.

As for Katrina Trolle--she told the truth, both about TS and about his brother-in-law. Both know it. But that didn't stop TS from rubbishing and abusing her reputation in court. Some socialist.

I could go on, but I won't. Too much time has been spent explaining to the wilfully ignorant about what actually has happened in the SSP since Nov 2004. Now, attentions must turn to the October Conference. Courtesy of the fact that I am still a member of the SSP, even though I am now working in Ireland, I will be at that conference. As a member of the United Left, I am confident that those who genuinely have the best interests of socialism in Scotland at heart will prevail, and that Sheridan and his new-found friends in the london-based CWI and SWP will be forced to f*ck off and paddle their own canoes elsewhere.

by Butting In Thu Aug 10, 2006 18:45

Seeing as those who are so fast to defend the SSP11 keep talking about truth and lies why not be truthful, stop dodging the fact that one of them went to the Herald soon after that EC meeting. What a shitty stupid thing to do and then to cry of the injustice at having a jury not trust a word you said – I mean, no wonder! And I thank a previous poster who pointed out that this nonsense of a defence “the 11 were following out the EC instructions” They are the flipping EC! They made the decisions, they went to court, they made their bed and now are lying in it!

Interesting to read Unison distancing themselves from Carolyn Leckie in the press today, an example of what trade unionists think of their actions?

You can harp on and on about Sheridan but until the EC stop slagging off anyone who thinks 11 members aiding the NOTW was a complete mistake, and admit to messing up the handling of this from day one, they will continue to lose support from the majority of members.

by infoseeker Thu Aug 10, 2006 19:12

Where can I read the statement from UNISON?

by Butting In Thu Aug 10, 2006 20:03

In the letters page of the Herald. Someone pointing out inacuracies that were reported of Carolyn Leckies past and current role within the union. Quite rightly they don't comment on the current situation but they do seem to play down her role.

by info Thu Aug 10, 2006 20:23

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/67607.html

Plans to stop Sheridan standing for SSP

by No to the Cult of Personality Fri Aug 11, 2006 13:23

The pyrrhic victory. The penny drops?